throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 1 of 63 PageID #: 430
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`THE STATES OF MISSOURI, ALASKA,
`ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, INDIANA,
`KANSAS, MONTANA, NEBRASKA,
`OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH
`CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, and UTAH,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al.,
`
` Defendants. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 4:21-CV-00287-AGF 
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 2 of 63 PageID #: 431
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................2 
`
`A.  Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Are Ubiquitous By-Products of
`Human Economic Activity, Especially Agriculture and Energy Production. .................2 
`B.  Executive Order 13990 Created an Interagency Working Group to Dictate
`Binding Values for the “Social Costs” of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous
`Oxide. ..............................................................................................................................3 
`C.  The Working Group Promulgates Binding Interim Values for the “Social Costs”
`of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide That Federal Agencies “Shall”
`Use. ..................................................................................................................................4 
`D.  The Interim Values Will Have Enormous Economic Impact and Justify Increased
`Regulation in Innumerable Aspects of Everyday Life. .................................................10 
`
`ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................................................12 
`
`I.  The Plaintiff States Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims in
`Counts One and Three of the First Amended Complaint. .............................................12 
`
`A.  Plaintiffs’ Separation-of-Powers Claim Is Likely to Succeed. .................................13 
`
`1.  Section 5 of Executive Order 13990 does not rest on the President’s
`constitutional powers or an Act of Congress. .....................................................14 
`2.   Executive Order 13990, previous and current regulatory acts, and the
`nature of the Interim Values all demonstrate that Section 5 exercises
`legislative power. 16 
`3.  Justice Jackson’s tripartite framework also confirms that the Executive
`exceeded his power. ............................................................................................27 
`4.  The Executive Order and Interim Values harm Plaintiff States. ........................28 
`
`B.  Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on Their Claim that the Working Group
`Violated the APA’s Procedural Requirements When It Promulgated the
`Interim Values. .........................................................................................................28 
`
`1.  The Working Group is an “agency” because it operates with the sanction
`of the United States Government. .......................................................................29 
`2.  The Interim Values constitute final agency action and Plaintiffs lack an
`adequate remedy for their harm. .........................................................................32 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 3 of 63 PageID #: 432
`
`3.  The Interim Values are a substantive rule that required the Working Group
`to follow the APA’s procedural rules. ................................................................35 
`
`II.  Absent a Preliminary Injunction, the Plaintiff States Will Suffer Irreparable
`Injury. ............................................................................................................................37 
`
`A.  The Working Group unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff States of their ability to
`participate in notice-and-comment rulemaking regarding the adoption of the
`Interim Values. .........................................................................................................37 
`B.  The Working Group’s promulgation of the Interim Values interferes with the
`Plaintiff States’ ability to participate meaningfully in other federal agency
`proceedings…… .......................................................................................................38 
`C.  The Interim Values Directly Impact Plaintiff States’ Sovereign Interests in
`Administering Cooperative-Federalism Programs in a Constitutional Manner. ......40 
`D.  Absent Injunctive Relief, the Interim Values Will Injure the States’
`Proprietary Interests by Inflicting Non-Recoverable Economic Costs. ....................42 
`E.  The States Are Uniquely Injured by the Violation of the Separation of Powers. .....47 
`
`III. A Preliminary Injunction Requiring Compliance With the Constitution and the
`APA Will Impose No Cognizable Harm on Defendants. ..............................................48 
`IV. The Public Interest Favors Preliminary Injunctive Relief. ............................................49 
`
`CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................50 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................................54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 4 of 63 PageID #: 433
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Anytime Fitness, LLC v. Roberts,
`No. 12-CV-02913-SRN-JJG, 2013 WL 1760950 (D. Minn. Apr. 24, 2013) ........................... 49
`
`Bennet v. Spear,
`520 U.S. 154 (1997) ............................................................................................................ 33, 36
`
`Catholic Health Initiatives v. Sebelius,
`617 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 17, 35
`
`Chrysler Corp. v. Brown,
`441 U.S. 281 (1979) ............................................................................................................ 35, 37
`
`Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Office of Admin.,
` 566 F.3d 219 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 30
`
`Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc.,
`640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc .......................................................................... 12, 37, 48
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .................................................................................................................. 20
`
`Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
`140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) .............................................................................................................. 34
`
`E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump,
`932 F.3d 742, (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 34
`
`Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.,
`556 U.S. 208 (2009) .................................................................................................................. 28
