Portland elected officials have registered their support for governments attempting to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for perpetuating the climate crisis. The Council’s action comes in response to a growing national movement to shield the oil and gas industry from accountability, even as the impacts of climate change worsen.
Multnomah County is one of dozens of local governments across the country turning to the courts to try to recoup damages from fossil fuel companies for worsening extreme weather events associated with global warming. The wave of litigation has triggered backlash from oil and gas companies, who are also turning to the judicial and legislative branches, seeking immunity.
Republican state and federal lawmakers have introduced laws to shield fossil fuel companies from climate lawsuits. One proposed bill, the “Stop Climate Shakedowns Act,” was introduced in the US House earlier this year. A pending Supreme Court decision may also make it more difficult for the lawsuits to commence.
Last week, Portland City Council passed a resolution to support preserving “court access to protect taxpayers from extreme weather costs” associated with climate change. Councilor Steve Novick, who introduced the resolution last month in the Council’s City Life Committee, said he thought it was important to bring awareness to the national campaign to protect the oil and gas industry from consequences for their role in the climate crisis.
“I would hope this is a no-brainer,” Novick, a longtime environmental attorney, said at the September 22 City Life Committee meeting. “Cities, states, and counties should maintain the right to go to court to seek redress of grievances. There should not be a special carve-out for fossil fuel companies.”
Other elected officials around the country, including Governor Tina Kotek, have also denounced bills to protect oil and gas companies from liability.
Novick said he doesn’t think it’s always necessary for Portland City Council to weigh in on national issues, quipping that if they wanted to, councilors could spend “every minute of every week denouncing legislation that Republicans have introduced in the House and Senate.” But in this case, he saw a direct local impact.
“One of the reasons I thought it was appropriate to bring this resolution is that [fossil fuel immunity] legislation would directly affect our ability to act if we ever decided to join Multnomah County or bring our own lawsuit against the fossil fuel companies,” Novick said.
Portland hasn’t joined Multnomah County’s lawsuit against more than a dozen big oil and gas companies. The county filed the lawsuit in 2023, but it’s still in its early stages, with the defendants pushing hard to get the case dismissed.
The fossil fuel defendants have made several arguments against Multnomah County’s lawsuit, including one claiming the case violates Oregon’s anti-SLAPP law, which is meant to prevent abusive, anti-free speech litigation. A judge is expected to hear the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion in Multnomah County court on October 28. Climate advocates and legal experts have argued the fossil fuel companies’ anti-SLAPP arguments weaponize and go against the intent of free speech laws.
At the September 22 meeting, Councilor Elana Pirtle-Guiney indicated she would support the city joining the county’s climate lawsuit, or filing one of its own. Pirtle-Guiney pointed out some examples of the growing costs of climate change in Portland, such as the cost of distributing air conditioners, creating cooling and clean air shelters during heat and smoke events, and general health impacts.
“We know that our costs are going up because of the actions of these fossil fuel companies,” Pirtle-Guiney said. “We need to send the signal that Council wants [the city] to engage in more lawsuits around climate change…I think that this resolution is an important signal for us to send that we’d like to see the mayor be more proactive in this area.”
The resolution was well-received in public testimony from several climate organizations and advocates. Leaders from local climate groups, including 350 PDX, Oregon Just Transition Alliance, and the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, signed on to a letter in support.
“In a time where local and state budgets are especially tight, we recognize the difficulty of having to pay for the extra costs [of climate change], on top of the normal funds required to keep our region safe, healthy, educated, and functioning well,” the letter stated. “We need big oil companies to pay their fair share for the damage they’ve knowingly caused, and we need the tools of legislation and litigation in order to ensure accountability.”
The ramifications of bills like the “Stop Climate Shakedowns Act” would extend beyond the judiciary system, limiting legislative efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable. Some Oregon state lawmakers and environmental advocates hope to pass a climate superfund bill in the upcoming 2027 legislative session, after two failed attempts in recent years.
The bill, dubbed “Make Polluters Pay,” would force large emitters to contribute to a climate adaptation and mitigation fund, based on their proportional share of emissions. While the idea has public support across the state, backlash from oil and gas industry lobbyists contributed to its demise in previous legislative sessions. Advocates hope the Portland City Council will use its bully pulpit to support the proposal in its next iteration, and they see Novick’s resolution as a step toward that.
Some councilors were curious about how the policy aligned with Novick’s “no” vote on a proposal that would have enabled members of the public to sue if a fossil fuel company operating at Northwest Portland’s Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub broke the terms of its contract with the city.
That proposal was brought by progressive Councilors Mitch Green and Angelita Morillo in September, as an amendment to a CEI Hub ordinance. The amendment was meant to be a check against the city’s oversight of fossil fuel companies at the CEI Hub, which many Portlanders have viewed as insufficient. It failed in a 6-6 tie.
When the resolution was introduced last month, Councilor Candace Avalos inquired about the distinction between Green and Morillo’s amendment and Novick’s resolution, both of which appeared to be in favor of litigation against fossil fuel companies.
“The amendment and the resolution obviously involve very different legal mechanisms, but they both raise this broader question about access to courts as a tool for accountability,” Avalos said.
Novick said he has concerns over letting members of the public sue to enforce city contracts, which is what Green and Morillo’s amendment sought to allow. He was also concerned that the city would itself be sued if the amendment passed.
“There is a long tradition of states, cities, and counties being able to go to state court to seek redress or grievances,” Novick said. “There is not a long tradition of using citizen suits to enforce contracts between cities and other entities.”
Otherwise, Novick’s resolution passed unanimously and with little debate in both the City Life Committee and a full Council meeting on October 21. Before voting “aye,” some councilors emphasized the importance of City Council resolutions, which don’t set binding policy and are sometimes seen as performative gestures.
“Resolutions are the way that we express our will as a body,” Green said. “I think it’s important at this moment to say this is what the city of Portland believes should be the policy framework.”
