`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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