`
`EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.,
`572 U.S. 489 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 40
`
`Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Food Corn, Inc.,
`729 F.2d 589 (8th Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................... 49
`
`Fletcher v. Peck,
`10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810).................................................................................................... 16
`
`Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd.,
`561 U.S. 477 (2010) ............................................................................................................ 13, 50
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 5 of 63 PageID #: 434
`
`Fruco Constr. Co. v. McClelland,
`192 F.2d 241 (8th Cir. 1951) .................................................................................................... 29
`
`Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,
`469 U.S. 528 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 48
`
`Gundy v. United States,
`139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) .............................................................................................................. 50
`
`Hawkes Co., v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
`782 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................... 34
`
`Hoctor v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
`82 F.3d 165 (7th Cir. 1996) .......................................................................................... 17, 29, 36
`
`Hunter v. Underwood,
`362 F.3d 468 (8th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 29
`
`I.N.S. v. Chadha,
`462 U.S. 919 (1983) ............................................................................................................ 16, 48
`
`Indep. Bankers Ass’n of Am. v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,
`936 F. Supp. 605 (W.D. Wis. 1996) ......................................................................................... 29
`
`Iowa League of Cities v. EPA,
`711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................. 35, 37
`
`Kingdomware Techs, Inc. v. United States,
`136 S. Ct. 1969 (2016) .............................................................................................................. 30
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ............................................................................................................ 37, 38
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`549 U.S. 497 (2007) ...................................................................................................... 15, 19, 28
`
`Meyer v. Bush,
`981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................................ 32
`
`Morrison v. Olson,
`487 U.S. 654 (1988) ...................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 50
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) .................................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 6 of 63 PageID #: 435
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Wheeler,
`955 F.3d 68 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................... 33
`
`Nw. Airlines v. Jackson,
`185 F.2d 74 (8th Cir. 1950) ...................................................................................................... 31
`
`Pac. Legal Foundation v. Council on Envtl. Quality,
`636 F.2d 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ................................................................................................ 31
`
`Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan,
`293 U.S. 388(1935) ................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Nat’l Sec. Comm’n on Artificial Intelligence,
`466 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2020) .......................................................................................... 30
`
`Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity,
`266 F. Supp. 3d 297 (D.D.C. 2017) .................................................................................... 31, 32
`
`RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty.,
`136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) .............................................................................................................. 21
`
`Rogers Cartage Co. v. Reynolds,
`166 F.2d 317 (6th Cir. 1948) .................................................................................................... 31
`
`Sackett v. E.P.A.,
`566 U.S. 120 (2012) ................................................................................................................. 34
`
`Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau,
`140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of Lake Traverse Reservation v. U.S. Corps of Eng’rs,
`888 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 33
`
`Soucie v. David,
`448 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1971) ................................................................................................ 29
`
`U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co.,
`136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016) ........................................................................................................ 29, 33
`
`U.S. ex rel. O’Keefe v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
`132 F.3d 1252 (8th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 49
`
`U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz,
`449 U.S. 166 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 7 of 63 PageID #: 436
`
`United States v. Bert,
`292 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................. 36, 37
`
`United States v. Riccardi,
`989 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................... 35
`
`United to Protect Democracy v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity,
`288 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C. 2017) ............................................................................................ 31
`
`Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. E.P.A.,
`573 U.S. 302 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 41
`
`Warshauer v. Solis,
`577 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 35
`
`Watkins Inc. v. Lewis,
`346 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 12
`
`Wayman v. Southard,
`23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1 (1825) .............................................................................................. 16, 48
`
`Whitman v. Am. Trucking Associations,
`531 U.S. 457 (2001) ............................................................................................................ 14, 33
`
`Yakus v. United States,
`321 U.S. 414 (1944) .................................................................................................................. 16
`
`Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
`343 U.S. 579 (1952) .............................................................. 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 27, 48, 50
`
`Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry,
`576 U.S. 1 (2015) ................................................................................................................ 14, 15
`
`Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
`
`15 U.S.C. § 717f ........................................................................................................................... 27
`
`42 U.S.C. § 13384 ......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) ...................................................................................................................... 36
`
`42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) ..................................................................................................................... 41
`
`42 U.S.C. § 4332(D) ..................................................................................................................... 42
`
`42 U.S.C. § 6295(a)(2)(A) ............................................................................................................ 28
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 8 of 63 PageID #: 437
`
`42 U.S.C. § 7401 ........................................................................................................................... 40
`
`42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3) .................................................................................................................. 27
`
`42 U.S.C. § 7479(3) ...................................................................................................................... 28
`
`5 U.S.C. § 551(1) .......................................................................................................................... 29
`
`5 U.S.C. § 551(4) .......................................................................................................................... 35
`
`5 U.S.C. § 553 ......................................................................................................................... 18, 29
`
`5 U.S.C. § 701(b) .......................................................................................................................... 29
`
`5 U.S.C. § 704 ............................................................................................................................... 32
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)..................................................................................................................... 35
`
`Article I, § 1 of the Constitution ............................................................................................. 13, 18
`
`N.J. Stat. § 48:3-87.3(b)(8) (2018) ............................................................................................... 26
`
`Pub. L 100–204 § 1104 ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`Pub. L 115-97, § 20001(b) ............................................................................................................ 15
`
`U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. Article II ................................................................................................ 14
`
`U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3 .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`Va. Code. Ann. § 56-585.1(6) (2020) ........................................................................................... 26
`
`Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 80.28.405 .............................................................................................. 26
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`Regulations
`
`29 C.F.R. § 790.19(b) ................................................................................................................... 31
`
`40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(e).................................................................................................................... 42
`
`40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 ...................................................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 9 of 63 PageID #: 438
`
`40 C.F.R. §1501.7(b) .................................................................................................................... 42
`
`86 Fed. Reg. 11268 ....................................................................................................................... 26
`
`86 Fed. Reg. 11272 ....................................................................................................................... 27
`
`Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,
`75 Fed. Reg 31514 ...................................................................................................................41
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Executive Order 12866 .............................................................................................................6, 21
`
`Executive Order 10340 ...........................................................................................................17, 19
`
`Executive Order 13990 ...................................................................3, 13, 16, 18, 22, 27, 30, 36, 47
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 10 of 63 PageID #: 439
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case is about legislative power and who wields it. The Constitution “entrust[s] the
`
`law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube
`
`Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 589 (1952). Congress may authorize Executive Branch officials to
`
`fill in the details of their policy choices, but those officials must receive a substantive delegation
`
`of authority and comply with Congress’s procedures to exercise that power. That is not what
`
`happened here. Without citing any statutory or constitutional authority, the President legislated
`
`national policy on an issue of immense practical importance, created an agency of the U.S.
`
`Government to publish rules, and bound federal agencies to follow those extra-statutory rules when
`
`implementing Congress’s statutory commands.
`
`In doing so, the President and his Working Group violated both the structural separation of
`
`powers and the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). These actions should
`
`be enjoined. Our Constitution reflects the Founders’ insights that “the legislative, executive, and
`
`judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct,” and that this separation is an “essential
`
`precaution in favor of liberty.” THE FEDERALIST NO. 47, at 301 (Madison) (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
`
`“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether
`
`of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be
`
`pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Id. “The Framers of the Federal Constitution . . .
`
`viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just
`
`Government.” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 697 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Plaintiffs
`
`Missouri, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina,
`
`Tennessee, and Utah (the “Plaintiff States”) seek a preliminary injunction to restore the separation
`
`of powers and require the Executive to comply with the APA.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 11 of 63 PageID #: 440
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Are Ubiquitous By-Products of
`Human Economic Activity, Especially Agriculture and Energy Production.
`
`Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are common, naturally
`
`occurring gases that are also ubiquitous by-products of agricultural, energy, and industrial
`
`production. “Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas,
`
`and oil), solid waste, trees and other biological materials, and also as a result of certain chemical
`
`reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement).”
`
` EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, at
`
`https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. “The combustion of fossil fuels
`
`such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods was the largest source of CO2 emissions
`
`in 2018, accounting for about 33.6% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 27.3% of total U.S.
`
`greenhouse gas emissions.” Id. This includes “transportation sources such as highway and
`
`passenger vehicles, air travel, marine transportation, and rail.” Id. The second largest activity
`
`producing CO2 is the generation of electricity “to power homes, business, and industry.” Id.
`
`Methane emissions result from the energy production, agricultural practices, and the decay
`
`of organic waste in municipal landfills. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, supra. The largest
`
`source of human-related methane production in the United States comes from “enteric
`
`fermentation,” i.e., the manure and flatulence of livestock such as cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, and
`
`goats.
`
`
`
`EPA,
`
`Overview
`
`of
`
`Greehouse
`
`Gases
`
`–
`
`Methane,
`
`at
`
`https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane. “Natural gas and
`
`petroleum systems are the second largest source of CH4 emissions in the United States. Methane
`
`is the primary component of natural gas.” Id. Nearly every major form of energy production that
`
`relies on fossil fuels emits methane, including coal and oil production.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 12 of 63 PageID #: 441
`
`Nitrous oxide is naturally present in the atmosphere, and “[h]uman activities such as
`
`agriculture, fuel combustion, wastewater management, and industrial processes” also emit nitrous
`
`oxide. Id. EPA estimates that “about 40 percent of total N2O emissions come from human
`
`activities.” Id. “Agricultural soil management”—i.e., fertilizing crops—accounts for by far the
`
`largest share of nitrous oxide produced by human activity. “Agricultural soil management is the
`
`largest source” and “account[s] for about 77.8 percent of total U.S. N2O emissions in 2018.” Id.
`
`In sum, these three gases are highly prevalent to human economic activities, and the EPA
`
`estimates that they account for approximately 97% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2018. See EPA,
`
`Overview of Greenhouse Gases, supra. The authority to regulate the emission of such gases, in
`
`effect, is the authority to regulate entire foundational sectors of the U.S. economy, including
`
`innumerable aspects of energy, agricultural, and industrial production.
`
`B. Executive Order 13990 Created an Interagency Working Group to Dictate
`Binding Values for the “Social Costs” of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous
`Oxide.
`
`On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, “Protecting Public
`
`Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis.” Doc. 6-1, 86
`
`Fed. Reg. 7037 (“EO 13990” or the “Executive Order”). Section 5 of the Order, “Accounting for
`
`the Benefits of Reducing Climate Pollution,” instructs all federal agencies to “capture the full costs
`
`of greenhouse gas emissions as accurately as possible, including by taking global damages into
`
`account.” Id. at 7040. The “social cost” of greenhouse gases (SCC, SCN, and SCM) are “estimates
`
`of the monetized damages associated with incremental increases in greenhouse gas emissions.”
`
`Id. These metrics “are intended to include changes in net agricultural productivity, human health,
`
`property damage from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services.” Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 13 of 63 PageID #: 442
`
`The Executive Order establishes an entity to promulgate the social costs. It creates an
`
`“Interagency Working Group” co-chaired by the “Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors,
`
`Director of OMB, and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.” Id. The Working
`
`Group includes seven cabinet secretaries and five other high-level executive branch officials or
`
`their designees. Id. The Executive Order directs the Working Group to publish an interim social
`
`cost for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide that all federal agencies “shall use when
`
`monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations and other
`
`relevant agency actions until final values are published.” Id. (emphasis added). Section 5(b)(ii)(B)
`
`directs the Working Group to “publish a final SCC, SCN, and SCM by no later than January 2022,”
`
`and Section 5(b)(ii)(C)-(E) provides that the Working Group shall provide recommendations
`
`regarding the use, updating, and methodology of those numbers. Id. The Working Group was to
`
`consider “climate risk, environmental justice, and intergenerational equity.” Id.
`
`The Executive Order directs the Working Group to “solicit public comment; engage with
`
`the public and stakeholders; [and] seek the advice of ethics experts,” and to consider a specific
`
`report by the National Academy of Sciences. Id. The Executive Order directs the Working Group
`
`to “ensure that the SCC, SCN, and SCM reflect the interests of future generations in avoiding
`
`threats posed by climate change.” Id. It cites no statutory authority to create the Working Group
`
`or to set binding values for SCC, SCN, and SCM that “shall” be used by regulatory agencies
`
`administering delegated authority from Congress.
`
`C. The Working Group Promulgates Binding Interim Values for the “Social Costs”
`of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide That Federal Agencies “Shall”
`Use.
`
`On February 26, 2021, the Working Group released its Interim Values for the social costs
`
`of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide. See Doc. 6-2, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 14 of 63 PageID #: 443
`
`of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
`
`Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide, Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 (Feb. 26,
`
`2021) (“Interim Values” or “2021 TSD”). Although EO 13990 instructed the Working Group to
`
`elicit input from the public and stakeholders, the Working Group did not do so before publishing
`
`the Interim Values, and it cited no such comments in its analysis. See id. The Interim Values were
`
`simply published without notice or opportunity for public comment. Id.
`
`The Working Group defines the SCGG as “the monetary value of the net harm to society
`
`associated with adding a small amount of that GHG to the atmosphere in a given year.” Id. at 2.
`
`The SCGG “are the theoretically appropriate values [for agencies] to use in conducting benefit-
`
`cost analyses of policies that affect GHG emissions.” Id.
`
`The Working Group acknowledges that the task of assigning “social costs” to greenhouse
`
`gases involves attempting to predict global “changes in net agricultural productivity, human health
`
`effects, property damage from increased flood risk natural disasters, disruption of energy systems,
`
`risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services.” Id. at 2. This
`
`includes “spillover pathways such as economic and political destabilization and global migration.”
`
`Id. at 3. In other words, this task involves attempting to predict such unknowable contingencies
`
`as the likelihood, frequency, scope, and severity of future international conflicts and human
`
`migrations for decades and centuries into the future—an inherently speculative task, akin to
`
`attempting to predict in 1721 that World War II would break out in 1939, and to estimate its
`
`casualties and economic impact. Id. The Interim Values also admit that its calculations involve
`
`attempting to predict future developments in human technology and innovation for centuries to
`
`come, future mitigation strategies performed by the world’s 195 nations, and global atmospheric
`
`concentrations due to greenhouse gas emissions—another inherently speculative task. See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 18 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 15 of 63 PageID #: 444
`
`id. at 16 (considering the potential impact of “mitigation activities by other countries”); id. at 30
`
`(noting estimates reflect “incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change”).
`
`To make these predictions, the Working Group uses three Integrated Assessment Models
`
`(IAMs), the so-called “DICE,” “PAGE,” and “FUND” models. Id. at 10. These models (and the
`
`methodology adapting them) date back to the Obama Administration’s social cost of carbon with
`
`minor updates by the former Working Group over time. See id.; Technical Support Document:
`
`Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis – Under Executive Order 12866 (Feb. 2010)
`
`(“2010 TSD”).1 To develop the SCGG, the Working Group runs each IAM thousands of times
`
`under five scenarios (discussed below as the Stanford Energy Modeling Fo

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket