Application — In Re United States, et al., Applicants
Supreme Court briefOct 18, 2018
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 18A-_______
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_______________
IN RE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.
_______________
APPLICATION FOR A STAY PENDING DISPOSITION
OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
AND ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT
AND REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
_______________
NOEL J. FRANCISCO
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov
(202) 514-2217
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioners (defendants in the district court, and mandamus
petitioners in the court of appeals) are the United States of
America; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as the President
of the United States ∗; Office of the President of the United States;
the Director of Council on Environmental Quality; Mick Mulvaney,
in
his
official
capacity
as
the
Director
of
the
Office
of
Management and Budget; the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Sonny Perdue,
in his official capacity as the Secretary of Agriculture; U.S.
Department of Commerce; Wilbur Ross, in his official capacity as
the Secretary of Commerce; U.S. Department of Defense; James N.
Mattis, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Defense; U.S.
Department of Energy; Rick Perry, in his official capacity as the
Secretary of Energy; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
Andrew
R.
Wheeler,
in
his
official
capacity
as
the
Acting
Administrator of the EPA; U.S. Department of the Interior; Ryan
Zinke, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Interior;
U.S. Department of State; Michael R. Pompeo, in his official
capacity
as
the
Secretary
of
State;
U.S.
Department
of
Transportation; and Elaine Chao, in her official capacity as the
Secretary of Transportation.
On October 15, 2018, the district court dismissed
President Trump from the suit without prejudice. See Pet. App.
77a.
The government opposes that relief because the President
should be dismissed with prejudice.
The President accordingly
joins in this petition for a writ of mandamus.
∗
(I)
II
Respondent in this Court is the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon.
Cascadia
Rose
Juliana;
Respondents also include Kelsey
Xiuhtezcatl
Tonatiuh
M.,
through
his
Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; Alexander Loznak; Jacob Lebel;
Zealand B., through his Guardian Kimberly Pash-Bell; Avery M.,
through her Guardian Holly McRae; Sahara V., through her Guardian
Toña Aguilar; Kiran Isaac Oommen; Tia Marie Hatton; Isaac V.,
through his Guardian Pamela Vergun; Miko V., through her Guardian
Pamela Vergun; Hazel V., through her Guardian Margo Van Ummersen;
Sophie K., through her Guardian Dr. James Hansen; Jaime B., through
her Guardian Jamescita Peshlakai; Journey Z., through his Guardian
Erika Schneider; Victoria B., through her Guardian Daisy Calderon;
Nathaniel B., through his Guardian Sharon Baring; Aji P., through
his Guardian Helaina Piper; Levi D., through his Guardian LeighAnn Draheim; Jayden F., through her Guardian Cherri Foytlin;
Nicholas V., through his Guardian Marie Venner; Earth Guardians,
a nonprofit organization; and future generations, through their
Guardian Dr. James Hansen (collectively plaintiffs in the district
court, and real parties in interest in the court of appeals).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_______________
No. 18A-_______
IN RE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.
_______________
APPLICATION FOR A STAY PENDING DISPOSITION
OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
AND ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT
AND REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
_______________
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court and the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the
United States, the President of the United States, the Executive
Office of the President, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy,
the Interior, State, and Transportation, and all other federal
parties, respectfully applies for a stay of discovery and trial in
the United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
pending the disposition of the government’s petition for a writ of
mandamus,
filed
concurrently
with
further proceedings in this Court.
this
application,
and
any
Petitioners also request an
administrative stay pending the Court’s consideration of this stay
application.
2
This suit is an attempt to redirect federal environmental and
energy
policies
through
the
courts
rather
than
through
the
political process, by asserting a new and unsupported fundamental
due process right to certain climate conditions.
Rather than
challenging specific agency actions or inactions, the plaintiffs
allege
that
the
“affirmative
aggregate
acts”
of
the
federal
defendants for the past 50 years in the area of fossil-fuel
production and use are causing a “dangerous climate system” and
systematically violating their asserted substantive due process
rights.
Am. Compl. ¶ 289.
The plaintiffs ask the district court
to address these alleged wrongs by ordering the defendant agencies
and officials to prepare and implement a national remedial plan,
without regard to the procedural and substantive limitations in
those agencies’ organic statutes and the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), and by retaining jurisdiction indefinitely to ensure
compliance.
The district court has allowed this improper suit to proceed
for
nearly
three
years
over
the
repeated
objections
of
the
government, and the case is now on the eve of a bifurcated trial,
of which the liability phase alone is estimated to last for 50
days.
In 2016, the court refused to dismiss the plaintiffs’
claims, concluding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded
facts sufficient to establish Article III standing, that the
plaintiffs had stated a violation of an asserted fundamental right
to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life,” Pet. App.
3
141a, and that the court could remedy that violation by ordering
defendants to “move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as
take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is
no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a
national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement
that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system,” id. at
137a.
When the district court declined to certify its ruling for
interlocutory appeal, the government sought from the Ninth Circuit
a writ of mandamus ordering dismissal.
intervene.
But that court declined to
In the court’s view, there remained the opportunity
for the government to raise and re-raise legal objections to the
plaintiffs’ claims and for the district court to reconsider its
prior decisions, including whether the claims are “too broad to be
legally
sustainable”
“focus[ed]
* * *
and
whether
this
litigation
must
be
on specific governmental decisions and orders.”
Pet. App. 99a-101a.
The court of appeals stated that it expected
the claims to be “vastly narrowed as litigation proceed[ed]” beyond
that “very early stage” of litigation.
Id. at 101a-102a.
Following the Ninth Circuit’s first decision, the government
took every step contemplated by that court in its decision to raise
and re-raise the government’s legal objections and at least to
narrow this case.
In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the
government moved to dismiss the President and made two additional
arguments for why the plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable.
In
4
a motion for summary judgment, the government restated its prior
objections to the plaintiffs’ standing and to the merits of their
claims, permitting the district court to reconsider those rulings
on the basis of a more developed record.
And the government moved
for a protective order against all discovery, explaining that
discovery was categorically inappropriate because it violated the
APA’s
judicial-review
comprehensive
provisions,
regulation
of
as
agency
well
as
decisionmaking
the
and
APA’s
the
Constitution’s separation of powers.
The district court summarily denied the government’s motion
for a protective order, refused to stay discovery and trial pending
consideration
of
the
two
dispositive
motions,
and
repeatedly
stated its expectation that, absent intervention from a higher
court, trial would begin on October 29, 2018.
The government
therefore again petitioned the Ninth Circuit for mandamus relief,
requesting an order directing dismissal or, at a minimum, an order
directing the district court to stay all discovery and trial
pending the resolution of the government’s pending dispositive
motions.
The government also separately moved -- first in the
district court, then in the court of appeals, and finally in this
Court -- for a stay of discovery and trial pending disposition of
its petition for a writ of mandamus by the court of appeals and
any further proceedings in this Court.
The Ninth Circuit again denied the government’s petition,
insisting that “[t]he merits of th[is] case can be resolved by the
5
district court or in a future appeal.”
Pet. App. 85a.
On July
30, 2018, this Court denied the government’s application for a
stay “without prejudice.”
United States v. U.S. Dist. Court, No.
18A65, 2018 WL 3615551, at *1 (Juliana).
Although the Court noted
its view that the government’s application was “premature,” it
stated that the “breadth of respondents’ claims is striking” and
“the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds
for difference of opinion.” Ibid. The Court directed the district
court to “take these concerns into account in assessing the burdens
of discovery and trial, as well as the desirability of a prompt
ruling on the Government’s pending dispositive motions.”
Ibid.
More than two months after this Court’s order, and only weeks
before trial was set to commence, the district court had yet to
resolve the government’s dispositive motions.
On October 5, the
government informed the district court that it planned to petition
this Court for a writ of mandamus (or, in the alternative, a writ
of certiorari) and respectfully requested a stay of discovery and
trial pending this Court’s consideration.
Two days ago, the district court issued an opinion largely
denying the government’s dispositive motions.
the
President
“without
prejudice”
and
The court dismissed
granted
the
government
summary judgment on respondents’ “freestanding” Ninth Amendment
claim, but it otherwise denied the government’s motions.
App. 23a, 69a.
Pet.
The court rejected the government’s argument that
respondents were required to assert their challenges under the
6
APA, concluding that the “APA does not govern” claims seeking
equitable relief for alleged constitutional violations based on
“aggregate action by multiple agencies,” id. at 31a; refused to
revisit its prior holdings on the justiciability and merits of
respondents’ due process and public-trust claims; and denied the
government summary judgment on respondents’ equal protection claim
to the extent it is based on the same fundamental right to a
particular climate composition.
The
district
court
declined
to
certify
its
order
for
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), which authorizes
certification where, inter alia, an “order involves a controlling
question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
difference
of
opinion.”
statement
that
“the
Despite
justiciability
this
of
Court’s
intervening
[respondents’]
claims
presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion,” Juliana,
2018 WL 3615551, at *1, the district court concluded that there
have been no relevant changes in legal authority since that court’s
earlier refusal to certify.
Pet. App. 74a (reasoning that the
court’s prior refusal to certify is “law of the case”).
The court
subsequently denied the government’s request to stay discovery and
trial pending this Court’s consideration of this petition.
App.,
infra, 1a-2a.
Given the district court’s resolution of the government’s
dispositive motions and the trial set to begin on October 29, the
government has little choice but to renew its requests for relief
7
from this Court.
Contemporaneous with this application, the
government has filed a petition for (1) a writ of mandamus to the
district court seeking dismissal of this suit; (2) a writ of
certiorari to the court of appeals seeking review of that court’s
denial of similar relief; or (3) a common-law writ of certiorari
to the district court seeking review of that court’s denial of the
government’s dispositive motions.
requests
a
stay
of
any
further
And the government respectfully
discovery
and
trial
pending
consideration of its petition and any further proceedings in this
Court. 1
The standards for granting a stay are readily met in this
case.
As explained more fully in the government’s petition (at
13-28), the district court manifestly erred in recognizing a new
fundamental
substantive
due
process
right
to
certain
climate
conditions in the context of litigation over which the district
court lacks jurisdiction under Article III and that is otherwise
deeply flawed as a procedural matter.
Absent relief from this
Court, the government imminently will be forced to participate in
a 50-day trial that would violate bedrock requirements for agency
decisionmaking and judicial review imposed by the APA and the
separation of powers. In light of these impending harms, the Court
In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 23.3, on October
12, the government also requested a stay of discovery and trial
from the court of appeals pending this Court’s consideration of
its petition for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, a writ
of certiorari. That request remains pending before the court of
appeals.
1
8
is therefore likely to order dismissal of this suit.
Moreover, in
contrast to the obvious harms to the government, respondents can
make no credible claim of imminent, irreparable harm.
Their
alleged injuries stem from the cumulative effects of CO2 emissions
from every source in the world over decades; whatever additions to
the global atmosphere that could somehow be attributed to the
government over the time it takes to resolve the pending petition
are plainly de minimis.
Accordingly, the government requests that
this Court stay discovery and trial pending consideration of the
government’s petition and any further proceedings in this Court.
In addition, the government requests an administrative stay of
discovery and trial while the Court considers this application.
STATEMENT
1.
this
As explained in more detail in the petition (at 2-3),
suit
was
filed
in
2015
by
21
minor
individuals,
an
organization known as Earth Guardians, and future generations,
purportedly represented by a self-appointed guardian.
Respondents
sued President Obama, the Executive Office of the President, and
numerous Cabinet-level Executive officials and agencies, alleging
that these Executive officials and agencies have enabled the
combustion of fossil fuels, which releases greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere, thereby violating rights that respondents assert
under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution and an
asserted
federal
public-trust
doctrine.
Respondents
do
not
challenge specific agency actions, but rather focus on what they
9
term the government’s “aggregate actions,” Am. Compl. ¶ 129, which
they
assert
have
caused
“climate
instability,”
id.
¶
288.
Respondents ask the district court to order the Executive Branch
to “prepare a consumption-based inventory of U.S. CO2 emissions”
and “prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan
to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric
CO2,” id. at 94, and to retain jurisdiction for an indefinite
period of time to monitor the government’s compliance with that
remedial plan.
2.
In 2016, the district court denied the government’s
motion to dismiss respondents’ claims for lack of jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim.
Pet. App. 104a-200a.
The court
concluded that respondents had established standing by alleging
that they had been harmed by the effects of climate change; the
government’s
regulation
of
(and
failure
to
further
regulate)
fossil fuels had caused respondents’ injuries; and the court could
redress those injuries by “order[ing] [the government] to cease
[its] permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels
and, instead, move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as
take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is
no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a
national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement
that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”
137a (citation omitted); see id. at 124a-137a.
Id. at
10
On the merits, the district court concluded that respondents
had stated a claim under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
and a federal public-trust doctrine.
Pet. App. 137a-167a.
The
court found in the Due Process Clause a new fundamental right to
a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”
Id. at 141a.
It also articulated a federal public-trust doctrine, also grounded
in substantive due process, which it held imposes a judicially
enforceable
prohibition
on
the
federal
government
against
“depriving a future legislature of the natural resources necessary
to provide for the well-being and survival of its citizens.”
Id.
at 148a (citation omitted).
3.
When the district court declined to certify its order
for interlocutory appeal, the government filed its first petition
to the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus ordering dismissal.
The court of appeals stayed the case for nearly eight months while
it considered the government’s request, but ultimately “decline[d]
to exercise [its] discretion to grant mandamus relief.”
103a; see id. at 91a-103a.
Pet. App.
The court recognized that “some of
[respondents’] claims as currently pleaded are quite broad, and
some of the remedies [respondents] seek may not be available as
redress.”
Id. at 103a.
But the court reasoned that the case was
“at a very early stage,” and the government would “have ample
opportunity to raise legal challenges to decisions made by the
district
court
decisions
as
to
on
a
more
whether
to
fully
developed
focus
the
record,
litigation
on
including
specific
11
governmental decisions and orders.”
Id. at 101a.
The court also
observed that “[c]laims and remedies often are vastly narrowed as
litigation proceeds” and that it had “no reason to assume this
case will be any different.”
Id. at 103a.
And the court stated
that the government could continue to “raise and litigate any legal
objections,” including moving to “dismiss the President as a
party”; “reasserting a challenge to standing, particularly as to
redressability”; or “asking the district court to certify orders
for interlocutory appeal of later rulings,” id. at 99a, 101a-103a.
4.
The government then filed a series of motions in the
district court as contemplated by the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
First, the government filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
reiterating that respondents lack standing and the fundamental
rights they assert lack any support in the Constitution, as well
as presenting three new grounds for dismissing some or all of
respondents’ claims:
(1) the court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin
the President in his official duties; (2) the APA provides the
sole mechanism for challenging the federal administrative actions
that
underlie
respondents’
claims,
but
respondents
fail
to
challenge specifically identified and discrete agency action as
the APA requires; and (3) respondents’ claims and requested relief
would violate the separation of powers by requiring the court to
usurp
the
roles
of
Congress
in
enacting
a
government-wide
regulatory framework and the President in calling on the expertise
12
and resources of the Executive Branch to formulate environmental
and energy policies.
D. Ct. Doc. 195 (May 9, 2018).
Shortly thereafter, the government filed a motion for summary
judgment, reasserting that (1) respondents lack standing, as a
matter of law and as judged against the evidentiary record; (2)
respondents have not satisfied the APA’s requirement to challenge
discrete agency action; and (3) respondents’ claims fail on the
merits.
The government also contended that, even aside from
respondents’
lack
of
standing,
this
suit
is
controversy within the meaning of Article III.
not
a
case
or
D. Ct. Doc. 207
(May 22, 2018).
The government also filed a motion for a protective order
barring all discovery, arguing that (1) because this case may
proceed only under the APA, judicial review must be based on the
administrative record of specifically identified actions and (2)
in any event, discovery in this case would be independently barred
by the procedural requirements that the APA imposes on agency factfinding and decisionmaking and the separation of powers.
The
government further requested, at a minimum, a stay of all discovery
until the court ruled on the government’s dispositive motions.
D.
Ct. Doc. 196 (May 9, 2018).
5.
On
May
25,
2018,
the
magistrate
government’s motion for a protective order.
judge
denied
the
Pet. App. 88a-90a.
He rejected the government’s argument that challenges to agency
action must proceed pursuant to the APA, under which review must
13
be based on the administrative record and discovery unavailable,
concluding that respondents may proceed in a sweeping manner
against all federal defendants collectively because their claims
are “based on alleged violations of their constitutional rights.”
Id. at 89a.
He also declined to grant a protective order based on
the separation of powers, stating instead that “[s]hould a specific
discovery
request
arise
during
discovery
in
this
case
that
implicates a claim of privilege the government wishes to assert,
the government may file a motion for a protective order directed
at any such specific request.”
Id. at 90a.
The district court summarily affirmed the magistrate judge’s
order, Pet. App. 86a-87a, stating that it had “carefully reviewed
[that]
order
in
light
of
[the
government’s]
objections”
and
“conclude[d] that the order is not clearly erroneous or contrary
to law,” id. at 87a.
The court provided no further explanation
for its decision and declined “to certify [its] decision for
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).”
Ibid.
The district court set an opening trial date of October 29,
2018, and indicated its expectation that the trial will last for
approximately 50 trial days.
See D. Ct. Doc. 189 (Mar. 26, 2018);
D. Ct. Doc. 192 (Apr. 12, 2018);
4/12/18 Tr. 8 (Coffin, J.).
The
court has repeatedly made clear that it has no intention of
delaying trial.
See, e.g., 10/4/18 Tr. 19 (Coffin, J.) (“Th[e]
trial date of October 29th is a firm trial date and will not be
changed unless changed by order of an appellate court or the
14
Supreme Court.”); 5/23/18 Tr. 16-17 (Aiken, J.); 5/10/18 Tr. 27
(Coffin, J.).
6.
On July 5, 2018, the government again petitioned the
Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus.
The government explained
that, in an effort to terminate or narrow this case, it had taken
every step that the Ninth Circuit had contemplated in its prior
decision, but the district court was moving forward with discovery
and an impending trial without narrowing the claims in any respect.
The
government
accordingly
asked
the
Ninth
Circuit
to
order
dismissal of this case, or at a minimum, to direct the district
court to stay all discovery and trial pending the resolution of
the government’s dispositive motions, and to consider certifying
for interlocutory appeal any rulings on those motions.
On July 20, 2018, the court of appeals denied the government’s
mandamus petition.
government
has
Pet. App. 78a-85a.
not
challenged
a
The court noted that “the
single
specific
discovery
request,” and that the “government retains the ability to challenge
any specific discovery order that it believes would be unduly
burdensome or would threaten the separation of powers.”
Id. at
81a-82a.
The court further rejected the government’s separation-
of-powers
argument,
stating
that
“allowing
the
usual
legal
processes to go forward will not threaten the separation of powers
in any way not correctable on appeal.”
Id. at 84a.
The court
denied the “mandamus petition without prejudice,” adding that the
15
“merits of the case can be resolved by the district court or in a
future appeal.”
7.
Id. at 85a.
While its second mandamus petition was pending before
the court of appeals, the government filed a stay application in
this Court.
The government asked this Court to stay discovery and
trial pending the Ninth Circuit’s consideration of the mandamus
petition.
As an alternative, the government noted that the Court
could direct dismissal of the case itself by construing the stay
application as a petition for a writ of mandamus or a petition for
a writ of certiorari.
On July 30, 2018, this Court denied the stay application
“without prejudice.”
Juliana, 2018 WL 3615551, at *1.
While
noting its view that the government’s application was “premature,”
the Court observed that the “breadth of respondents’ claims is
striking” and that “the justiciability of those claims presents
substantial grounds for difference of opinion.”
Ibid.
The Court
directed the district court to “take these concerns into account
in assessing the burdens of discovery and trial, as well as the
desirability
of
a
prompt
dispositive motions.”
8.
ruling
on
the
Government’s
pending
Ibid.
Despite this Court’s expectation of “a prompt ruling on
the Government’s pending dispositive motions,” Juliana, 2018 WL
3615551, at *1, the district court issued no ruling on those
motions for more than two months after this Court’s order, which
itself came more than two months after the motions were filed.
16
With the trial date of October 29 just weeks away, the government
on October 5 filed another stay request with the district court.
The government informed the court that it planned to file a
petition for a writ of mandamus (or, in the alternative, a petition
for a writ of certiorari) with this Court, and asked the district
court to stay discovery and trial pending this Court’s resolution
of that petition.
One week after asking the district court for a
stay, the government asked the court of appeals to stay discovery
and
trial
pending
this
Court’s
review
of
the
government’s
petition. 2
9.
motions
On October 15, 2018 -- roughly five months after the
were
filed,
only
two
weeks
before
the
start
of
the
scheduled trial, and only after the government informed the court
that it intended to file a mandamus petition in this Court -- the
district court ruled on the government’s dispositive motions. Pet.
App. 1a-77a. The court dismissed the President “without prejudice”
and granted summary judgment to the government on respondents’
“freestanding claim under the Ninth Amendment,” but otherwise
denied the government’s motions.
Id. at 23a, 69a, 77a.
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the court of appeals
lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion for a stay pending Supreme
Court review after the court of appeals has previously denied a
mandamus petition. See In re United States, 875 F.3d 1177, 1178
(2017). The government disagrees with that precedent but accepted
it for purposes of this case and accordingly submitted its stay
request to the Ninth Circuit in the form of an additional petition
for a writ of mandamus.
2
17
The district court first rejected the government’s argument
that respondents were required to assert their challenges under
the APA, concluding instead that the “APA does not govern” claims
seeking equitable relief for alleged constitutional violations
based on “aggregate action by multiple agencies.”
Pet. App. 31a.
It also rejected the government’s argument that respondents had
failed to establish standing under the more rigorous standard that
applies at the summary-judgment stage (as compared to the motionto-dismiss stage).
Id. at 55a.
It largely reiterated its earlier
holdings on the governments other central arguments.
34a; see also id. at 56a-69a.
summary
judgment
on
Id. at 31a-
And the court denied the government
respondent’s
equal
protection
claim,
concluding that it “would be aided by further development of the
factual record.”
Id. at 73a; see id. at 70a-73a.
The district court again declined to certify its order for
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), which authorizes
certification where, inter alia, an “order involves a controlling
question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
difference of opinion.”
See Pet. App. 73a-77a.
The court did not
address this Court’s express statement that “the justiciability of
[respondents’] claims presents substantial grounds for difference
of
opinion.”
Juliana,
2018
WL
3615551,
at
*1.
The
court
subsequently denied the government’s request to stay discovery and
trial pending this Court’s consideration of this petition.
Doc. 374 (Oct. 15, 2018).
D. Ct.
18
ARGUMENT
The government respectfully requests that this Court grant a
stay of all further discovery and trial pending the disposition of
the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus (or, in the
alternative,
certiorari).
The
government
also
respectfully
requests an administrative stay pending this Court’s ruling on
this application for a stay.
Months ago, this Court flagged the
“striking” breadth of respondents’ claims and the “substantial”
doubts
about
their
justiciability,
reciting
the
standard
for
interlocutory certification and thereby indicating that appellate
review is warranted before trial.
United States v. U.S. Dist.
Court, No. 18A65, 2018 WL 3615551, at *1 (July 30, 2018).
district court refused to heed that instruction.
The
The court has
declined to meaningfully narrow respondents’ claims or to certify
its orders for interlocutory appeal.
in less than two weeks.
And trial is now set to begin
The government therefore has no choice
but to again ask this Court to intervene -- and to end this
profoundly misguided suit.
A stay pending the disposition of a petition for a writ of
mandamus is warranted if there is (1) “a fair prospect that a
majority of the Court will vote to grant mandamus,” and (2) “a
likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a
stay.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per
curiam).
A stay pending the disposition of a petition for a writ
of certiorari (which the government seeks in the alternative) is
19
appropriate if there is “(1) a reasonable probability that four
Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant
certiorari; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will
vote to reverse the judgment below; and (3) a likelihood that
irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.”
Ibid.
All of those requirements are readily met here.
1.
There is a “fair prospect” that a majority of this Court
will decide either to issue a writ of mandamus directly to the
district court or to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s denial of mandamus
relief.
Perry, 558 U.S. at 190.
As this Court has observed, the
traditional use of mandamus has been “to confine the court against
which mandamus is sought to a lawful exercise of its prescribed
jurisdiction.”
Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367,
380 (2004) (brackets and citation omitted).
Mandamus may also be
justified by errors “amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’”
or a “clear abuse of discretion.”
Ibid. (citation omitted).
A
court may issue a writ of mandamus when the petitioner establishes
that (1) the petitioner’s “right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear
and indisputable’”; (2) “no other adequate means [exist] to attain
the relief he desires”; and (3) “the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances.”
at
380-381)
Perry, 558 U.S. at 190 (quoting Cheney, 542 U.S.
(brackets
in
original).
As
explained
in
the
government’s petition (at 13-33), those prerequisites for mandamus
relief are met in this case and the court of appeals erred in
concluding otherwise.
20
a.
The government’s right to the dismissal of this case is
“clear and indisputable” in at least three independent ways.
Perry, 558 U.S. at 190 (citation omitted); see Pet. 16-28.
i.
Most fundamentally, this suit fails to qualify as a
“Case[]” or “Controvers[y]” within the meaning of Article III.
U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, Cl. 1.
First, respondents lack Article III standing.
Pet. 16-20.
To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he has
suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized,” “and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical”; (2) such injury is “fairly
. . .
trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not
. . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party
not before the court”; and (3) it is “likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.”
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561
(1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted; brackets
in original).
Here, however, respondents cannot show any of the
three standing requirements.
The injuries that respondents claim all involve the diffuse
effects of a generalized phenomenon on a global scale that are the
same as those felt by any other person in their communities, in
the United States, or throughout the world at large.
Such alleged
injuries are “generalized grievance[s],” not “an invasion of a
legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized”
21
sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the standing analysis.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 575 (citation omitted);
see, e.g., Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
572 U.S. 118, 125, 127 n.3 (2014); Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437,
439 (2007) (per curiam).
Even if respondents alleged adequate injuries, they cannot
establish that the government policies they challenge -- expressed
in broad and undifferentiated terms, rather than directed to
discrete agency actions -- caused their asserted injuries.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560.
See
Respondents principally
complain of the government’s regulation (or lack thereof) of
private parties not before the district court.
But respondents
cannot establish a causal link between the amorphously described
policy decisions they purport to challenge and the specific harms
that they allege, as opposed to the independent actions by private
persons both within and outside the United States.
As this Court
has explained, “emissions in New Jersey may contribute no more to
flooding in New York than emissions in China.”
American Elec.
Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 422 (2011).
respondents’
extremely
broad
challenge
does
petitioners can control “emissions in China.”
Finally,
even
if
respondents
could
not
But even
suggest
that
Ibid.
somehow
establish
cognizable injury-in-fact and causation, respondents have not even
begun to articulate a remedy that a federal court would have
authority to award and that could move the needle on the complex
22
phenomenon of global climate change, much less likely redress their
alleged injuries.
See Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org.,
426 U.S. 26, 40-46 (1976).
The district court assumed that it had
the authority to “[o]rder Defendants to prepare and implement an
enforceable
national
remedial
plan
to
phase
out
emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.”
(quoting Am. Compl. 94); see id. at 184a.
fossil
fuel
Pet. App. 172a
But neither respondents
nor the court cited any legal authority that would permit such a
usurpation of legislative and executive authority by an Article
III court.
Second, quite aside from these fatal flaws with respect to
standing, this suit simply is not one that a federal court may
entertain consistent with the Constitution.
Pet. 20-22.
The
“judicial Power of the United States,” U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1,
is
“‘one
to
render
dispositive
judgments’”
controversies” as defined by Article III.
in
“cases
and
Plaut v. Spendthrift
Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218-219 (1995) (citation omitted).
It
can “come into play only in matters that were the traditional
concern of the courts at Westminster” and when those matters arise
“in ways that to the expert feel of lawyers constituted ‘Cases’ or
‘Controversies.’”
Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. United States
ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 774 (2000) (citation omitted).
Respondents’ suit is not such a case or controversy.
Respondents ask the district court to review and assess the
entirety of Congress’s and the Executive Branch’s programs and
23
policies relating to climate change and then to undertake to pass
upon the comprehensive constitutionality of all of those policies,
programs, and inaction in the aggregate.
¶¶ 277-310.
See, e.g., Am. Compl.
No federal court, nor any court at Westminster, has
ever purported to use the “judicial Power” to perform such a review
-- and for good reason:
the Constitution commits to Congress the
power to enact comprehensive government-wide measures of the sort
respondents seek.
And it commits to the President the power to
oversee the Executive Branch in its administration of existing law
and to draw on its expertise and formulate policy proposals for
changing existing law.
Article III courts.
Such functions are not the province of
See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 1; id. Art. II,
§ 2, Cl. 1; id. § 3; cf. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 385.
“There simply
are certain things that courts, in order to remain courts, cannot
and should not do.”
(Thomas,
J.,
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 132 (1995)
concurring).
Executive Branch agencies.”
One
of
those
Id. at 133.
things
is
“running
And it surely includes
running all of them.
ii.
Beyond these limitations imposed by Article III, the APA
also supplies an insurmountable obstacle to this suit.
25.
Pet. 22-
The APA provides that a “person suffering legal wrong because
of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency
action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to
judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. 702. It authorizes a reviewing
court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is
24
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with law” or “contrary to constitutional right,
power, privilege, or immunity,” 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A)-(B), and to
“compel
agency
action
unlawfully
delayed,” 5 U.S.C. 706(1).
withheld
or
unreasonably
In so doing, the APA provides a
comprehensive remedial scheme for a person “adversely affected or
aggrieved by agency action” or alleged inaction with respect to
regulatory
requirements
administrative measures.
551-554 (2007).
and
standards,
permitting,
and
other
See Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537,
It is, in other words, “an umbrella statute
governing judicial review of all federal agency action.”
Webster
v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 607 n.* (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
“[I]f review is not available under the APA it is not available at
all.”
Ibid.
Respondents allege that a vast number of largely unspecified
“agency action[s]” and inactions spanning the last several decades
are, in the words of the APA, “contrary to constitutional right.”
5 U.S.C. 702, 706(2)(B).
But respondents’ claims cannot proceed
under the APA because the APA allows only for challenges to
specifically identified and “circumscribed, discrete” final agency
action, not the sort of “broad programmatic attack” on agency
policies that respondents assert here.
Norton v. Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 62, 64 (2004) (SUWA); see Lujan
v. National Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 891 (1990).
Respondents
expressly
“affirmative
cast
their
claims
as
a
challenge
to
25
aggregate actions” by the numerous defendant agencies, Am. Compl.
¶ 5 -- the antithesis of a challenge to specifically identified
and “discrete agency action” as permitted by Congress under the
APA, SUWA, 542 U.S. at 64.
Respondents and the district court suggest that respondents’
claims need not comply with the APA’s limitations because the
Constitution
itself
provides
constitutional claims.
the
right
of
action
for
Am. Compl. ¶ 13; see Pet. App. 23a-31a.
But as noted, the APA itself contemplates claims that agency action
is “contrary to constitutional right.”
5 U.S.C. 706(2)(B).
And
this Court has never suggested the Constitution itself provides an
across-the-board right of action for all constitutional claims -and
especially
not
for
the
sweeping
constitutional
claims
concerning governmental regulation that respondents advance here
or for the sweeping relief they seek.
has
recognized
that,
although
To the contrary, this Court
federal
courts
have
equitable
authority in some circumstances “to enjoin unlawful executive
action,” that equitable power is “subject to express and implied
statutory limitations.”
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr.,
Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378, 1385 (2015).
Here, even if the equitable
authority of an Article III court could ever extend to a suit of
a sort remotely resembling what respondents have brought here, the
APA
provides
“express
* * *
statutory
limitations”
that
“ ‘foreclose,’ ” ibid. (citation omitted), respondents’ asserted
constitutional claims against the broad and largely unspecified
26
“aggregate actions” of the federal government as a whole, Am.
Compl. ¶ 129.
iii.
Finally, even if the district court could reach the
merits of respondents’ constitutional theories, it should not have
allowed their claims to move forward, let alone to a ten-week
trial.
Pet. 25-28.
In declining to dismiss the case, the district
court concluded that respondents stated two related constitutional
claims
based
unidentified
on
substantive
judicially
due
process:
enforceable
(1)
fundamental
a
previously
right
to
“a
climate system capable of sustaining human life”; and (2) a federal
public-trust doctrine to the same effect.
at 138a-167a.
The
Pet. App. 141a; see id.
Both claims are baseless.
district
court’s
recognition
of
an
“unenumerated
fundamental right” to “a climate system capable of sustaining human
life,” Pet. App. 141a, is entirely without basis in “this Nation’s
history and tradition.”
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702,
721 (1997) (citation omitted).
It threatens to wrest fundamental
policy issues of energy development and environmental regulation
affecting everyone in the country from “the arena of public debate
and legislative action,” id. at 720, and to thrust them into the
supervision of the federal courts -- indeed, here, into a single
district court at the behest of a handful of individuals, a person
purporting to act on behalf of future generations, and a single
environmental organization, advancing just one perspective on the
complex issues involved. And although the court relied principally
27
on the Court’s recognition of a fundamental right to same-sex
marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), Pet.
App.
140a-141a,
there
is
plainly
no
relationship
between
a
distinctly personal and circumscribed right to same-sex marriage
and the alleged right to a climate system capable of sustaining
human life that apparently would run indiscriminately to every
individual in the United States.
Respondents’
novel
public-trust
claim
fares
no
better.
Respondents appeal to a public-trust concept that has been relied
upon to hold that, as a matter of state law, the sovereign “owns
all of its navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath them as
trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people.”
National
Audubon Soc’y v. Superior Court, 658 P.2d 709, 718 (Cal.), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 977 (1983) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). They attempt to invoke that concept to impose judicially
enforceable,
extra-statutory
government’s
regulation
of
obligations
the
fossil-fuel
on
the
federal
industry
and
its
alleged effects on the atmosphere. They fail, however, to identify
a single decision applying a public-trust doctrine in this novel
manner.
And
sovereign’s
even
if
regulation
such
of
a
doctrine
private
could
parties,
ever
dictate
respondents’
a
claim
would be unavailing against the federal government because, as
this Court has recognized, the public-trust concept is purely a
matter of state law and pertains only to a State’s functions.
See,
e.g., PPL Montana LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576, 603 (2012) (“[T]he
28
public trust doctrine remains a matter of state law.”) (citing
Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 284-286 (1997)).
b.
As
the
petition
further
explains
(at
28-31),
the
government has no adequate means to obtain relief from the district
court’s egregious errors in refusing to dismiss this litigation or
to prevent the impending trial.
To be sure, the government could
raise
asserted
some
of
the
arguments
here
after
the
50-day
liability phase of trial, a finding that the federal government is
effectively liable for the harms of climate change, and further
proceedings to impose an unprecedented invasive remedy, but an
appellate reversal at that point would hardly provide an “adequate
means” of obtaining relief.
Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380 (emphasis
added; citation omitted); see, e.g., In re Kellogg Brown & Root,
Inc., 756 F.3d 754, 761 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Kavanaugh, J.) (granting
mandamus where appeal after a final judgment would not provide an
“adequate” means of obtaining relief), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
1163 (2015); In re Justices of Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 695
F.2d 17, 20-25 (1st Cir. 1982) (Breyer, J.) (same).
The federal sovereign and the Executive Branch agencies and
officials sued by respondents will “suffer a special institutional
harm by being forced to remain” in this suit through a trial, a
finding of liability, and the entry of a remedy.
695 F.2d at 20.
In re Justices,
As this Court observed in Cheney, “mandamus
standards are broad enough to allow a court of appeals to prevent
a lower court from interfering with a coequal branch’s ability to
29
discharge its constitutional responsibilities.”
542 U.S. at 382;
see ibid. (recognizing the “paramount necessity of protecting the
Executive Branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it
from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties”).
Here, compelling petitioners to participate in the fundamentally
misguided trial envisioned by the district court would constitute
a “judicial ‘usurpation of power’” warranting mandamus for at least
two additional reasons.
Id. at 380 (citation omitted).
First, subjecting petitioners to trial on respondents’ claims
would violate the APA’s carefully reticulated scheme for agencies
to make factual assessments and policy determinations through
rulemaking
with
public
participation
and
through
agency
adjudication, not civil litigation in Article III courts.
The APA
sets forth a “comprehensive regulation of procedures” for agency
decisionmaking. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 36 (1950);
see 5 U.S.C. 551-554 (2012 & Supp. V 2017).
To require agencies
to take official positions on factual assessments and questions of
policy concerning the climate through the civil litigation process
-- and then, if liability is found, to participate in further
judicial proceedings to impose on them an “enforceable national
remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down
excess atmospheric CO2,” Am. Compl. 94 -- would impermissibly
conflict with the APA’s procedures and deprive other interested
parties and the public of the ability to provide input where those
procedures require.
30
Second,
subjecting
petitioners
to
trial
on
respondents’
claims would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Even
before
the
enactment
of
the
APA,
this
Court
recognized
that
permitting an agency’s “findings to be attacked or supported in
court
by
new
evidence
would
substitute
the
court
for
the
administrative tribunal,” Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States,
280 U.S. 420, 444 (1930), a step that would improperly allow the
court
to
“usurp[]
the
agency’s
function,”
Unemployment
Comm’n v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 155 (1946).
Comp.
Limiting judicial
review to agency actions taken in the administrative process
reflects fundamental separation-of-powers principles.
By seeking to leverage the civil litigation process to direct
petitioners’
decisions
outside
the
congressionally
prescribed
statutory framework, respondents would run roughshod over those
separation-of-powers principles.
Respondents’ proposed approach
violates the vesting of the “legislative Powers” in Congress to
the extent it would require agencies to transgress the substantive
and procedural constraints imposed on them by statute. U.S. Const.
Art. I, § 1.
And to the extent respondents seek to require the
President and Executive agencies to develop and implement such
policies, they seek to violate the Constitution’s vesting of
“executive Power
* * *
in a President of the United States.”
Id. Art. II, § 1, Cl. 1.
Granting mandamus relief is the only
“adequate means” of preventing such intrusions.
at 380 (citation omitted).
Cheney, 542 U.S.
31
c.
As the petition explains (at 31-32), mandamus relief is
“appropriate under the circumstances.”
Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381.
As noted, mandamus was traditionally used “to confine [an inferior
court] to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction,” and
granting
mandamus
based
on
the
total
absence
of
Article
III
jurisdiction and of any cognizable constitutional rights on the
merits would be consistent with that use.
Id. at 380 (citation
omitted); see Pet. 32 (collecting examples of such cases).
Mandamus is particularly appropriate here because dismissing
the case is the only way “to prevent a lower court from interfering
with a coequal branch’s ability to discharge its constitutional
responsibilities.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 382; see ibid. (emphasizing
“separation-of-powers
considerations”).
Indeed,
in
its
order
declining to intervene at an earlier stage of this case, this Court
indicated that appellate review before trial was appropriate by
reciting
critical
language
from
the
statute
authorizing
certification for interlocutory appeal, 28 U.S.C. 1292(b),.
Juliana, 2018 WL 3615551, at *1.
See
But the district court declined
to follow this Court’s lead, leaving an extraordinary writ as the
only means for appellate review before much of the Executive Branch
is subject to a trial on baseless claims that the district court
has no authority to remedy.
The “novelty of the District Court’s”
ruling, “combined with its potentially broad and destabilizing
effects,” underscores that granting the writ is “ ‘appropriate
under the circumstances.’ ”
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, 756 F.3d
32
at 763 (quoting Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381).
And for many of the
same reasons, even if the Court declines to issue a writ of
mandamus directly to the district court, it would be appropriate
for the Court to issue a writ of certiorari under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1)
to review the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to intervene or a commonlaw writ of certiorari under 28 U.S.C. 1651 to directly review the
district
court’s
motions.
See Pet. 14-15.
2.
resolution
of
the
government’s
dispositive
Irreparable harm inevitably “will result from the denial
of a stay” of further discovery and trial pending consideration of
the government’s petition.
Perry, 558 U.S. at 190.
Absent a stay,
the government will be forced to proceed with a 50-day liability
trial that is fundamentally inconsistent with Article III and the
separation of powers under the Constitution, as well as with
procedures Congress has prescribed in agencies’ organic statutes
and the APA for agencies to consider factual and legal issues
concerning
major
determinations.
policy
and
for
the
courts
to
review
their
Trial would force the government to address
climate-change policy not in APA rulemakings and other agency
actions authorized by statutes such as the Clean Air Act, but in
a single trial court in Oregon.
These injuries caused by the trial
itself could not be remedied on appeal.
The more tangible costs of these proceedings should also not
be ignored.
The Department of Justice alone has already devoted
nearly 13,000 attorney and paralegal hours and spent millions of
33
taxpayer dollars in expert fees, travel expenses, and other nonattorney
fees
defending
App., infra, 3a-4a.
against
respondents’
baseless
claims.
If the liability phase of trial proceeds as
scheduled, the parties are expected to present up to 72 witnesses
-- 43 lay witnesses and 29 expert witnesses -- and 3000 exhibits.
Id. at 4a.
Expert testimony would be expected on a diverse range
of topics -- including the impacts of climate change on ocean
chemistry, sea level, glaciers, terrestrial ecosystems, and human
physical
and
emotional
health,
as
well
as
the
technical
and
economic feasibility of transitioning to renewable sources of
energy and sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, to name just
a few examples -- described in over 1,100 pages worth of expert
reports.
Ibid.
And respondents’ exhibit list includes documents
dating back to the Washington Administration.
See id. at 31a-
150a. To conduct a trial of this staggering complexity, even under
conservative estimates, the Department’s Environmental and Natural
Resources Division attorneys and paralegals are likely to commit
an additional 7300 hours of their time between now and February
2019 to proceedings that should never occur.
Id. at 4a-5a.
The
government, of course, recognizes the need to devote resources to
defend against plausible claims and, in the ordinary course, it
does not seek extraordinary relief from this Court or the courts
of appeals simply because it disagrees with a district court’s
resolution of a dispositive motion.
But the claims in this case
are extraordinary and the district court’s errors are egregious.
34
The real-world monetary and human costs that those errors would
impose on the government, if the trial is permitted to proceed,
would unavoidably “distract [the Department] from the energetic
performance of its constitutional duties” in a manner that warrants
this Court’s intervention.
Cheney, 542 U.S. at 382.
By contrast, respondents can make no credible claim that a
relatively brief stay to decide the government’s petition will
cause
them
irreparable
harm.
Because
respondents’
alleged
injuries stem from the cumulative effects of CO2 emissions from
every source in the world over decades, whatever additions to the
global atmosphere that may somehow be attributed to the defendant
agencies over the time it takes to resolve the government’s pending
petition are plainly de minimis in context and not a source of
irreparable harm.
35
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should stay discovery
and trial pending the disposition of the government’s petition for
a writ of mandamus (or, in the alternative, certiorari) and any
further proceedings in this Court.
that
this
Court
enter
an
The government also requests
administrative
stay
consideration of this stay application.
Respectfully submitted.
NOEL J. FRANCISCO
Solicitor General
OCTOBER 2018
pending
its
APPENDIX
Order Denying Stay of Discovery and Trial
(D. Ore. Oct. 15, 2018) .....................................1a
Declaration of Guillermo A. Montero (Oct., 17, 2018)...........3a
Exhibit A: Plaintiffs’ Witness List
(Oct. 15, 2018) ............................................7a
Exhibit B: Defendants’ Witness List
(Oct. 15, 2018) ...........................................24a
Exhibit C: Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit List
(Oct. 12, 2018) ...........................................31a
Exhibit D: Defendants’ Exhibit List
(Oct. 12, 2018) ..........................................151a
Case: 18-72776, 10/16/2018, ID: 11048318, DktEntry: 3, Page 2 of 4
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
info@ord.uscourts.gov
nobody@ord.uscourts.gov
Activity in Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Juliana, et al v United States of America, et al Order on motion for stay
Monday, October 15, 2018 4:59:23 PM
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT
RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States
policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to
receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required
by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later
charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the
referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
District of Oregon
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 10/15/2018 at 1:57 PM PDT and filed on
10/15/2018
Case Name:
Juliana, et al v United States of America, et al
Case Number:
6:15-cv-01517-AA
Filer:
Document Number: 374(No document attached)
Docket Text:
ORDER: Federal defendants Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial [361] is
DENIED. The Court has previously considered similar arguments to those
raised in this motion. The Court finds that the government has not shown a
likelihood success on the merits or irreparable injury that would justify a stay at
this time. Nken v. Holder 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). Ordered on 10/15/2018 by
Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr)
6:15-cv-01517-AA Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Andrea K. Rodgers
andrearodgers42@gmail.com
Benjamin E. Tannen btannen@sidley.com, ben-tannen-8259@ecf.pacerpro.com,
dcefilingnotice@sidley.com
C. Marie Eckert
marie.eckert@millernash.com, jeannie.peurasaari@millernash.com
Clare Boronow
clare.boronow@usdoj.gov, efile_nrs.enrd@usdoj.gov
Courtney B. Johnson
courtney@crag.org
(1a)
Case: 18-72776, 10/16/2018, ID: 11048318, DktEntry: 3, Page 3 of 4
2a
Erika Norman
erika.norman@usdoj.gov
Frank J. Singer
frank.singer@usdoj.gov
Frank R. Volpe
fvolpe@sidley.com
Julia A. Olson
juliaaolson@gmail.com, eliza.brown@gmail.com
Marissa Piropato
marissa.piropato@usdoj.gov
Mark D Hopson
mhopson@sidley.com
Peter Kryn Dykema
peter.dykema@usdoj.gov
Philip L. Gregory
pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com
Sean C. Duffy sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov, efile_nrs.enrd@usdoj.gov,
jamie.m.haydel@usdoj.gov, megan.moore2@usdoj.gov
Sean T. Malone
seanmalone8@hotmail.com
6:15-cv-01517-AA Notice will not be electronically mailed to:
3a
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 18AIN RE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.
DECLARATION OF GUILLERMO A. MONTERO
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR A STAY PENDING
DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
AND ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT
AND REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
I, Guillermo A. Montero, do declare and if called upon would
testify as follows:
1.
I am an assistant chief in the Environment and Natural
Resources Division ("ENRD") of
Justice,
where
I have
worked
the
since
United States Department of
2004.
In
that capacity, I
supervise the attorneys of record for Defendants in the district
court proceedings of the above-captioned action.
I have personal
knowledge of the statements made herein, as informed by my review
of district court filings, information in the ENRD case management
system,
and
Comptroller,
information compiled
Expert
Witness
from
Unit,
the
and
ENRD
Office
Office
of
of
the
Litigation
Support.
2.
As of October 17, 2018, ENRD has devoted over 13,000
attorney and paralegal hours defending this case.
4a
2
3.
As of October 17, 2018, ENRD has expended $2,134,141.09
on expert witness invoice payments; $13,333.57 on invoice payments
for
depositions
and
transcripts;
and
$121,611.61
on
employee
travel expenses.
4.
The liability phase of trial in this case will begin on
October 29, 2018, and is expected to last approximately 50 calendar
days over the course of several months.
The district court has
scheduled the first two weeks of this phase of trial for October
29 through November 9, 2018.
5.
The parties have indicated that they will call 29 expert
witnesses during
this phase
of
trial, and as many as 43
witnesses, for a total of 72 potential witnesses.
lay
The expert
witnesses will testify to a broad range of topics, including the
impacts of climate change on ocean chemistry, sea level, glaciers,
terrestrial ecosystems, and human physical and emotional health,
as well as the technical and economic feasibility of transitioning
to renewable sources of energy and sequestering carbon from the
atmosphere.
of
expert
That proposed testimony is described in 1,156 pages
reports
and
approximately 130
hours
of
depositions
completed as of October 12.
6.
Between now and the end of the liability phase of trial,
I estimate that ENRD will expend another $5.2 million in expert
witness
fees,
in
addition
to
the
following
sundry
expenses:
$198,986.65 for travel-related expenses from October 2018 through
5a
3
February 2019; $40,000 in transcript, copying, and shipping costs;
and $9,600 for a conference room at trial.
7.
Primary
responsibilities
for
handling
this
phase
of
trial have been assigned to five attorneys and three paralegals.
I estimate that each attorney will expend anywhere from 60 to 80
hours per week on this case for the ten weeks I expect trial to be
in session, and anywhere from 30 to 40 hours per week on this case
when trial is not in session, viz., the weeks of Nov. 12-16, Nov.
19-23, Dec. 17-21, Dec. 24-28, and Dec. 31-Jan. 4.
I also estimate
that each
hours per
attorney
will
work
between 10 and
12
day
between now and the start of this phase of trial on October 29.
Similarly, I estimate that the three paralegals assigned to this
trial will expend a combined total of 220 hours per week on this
case for the ten weeks I expect trial to be in session, and a
combined total of 100 hours per week on this case while trial is
not in session.
I also estimate that those three paralegals will
work a combined 24 hours per day on this case between now and the
start of this phase of trial on October 29.
number
in
each
range,
and
if
trial
Based on the lowest
proceeds
as
expected,
I
conservatively estimate that ENRD attorneys and paralegals will
expend at least 7,300 hours on the liability phase of trial between
now and February, 2019.
8.
Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of
Plaintiffs' Witness List, which Plaintiffs filed with the district
court on October 15, 2018.
6a
4
9.
Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of
Defendants' Witness List, which Defendants filed with the district
court on October 15, 2018.
10.
Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the
Exhibit List Plaintiffs served on Defendants on October 12, 2018,
with column-widths modified solely for purposes of facilitating
printing.
11.
Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the
Exhibit List Defendants served on Plaintiffs on October 12, 2018,
with column-widths modified solely for purposes of facilitating
printing.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
on this 17th day of October, 2018.
GUILLERMO A.,
ONTERO
Executed
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 1 of 17
7a
JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230)
JuliaAOlson@gmail.com
Wild Earth Advocates
1216 Lincoln Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Tel: (415) 786-4825
ANDREA K. RODGERS (OR Bar 041029)
Andrearodgers42@gmail.com
Law Offices of Andrea K. Rodgers
3026 NW Esplanade
Seattle, WA 98117
Tel: (206) 696-2851
PHILIP L. GREGORY (pro hac vice)
pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com
Gregory Law Group
1250 Godetia Drive
Redwood City, CA 94062
Tel: (650) 278-2957
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA;
XIUHTEZCATL TONATIUH M., through his
Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States; et al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-AA
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 2 of 17
8a
Pursuant to the Court’s Order in this matter, Youth Plaintiffs hereby submit the following
Witness List. Youth Plaintiffs reserve the right to call any witnesses identified on Defendants’
witness list. The Youth Plaintiffs hereby submit the following list of individuals who will or may
be called to testify at the bench trial in the above-captioned case set to begin October 29, 2018.
I.
FACT WITNESSES
The names and addresses of witnesses, other than experts, to be called at trial and the
general nature of the testimony of each are:
1.
Jessica Wentz, Senior Fellow and Associate Researcher, Sabin Center for Climate
Change Law, Columbia Law School, WILL TESTIFY regarding actions of the
Defendants taken during the Trump Administration to perpetuate a fossil fuel-based
energy system. 435 West 116th Street, New York, New York 10027.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
2.
Aji P. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been injured
due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change. c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
3.
Alexander L. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
4.
Avery M. is a Plaintiff in this action. She WILL TESTIFY about how she has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
1
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 3 of 17
9a
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
5.
Hazel V. is a Plaintiff in this action. She WILL TESTIFY about how she has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
6.
Isaac V. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been injured
due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change. c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
7.
Jacob L. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been injured
due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change. c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
8.
Jayden F. is a Plaintiff in this action. She WILL TESTIFY about how she has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
9.
Journey Z. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
10.
Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana is a Plaintiff in this action. She WILL TESTIFY about
how she has been injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
2
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 4 of 17
10a
climate change. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA
94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
11.
Kiran O. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been injured
due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change. c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
12.
Levi D. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been injured
due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change. c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
13.
Miko V. is a Plaintiff in this action. She WILL TESTIFY about how she has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
14.
Nathaniel B. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
15.
Nicholas V. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
3
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 5 of 17
11a
16.
Sahara V. is a Plaintiff in this action. She WILL TESTIFY about how she has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
17.
Sophie K. is a Plaintiff in this action. She WILL TESTIFY about how she has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
18.
Tia H. is a Plaintiff in this action. She WILL TESTIFY about how she has been injured
due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change. c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
19.
Victoria B. is a Plaintiff in this action. She WILL TESTIFY about how she has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
20.
Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he
has been injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate
change. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
21.
Zealand B. is a Plaintiff in this action. He WILL TESTIFY about how he has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
4
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 6 of 17
12a
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
22.
Jaime B. is a Plaintiff in this action. She MAY TESTIFY about how she has been
injured due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
23.
Jamescita Peshlakai MAY TESTIFY about how her daughter, Plaintiff Jaime B., has
been harmed due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate
change. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
24.
Mae Peshlakai MAY TESTIFY about how her granddaughter, Plaintiff Jaime B., has
been harmed due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate
change and how Defendants’ conduct has harmed Jaime’s family, cultural, and spiritual
traditions as a member of the Navajo Nation. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia
Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
25.
Sharon Baring MAY TESTIFY about how her son, Plaintiff Nathan B., has been
harmed due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours.
26.
Marie Venner MAY TESTIFY about how her son, Plaintiff Nick V. has been harmed
due to the Defendants’ conduct in causing and contributing to climate change. c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 2 hours
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
5
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 7 of 17
13a
27.
Rafe Pomerance MAY TESTIFY about his experiences and observations working at
World Resources Institute and the United States Department of State related to climate
change outreach and oversight; c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood
City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 4 hours.
28.
Stephen Seidel MAY TESTIFY about his experiences and observations working at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Council on Environmental Quality, and White House
Climate Change Task Force related to climate change activities; c/o Gregory Law
Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 4 hours.
29.
Susan Ying MAY TESTIFY about her experiences and observations working in the
aerospace and aeronautical industries related to renewable energy transportation; c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 4 hours
30.
Howard C. Sun or other representative from Council on Environmental Quality MAY
TESTIFY for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
31.
Representative from Office of Management and Budget MAY TESTIFY for purposes of
authentication and admissibility of government documents; Headquarters, Washington,
D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
32.
Michael Kuperberg, Ph.D. or other representative from Office of Science and
Technology Policy MAY TESTIFY for purposes of authentication and admissibility of
government documents; Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
6
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 8 of 17
14a
examination: 1 hour
33.
Eric Boyle or other representative from Department of Energy MAY TESTIFY for
purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents; Headquarters,
Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
34.
Benjamin Simon or other representative from Department of Interior MAY TESTIFY
for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
35.
Darren Timothy or other representative from Department of Transportation MAY
TESTIFY for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
36.
William Hohenstein or other representative from Department of Agriculture MAY
TESTIFY for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
37.
William Sweet, Ph.D., or other representative from Department of Commerce MAY
TESTIFY for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
38.
Rebecca Patton or other representative from Department of Defense MAY TESTIFY
for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
39.
Marissa McInnis or other representative from Department of Defense MAY TESTIFY
for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
40.
Rebecca Patton or other representative from Department of Defense MAY TESTIFY
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
7
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 9 of 17
15a
for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
41.
Kathleen White or other representative from Department of Defense MAY TESTIFY
for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
42.
Jerry Drake or other representative from Department of State MAY TESTIFY for
purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents; Headquarters,
Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
43.
Daniel Conrad or other representative from Environmental Protection Agency MAY
TESTIFY for purposes of authentication and admissibility of government documents;
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct examination: 1 hour
44.
Cheryl MacKay MAY TESTIFY purposes of authentication and admissibility of
government documents; Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; Estimated time for direct
examination: 1 hour
45.
Any witness called by Defendants.
46.
Any necessary rebuttal witnesses.
II. EXPERT WITNESSES
The names and addresses of the expert witnesses to be used by the Youth Plaintiffs at the
trial, the issue upon which each will testify, and the estimated time for direct examination are:
1.
Dr. James Hansen WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to how climate
change works, the energy imbalance created by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions,
related temperature trends, sea level rise, climate tipping points, the urgency of returning
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
8
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 10 of 17
16a
the planet to the Holocene temperature range, and the emission reduction and carbon
sequestration prescription for stabilizing the climate system and restoring Earth’s energy
balance. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
2.
Dr. Eric Rignot WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the retreat of the
grounding line of West Antarctica ice sheets, potential melting scenarios, the melting and
ice disintegration trends for East Antarctica and Greenland, current and projected ice
sheet loss, ocean warming patterns and global sea level rise. c/o Gregory Law Group,
1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
3.
Dr. Kevin Trenberth WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the impact
of fossil fuel emissions and climate change on the environment, the water cycle and
precipitation, including drought and wildfires, the increasing severity and frequency of
storms, significant rain events, and flooding. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia
Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
4.
Dr. Steven Running WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the impacts
of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems in the United States, including impacts on
species, biodiversity, ecosystem shifts and collapse, and the effects of terrestrial climate
change impacts on humans, including the Plaintiffs. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250
Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
5.
Dr. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
9
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 11 of 17
17a
impacts of fossil fuel emissions, atmospheric CO2 levels and global warming on ocean
acidification, ocean warming, coral reefs and other marine life, the corollary maximum
concentration threshold of CO2, the current state and trends of ocean acidification and
ocean warming, and the ecosystem, food chain, and human impacts of present and
ongoing harm to oceans from climate change and ocean acidification. c/o Gregory Law
Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
6.
Dr. Lise Van Susteren WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the
psychological, mental, emotional and physical impacts of climate change on young
people, including Plaintiffs. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City,
CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
7.
Peter Erickson WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the value of
consumption-based and other greenhouse gas emissions inventories and how such
inventories are prepared. Mr. Erickson will also testify regarding the influence of
government subsidies and incentives on the production of fossil fuels and associated
CO2 emissions. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
8.
Dr. Mark Jacobson WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the
feasibility of transitioning the United States from fossil fuel-based energy systems for all
sectors to 100% clean, renewable energy in all energy sectors, and the time-frame it
would take to do so. Dr. Jacobson will also testify regarding the economic feasibility of
transitioning energy systems off of fossil fuels and the comparative impacts of fossil fuels
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
10
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 12 of 17
18a
compared to clean, renewable energy on energy security, jobs, and land use. c/o Gregory
Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
9.
Dr. Frank Ackerman WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the
economic costs to society and future generations of climate change and a fossil fuelbased energy system. Dr. Ackerman will also testify to the lack of consideration of the
risks of catastrophic climate change impacts in federal decision-making regarding climate
and energy policy, the Federal Government’s use of high discounting rates, and the
undervaluing of the social cost of carbon. Dr. Ackerman will also testify to the economic
impacts of delaying in mitigating climate change. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia
Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
10.
Andrea Wulf WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the historical
evidence that a balanced order of nature and humanity’s connection with nature,
including the climate system, is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of the
United States. Ms. Wulf will also testify as to the attitudes of the founding fathers and
other leading thinkers of the early republic of the United States towards nature, and the
interconnection between these attitudes and the philosophical and ideological
underpinnings of the United States’ political and legal system, as well as to the influence
of the German explorer and scientist Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) on various
early American thinkers, writers and environmentalists, including the founding fathers.
c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 4 hours.
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
11
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 13 of 17
19a
11.
Professor Catherine Smith WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the
historical and sociological legal basis for reviewing government actions that discriminate
against and harm children under heightened judicial scrutiny. Professor Smith will also
testify as to how children are situated differently from other classes of people, and
receive and have historically received differential treatment in the American legal system
and under international law, and thus merit the status of a protected class for the purpose
of the Equal Protection Clause. Professor Smith will also testify regarding the historical
and sociological legal basis for granting children in America extraordinary legal
protection from government action and government action causing climate changerelated harms. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 4 hours.
12.
Dr. G. Philip Robertson WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the
potential capacity for improved management of United States forest, range and
agricultural lands to achieve net negative carbon emissions (i.e., sequester atmospheric
carbon) and avoid future greenhouse gas emissions, and the quantum of this potential for
carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas mitigation. Dr. Roberston will also testify
regarding the global carbon cycle generally, and how land management practices can
contribute to negative and avoided greenhouse gas emissions. c/o Gregory Law Group,
1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 4 hours.
13.
James Gustave Speth WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the
historical knowledge of the United States government, including Defendants, of climate
change, climate science, obligations to present and future generations to mitigate climate
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
12
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 14 of 17
20a
change and prevent climate change harms, and alternative pathways to power the United
States’ energy system other than through the use of fossil fuels. Mr. Speth will also
testify regarding the actions, policies and decisions of the United States government,
including Defendants, in the areas of climate change and energy, and particularly the
promotion, maintenance and further entrenching of a fossil-fuel based energy system. c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 6 hours.
14.
Dr. Harold R. Wanless WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to climate
change- and greenhouse gas emission-induced sea level rise; the relationship between
CO2 concentrations and fluctuations in sea level rise in the paleoclimate record; and the
relationship between anthropogenic climate change, ocean warming, polar ice melt, and
accelerating observed and projected sea-level rise. Dr. Wanless will also testify as to the
harms associated with sea level rise that Plaintiffs face and the urgency of stopping
additional greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent and/or mitigate these harms. c/o
Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
15.
Dr. Howard Frumkin WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the health
impacts of climate change, and particularly those health impacts affecting children, as
well as projected climate change-related health impacts on that will affect present
generations of children as they reach adulthood. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia
Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 4 hours.
16.
Dr. James H. Williams WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
13
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 15 of 17
21a
technological pathways, feasibility and costs of achieving deep decarbonization of the
United States energy system commensurate with stabilizing the climate system at nondangerous levels; the policies that could be used to achieve this outcome; the capacity of
the United States government, including Defendants, to achieve such a decarbonization
of the United States energy system; and the implications of such a decarbonization of the
United States energy system on quality of life and standards of living. c/o Gregory Law
Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
17.
Dr. Joseph E. Stiglitz WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the
economic dimensions of the climate change-related risks, costs and harms to Plaintiffs
and other children that are occurring and will continue to occur if defendants continue to
pursue policies perpetuating a fossil fuel-based energy system and defer action to
mitigate climate change. Dr. Stiglitz will also testify regarding the economics, including
the feasibility and benefits, of transitioning to a non-fossil fuel economy now rather than
later, and the economic tools available to achieve this transition. c/o Gregory Law Group,
1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
18.
Dr. Susan E. Pacheco WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the public
health impacts on children from climate change and air pollution from fossil fuels. Dr.
Pacheco will also testify regarding the unique vulnerability of children to the impacts of
climate change and air pollution from fossil fuels, and the particular vulnerability of
certain populations of children, including several Plaintiffs. c/o Gregory Law Group,
1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
14
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 16 of 17
22a
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
19.
Dr. Karrie P. Walters WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the expert
reports of Dr. Jeffrey Sugar and Dr. Lise Van Susteren; psychological harms from
climate change; and the psychological coping strategies and options of Plaintiffs in the
face of anthropogenic climate change. Dr. Walters will also testify as to the distinction
between, on the one hand, mental health disorders and diagnoses, and, on the other hand,
the identification of mental health harm. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive,
Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 3 hours.
20.
Dr. Akilah Jefferson WILL TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the expert
reports of Dr. Normal Klein, Dr. Arthur Partikian, Dr. Howard Frumkin, Dr. Susan
Pacheco and Dr. Jerome Paulson; the connection between climate change, and asthma
and allergies; the way in which Plaintiffs are being specifically harmed by climate
change-connected asthma and allergies; and the empirical and clinical evidence that
climate change is a significant factor in exacerbating the risk, longevity, and severity of
asthma and allergies. c/o Gregory Law Group, 1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA
94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 3 hours.
21.
Dr. Jerry Paulson MAY TESTIFY regarding expert testimony related to the public
health impacts on children from climate change and air pollution from fossil fuels. Dr.
Paulson will also testify regarding the unique vulnerability of children to the impacts of
climate change and air pollution from fossil fuels, and the particular vulnerability of
certain populations of children, including several Plaintiffs. c/o Gregory Law Group,
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
15
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 382
Filed 10/15/18
Page 17 of 17
23a
1250 Godetia Drive, Redwood City, CA 94062.
Estimated time for direct examination: 5 hours.
DATED this 15th day of October, 2018.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Andrea K. Rodgers
Andrearodgers42@gmail.com
Law Offices of Andrea K. Rodgers
3026 NW Esplanade
Seattle, WA 98117
Tel: (206) 696-2851
Julia A. Olson (OR Bar 062230)
JuliaAOlson@gmail.com
Wild Earth Advocates
1216 Lincoln Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Tel: (415) 786-4825
Philip L. Gregory (pro hac vice)
pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com
Gregory Law Group
1250 Godetia Drive
Redwood City, CA 94062
Tel: (650) 278-2957
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS LIST
16
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 373
Filed 10/15/18
Page 1 of 7
24a
JEFFREY H. WOOD
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Environment & Natural Resources Division
LISA LYNNE RUSSELL, Chief
GUILLERMO A. MONTERO, Assistant Chief
SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar. No. 4103131)
MARISSA A. PIROPATO (MA Bar. No. 651630)
CLARE BORONOW (admitted to MD bar)
FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459)
ERIKA NORMAN (CA Bar No. 268425)
Trial Attorneys
Natural Resources Section
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 305-0445
Facsimile: (202) 305-0506
sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANTS’ WITNESS LIST
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
DEFS.’ WITNESS LIST
Case No. 6:15-CV-01517-TC
-1-
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 373
Filed 10/15/18
Page 2 of 7
25a
INTRODUCTION
Defendants maintain that this case should be dismissed. Defendants acknowledge that
this Court has disagreed with Defendants’ challenges, but respectfully reaffirm their position that
this case is improper for several reasons. Among other things, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring
this lawsuit, the Administrative Procedure Act requires Plaintiffs’ lawsuit to challenge discrete
government action or a discrete failure to act, which their complaint fails to do, Plaintiffs’ claims
infringe on legislative and executive functions that the Constitution assigns to the political
branches, and the complaint fails to state legally cognizable theories of recovery. The Ninth
Circuit and the Supreme Court contemplated a narrowing of this case before trial, which for the
most part has not occurred. Trial is also improper because de novo proceedings are
presumptively improper in cases governed by the APA’s judicial review provisions. Defendants’
compliance with Court orders, including the submission of a witness list, should not be viewed
as a concession that trial is proper; nor should Defendants’ compliance be viewed as a waiver of
Defendants’ objections to these proceedings.
Defendants intend to introduce the expert and fact witnesses listed below during trial. If
called, the witnesses listed below will testify to the facts and opinions as delineated below.
Depositions and other discovery are ongoing as of the date of this filing. Accordingly,
Defendants reserve the right to supplement this list at a later date. Defendants also reserve the
right to not call the witnesses listed below.
EXPERT WITNESSES
Howard Herzog: If called to testify, Mr. Herzog will offer the expert testimony that is
memorialized in his expert report. Mr. Herzog’s testimony rebuts the conclusion that it is both
technologically and economically feasible to transition from a predominantly fossil fuel-based
DEFS.’ WITNESS LIST
-2-
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 373
Filed 10/15/18
Page 3 of 7
26a
energy system to a 100 percent renewable energy system for all energy sectors by 2050, with
about 80 percent conversion by 2030.
Norman Klein: If called to testify, Dr. Klein will offer the expert testimony that is memorialized
in his expert report. Dr. Klein’s testimony elaborates on the standard of medical care applicable
to Plaintiffs’ allegations of respiratory health, and allergy issues. Dr. Klein’s testimony further
addresses Plaintiffs’ experts’ discussion of Plaintiffs’ alleged respiratory health and allergy
issues and climate change.
Arthur Partikian: If called to testify, Dr. Partikian will offer the expert testimony that is
memorialized in his expert report. Dr. Partikian’s testimony elaborates on the standard of
medical care applicable to Plaintiffs’ allegations of neurological harm. Dr. Partikian’ testimony
also addresses Plaintiffs’ experts’ discussion of Plaintiffs’ alleged neurological harm and climate
change.
Jeffrey Sugar: If called to testify, Dr. Sugar will offer the expert testimony that is memorialized
in his expert report and expert rebuttal report. Dr. Sugar’s testimony elaborates on the standard
of medical care applicable to Plaintiffs’ allegations of psychological harm. Dr. Sugar’s
testimony also addresses Plaintiffs’ experts’ discussion of Plaintiffs’ alleged psychological harm
and climate change.
Daniel Sumner: If called to testify, Dr. Sumner will offer the expert testimony that is memorialized
in his expert report. Dr. Sumner’s testimony evaluates the policy requirements, the feasibility, and
the broader consequences of implementing the land management practices that Plaintiffs’ experts’
propose.
James Sweeney: If called to testify, Dr. Sweeney will offer the expert testimony that is
memorialized in his expert report and expert rebuttal report. Dr. Sweeney will testify to the
DEFS.’ WITNESS LIST
-3-
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 373
Filed 10/15/18
Page 4 of 7
27a
objectives that are and have historically been balanced in formulating energy policy, the
decarbonization of the U.S. economy over time, the role of federal policies and programs in the
decarbonization of the U.S. economy over time, the role of federal policies and programs in the
energy-related carbon intensity of the U.S. economy over time, the federal government’s
consideration of the policy proposals Plaintiffs and their experts propose, the relationship
between the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions and Plaintiffs’ alleged harms, and
the technical feasibility and efficacy of Plaintiffs’ experts’ proposed changes to U.S. energy
policy.
David Victor: If called to testify, Dr. Victor will offer the expert testimony that is memorialized
in his expert report. Dr. Victor will assess Plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions on the U.S. share of
greenhouse gas emissions and the feasibility of transitioning to a consumption-based accounting
system. Dr. Victor will also address the impacts that Plaintiffs’ experts’ proposed reforms to
fossil fuel subsidies and leases would have on greenhouse gas emissions. And Dr. Victor will
address Plaintiffs’ experts’ conclusions on the federal government’s role in the use of fossil fuels
in the U.S. economy and the United States’ need to engage international trading partners to adopt
meaningful policy interventions to address climate change.
John Weyant: If called to testify, Dr. Weyant will offer the expert testimony that is
memorialized in his expert report. Dr. Weyant will address the scope of conclusions on
attribution and the results of different climate modeling runs that explore different U.S. emission
scenarios.
DEFS.’ WITNESS LIST
-4-
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 373
Filed 10/15/18
Page 5 of 7
28a
FACT WITNESSES
Rebecca Patton: If called to testify, Ms. Patton will offer testimony to authenticate documents
on behalf of the United States Department of Defense and other testimony in relation to those
documents.
Marissa McInnis: If called to testify, Ms. McInnis will offer testimony to authenticate
documents on behalf of the United States Department of Defense and other testimony in relation
to those documents.
Kathleen White: If called to testify, Ms. White will offer testimony to authenticate documents
on behalf of the United States Department of Defense and other testimony in relation to those
documents.
Jerry Drake: If called to testify, Mr. Drake will offer testimony to authenticate documents on
behalf of the United States Department of State and other testimony in relation to those
documents.
Eric Boyle: If called to testify, Mr. Boyle will offer testimony to authenticate documents on
behalf of the United States Department of Energy and other testimony in relation to those
documents.
William Hohenstein: If called to testify Mr. Hohenstein will offer testimony to authenticate
documents on behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture and other testimony in
relation to those documents.
Daniel Conrad: If called to testify, Mr. Conrad will offer testimony to authenticate documents
on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and other testimony in relation
to those documents.
DEFS.’ WITNESS LIST
-5-
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 373
Filed 10/15/18
Page 6 of 7
29a
Howard C. Sun: If called to testify, Mr. Sun will offer testimony to authenticate documents on
behalf of the United States Council on Environmental Quality and other testimony in relation to
those documents.
Benjamin Simon: If called to testify, Mr. Simon will offer testimony to authenticate documents
on behalf of the United States Department of the Interior and other testimony in relation to those
documents.
William Sweet, Ph.D.:
If called to testify, Mr. Sweet will offer testimony to authenticate
documents on behalf of the United States Department of Commerce and other testimony in
relation to those documents.
Michael Kuperberg, Ph.D.: If called to testify, Dr. James Michael (“Michael”) Kuperberg will
offer testimony to authenticate documents on behalf of the United States Office of Science and
Technology Policy. In addition, Dr. Kuperberg will offer testimony to authenticate documents
on behalf of the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and other testimony
in relation to those documents.
Darren Timothy: If called to testify, Mr. Timothy will offer testimony to authenticate documents
on behalf of the United States Department of Transportation and other testimony in relation to
those documents.
Cheryl MacKay: If called to testify, Ms. MacKay will offer testimony to authenticate
congressional documents on behalf of the United States as well as a summary of those
documents pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
Dated: October 15, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY H. WOOD
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Environment & Natural Resources Division
DEFS.’ WITNESS LIST
-6-
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA
Document 373
Filed 10/15/18
Page 7 of 7
30a
/s/ Sean C. Duffy
LISA LYNNE RUSSELL
GUILLERMO A. MONTERO
SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)
MARISSA PIROPATO (MA Bar No. 651630)
CLARE BORONOW (admitted to MD bar)
FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459)
ERIKA NORMAN (CA Bar No. 268425)
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Natural Resources Section
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 305-0445
Facsimile: (202) 305-0506
sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
DEFS.’ WITNESS LIST
-7-
31a
Category
Docket
Number
Title of Document
Date
Bates numbers of Agency Source and/or Website URL for Document
Document
author of Document
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐191
299‐192
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐193
17‐Sep‐69 P00000029996‐
P00000029997
1975
P00000039145‐
P00000039414
7‐Jul‐77
P00000030009‐
P00000030010
Daniel Moynihan
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐194
Memorandum from Daniel Moynihan to John
Ehrlichman
Understanding Climatic Change. A Program for
Action
Memorandum from Frank Press to the President,
Release of Fossil CO2 and the Possibility of
Catastrophic Climate Change
Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific
Assessment
1979
P00000030548‐
P00000030565
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐195
Environmental Quality: The Eighth Annual Report
of the Council on Environmental Quality
1977
P00000030011‐
P00000030486
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐196
Environmental Quality: The Eleventh Annual
Report of the Council of Environmental Quality
Dec‐80
P00000030566‐
P00000031149
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐197
Solar Energy: Progress and Promise
Apr‐78
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐198
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐199
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐200
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐201
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐202
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐203
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐204
Dec‐85
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐205
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐206
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐207
Detecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon
Dioxide (DOE/ER‐0235)
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Carbon
Cycle (DOE/ER‐0239)
Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. Part 2.
Environmental Quality: 13th Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality
National Academy of https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/cha
Sciences (Jule
rney_report1979.pdf
Charney, Chairman)
Council on
https://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/a
Environmental Quality ugust‐1977‐the‐eighth‐annual‐report‐of‐
the‐council‐on‐environmental‐quality
Council on
https://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/a
Environmental Quality ugust‐1980‐the‐eleventh‐annual‐report‐
of‐the‐council‐on‐env
Council on
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED164264
Environmental Quality .pdf
Jimmy Carter
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print
.php?pid=30746
Council on
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951d0
Environmental Quality 03573546
Jimmy Carter
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print
.php?pid=7373
U.S. DOE, Office of
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31822016
Energy Research
268534
National Research
Council
U.S. DOE
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mi
chael_MacCracken/publication/23653442
0_Projecting_the_Climatic_Effects_of_Incr
easing_Carbon_Dioxide/links/568edcd108
aead3f42f075b4.pdf
U.S. DOE
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/62649
45
U.S. DOE
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/60484
70
Dr. James Hansen
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐208
1993
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐209
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐210
PRD‐12/Global Climate Change Policy Decision
Paper
National Energy Strategy: Powerful Ideas for
America
Global Warming. Administration Approach
Cautious Pending Validation of Threat
P00000030487‐
P00000030544
Golden, Colorado Remarks at the Solar Energy
3‐May‐78 P00000030545‐
Research Institute on South Table Mountain
P00000030547
Global Energy Futures and the Carbon Dioxide
1981
P00000031150‐
Problem
P00000031258
National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the
20‐Apr‐77 P00000029998‐
President’s Program
P00000030008
Proceedings of the Workshop on First Detection of June 8‐10, P00000031259‐
Carbon Dioxide Effects
1981
P00000031819
Energy and Climate
1977
P00000039415‐
P00000039589
Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dec‐85
P00000032164‐
Dioxide (DOE/ER‐0237)
P00000032575
P00000032917‐
P00000033145
1985
P00000032576‐
P00000032916
23‐Jun‐88 P00000036792‐
P00000037010
1982
P00000031820‐
P00000032163
Feb‐91
Jan‐90
P00000029864‐
P00000029871
P00000033222‐
P00000033357
P00000039990‐
P00000040036
National Academy of
Sciences
Frank Press
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrar
y/releases/jul10/56.pdf
https://archive.org/details/understanding
cli00unit
Council on
https://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/a
Environmental Quality ugust‐1982‐the‐thirteenth‐annual‐report‐
of‐the‐council‐on‐environmental‐quality
U.S. DOS
U.S. DOE
U.S. General
Accounting Office
https://www.gao.gov/assets/150/148577.
Defendants
object to
authenticity?
Defendants object to
admissibility?
32a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐211
Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Feb‐91
Gases
P00000033358‐
P00000033716
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐212
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐213
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 1992
Change
Timothy Wirth. First Conference of the Parties to
1995
the Framework Convention on Climate Change
P00000033717‐
P00000033741
P00000033761‐
P00000033772
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐214
1997
P00000039590‐
P00000039987
Council on
https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq‐
Environmental Quality reports/ceq‐annual‐report‐1996.pdf
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐215
1998
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐216
Environmental Quality. Along the American River.
The 1996 Report of the Council on Environmental
Quality
Environmental Quality. The 1997 Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality
Kyoto Protocol
Council on
https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq‐
Environmental Quality reports/ceq‐annual‐report‐1997.pdf
United Nations
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐217
The Climate Change Action Plan
1993
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐218
Selected Questions and Answers on the President’s 1993
Climate Action Plan
P00000034026‐
P00000032393
P00000029955‐
P00000029975
P00000039000‐
P00000039142
P00000033745‐
P00000033760
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐219
Scenarios of U.S Carbon Reductions: Potential
Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and
Beyond
1997
P00000033773‐
P00000034025
U.S. DOE, Office of
Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐220
1999
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐221
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐222
Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production Technology
Remarks Announcing the Clear Skies and Global
Climate Change Initiatives in Silver Spring,
Maryland
National Energy Policy, Report of the National
Energy Policy Development Group
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐223
Political Interference with Climate Change Science
Under the Bush Administration
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐224
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐225
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐226
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐1
Climate Change Adaptation by Federal Agencies:
An Analysis of Plans and Issues for Congress
23‐Feb‐15 P00000004358‐
P00000004461
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐2
Agriculture and Climate Change
14‐Oct‐16 P00000007224‐
P00000007226
1997
Congressional Office
of Technology
Assessment
United Nations
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu
/bitstream/handle/10822/708292/9111.P
DF?sequence=1
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/
conveng.pdf
Timothy Wirth
William J. Clinton,
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31822033
Albert Gore, Jr.
838525
White House Office on
Environmental Policy
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/814844‐
scenarios‐carbon‐reductions‐potential‐
impacts‐energy‐efficient‐low‐carbon‐
technologies‐beyond
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/77112
5
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/inde
x.php?pid=73200
P00000034394‐
P00000034561
14‐Feb‐02 P00000034732‐
P00000034735
U.S. DOE
May‐01
P00000034562‐
P00000034731
National Energy Policy www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0428/ML04280005
Development Group 6.pdf
Dec‐07
P00000034736‐
P00000034773
Second National Assessment: Global Climate
Jun‐09
Change Impacts in the United States
Dec‐09
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act
Climate Change Indicators in the United States
2014
(Third edition)
P00000034774‐
P00000034969
P00000036586‐
P00000036637
U.S. House of
Representatives
Committee on
Oversight and
Government Reform
U.S. Global Change
Research Program
U.S. EPA
P00000035635‐
P00000035744
George W. Bush
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=481710
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usim
pacts/pdfs/climate‐impacts‐report.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2009‐
12‐15/pdf/E9‐29537.pdf
U.S. EPA
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fil
es/2016‐07/documents/climateindicators‐
full‐2014.pdf
Jane A. Leggett,
Congressional
Research Service
USDA, Economic
Research Service
http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp‐
content/uploads//assets/crs/R43915.pdf
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural‐
resources‐environment/climate‐
change/agriculture‐and‐climate‐change/
33a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐3
Land Areas of the National Forest System
Jan‐12
P00000001268‐
P00000001532
P00000005071‐
P00000005122
USDA, Forest Service
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐4
The U.S. Forest Service – An Overview
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐5
Federal Land
Ownership: Overview and Data
3‐Mar‐17
P00000005006‐
P00000005033
Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National
Forests and Grasslands
n.d.
P00000007198‐
P00000007200
Carol Hardy Vincent;
Congressional
Research Service
USDA, Forest Service
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐7
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐8
Historic Harvest Trends: 1984 to Present
n.d.
P00000005059‐
P00000005067
USDA, Forest Service
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐9
Feb‐11
270‐11
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐12
P00000000986‐
P00000001017
P00000000984‐
P00000000985
P00000004462‐
P00000004464
USDA, Forest Service
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐14
National Roadmap for Responding to Climate
Change
National Roadmap for Responding to Climate
Change: A Summary
Climate Change Advisor’s Office Briefing Paper:
Baseline Estimates of Carbon Stocks in Forests and
Harvested Wood Products for National Forest
System Units
Forests and Carbon Storage
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐15
Total Carbon Storage in U.S. Forests by State and
Ownership Group
21‐Jul‐14
P00000007206‐
P00000007219
P00000004497‐
P00000004498
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐16
8‐Jan‐10
P00000000794‐
P00000000831
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/print/topics
/forests‐carbon
https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/Forest%20Carbo
n/methods/docs/2014/Total%20forest%2
0carbon20140721.xlsx
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nr
s13R.pdf
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐18
4‐Aug‐15
270‐19
n.d.
P00000004767‐
P00000004782
P00000005070
USDA, Forest Service
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
U.S. Forest Carbon
Calculation Tool: Forest‐Land Carbon Stocks and
Net Annual Stock Change
The Rising Cost of Wildfire Operations: Effects on
the Forest Service’s Non‐Fire Work
Federal Firefighting Costs (Suppression Only)
Mike Ryan; USDA,
Forest Service
USDA, Forest Service,
Forest Inventory and
Analysis Program
James E. Smith; USDA,
Forest Service
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐20
Forest Service Wildland Fire Suppression Costs
Exceed $2 Billion
14‐Sep‐17 P00000007079‐
P00000007081
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐21
Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment
May‐14
P00000003301‐
P00000004141
U.S. Global Change
Research Program
https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/
2015‐FireBudget‐Report.pdf
https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_do
cuments/SuppCosts.pdf.
https://www.usda.gov/media/press‐
releases/2017/09/14/forest‐service‐
wildland‐firesuppression‐costs‐exceed‐2‐
billion
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nca2014/low/
NCA3_Climate_Change_Impacts_in_the_U
nited%20States_LowRes.pdf?download=1
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐22
Jan‐04
270‐23
P00000005557‐
P00000005567
P00000001791‐
P00000002072
Valerie Rapp
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐24
Science Update: Western Forests, Fire Risk, and
Climate Change
Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on
Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science
Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector
Climate Change and Agriculture in the United
States: Effects and Adaptation
Feb‐13
P00000002073‐
P00000002265
C. L. Walthall; USDA
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐25
Climate Solutions
n.d.
P00000007220‐
P00000007221
USDA
Sep‐10
6‐Mar‐15
n.d.
Dec‐12
USDA, Forest Service
USDA, Forest Service
USDA, Forest Service
National Interagency
Fire Center
USDA
USDA, Forest Service
https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR2
011/LAR2011_Book_A5.pdf
https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/
media/types/publication/field_pdf/USFS‐
overview0106MJS.pdf
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement
/products/cut‐sold/index.shtml (last
visited Mar. 10, 2018).
https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement
/documents/harvest‐trends/NFS‐
HarvestHistory1984‐2017.pdf
https://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/pdf
/Roadmapfinal.pdf
https://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/pdf
/Brochure_FINAL.pdf
https://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/doc
uments/CarbonAssessmentsBriefingPaper.
https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science‐
update‐6.pdf
https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_chang
e/effects_2012/FS_Climate1114%20opt.p
df
https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_chang
e/effects_2012/CC%20and%20Agriculture
%20Report%20(02‐04‐2013)b.pdf
https://www.usda.gov/topics/climate‐
solutions
34a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐26
Carbon Sequestration
n.d.
P00000007222‐
P00000007223
P00000004816‐
P00000004925
National Resource
Conservation Service
USDA, Forest Service
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_
DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_066823.pdf
https://www.fs.fed.us/rangeland‐
management/documents/grazingstats/20
10s/GrazingStatisticalSummaryFY2015.pdf
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐32
Grazing Statistical Summary: FY2015
Mar‐16
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐33
Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas
Inventory: 1990–2008
Jun‐11
P00000005123‐
P00000005284
USDA
https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_chang
e/AFGG_Inventory/USDA_GHG_Inv_1990‐
2008_June2011.pdf
http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wpconten
t/uploads//assets/crs/R43860.pdf
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐34
Methane: An Introduction to Emission Sources and 18‐Nov‐16 P00000004955‐
Reduction Strategies
P00000005005
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐35
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐36
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐37
Welcome to Minerals & Geology Management
(MGM)
Challenges Facing Domestic Oil and Gas
Development: Review Of Bureau Of Land
Management/U.S. Forest Service Ban On
Horizontal Drilling On Federal Lands: Hearing
Before the H. Subcomm on Energy & Mineral
Resources & the H. Subcomm. on Conservation,
Energy, & Forestry
Coal
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐38
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐39
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐40
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐41
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐42
Overview of the Department of Energy Carbon
Dioxide Research Program
Feb‐85
P00000017171‐
P00000017177
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐44
U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate
Change and Extreme Weather
Jul‐13
P00000017302‐
P00000017385
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐45
Department of Energy Seeks Information on Small‐ 8‐May‐18
Scale Modular Coal‐Based Power Plants of the
Future
23‐Mar‐18 P00000007227‐
P00000007229
8‐Jul‐11
P00000001180‐
P00000001267
2‐Jan‐13
The American Energy Initiative, Part 27: A Focus On 2‐Aug‐12
Growing Differences For Energy
Development On Federal Versus Non–Federal
Lands: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Energy &
Power
Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan
n.d.
Climate Change Mitigation Strategies in the Forest Jun‐95
and Agriculture Sectors
Aug‐80
Carbon dioxide effects research and assessment
program. A comprehensive plan. Part I. The global
carbon cycle and climatic effects of increasing
carbon dioxide
Richard K. Lattanzio;
Congressional
Research Service
USDA, Forest Service
https://www.fs.fed.us/geology/index.html
112th Congress
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG‐
112hhrg72151/pdf/CHRG112hhrg72151.p
df
P00000007192‐
P00000007193
P00000002886‐
P00000003056
USDA, Forest Service
https://www.fs.fed.us/geology/energyCoa
l.html
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG112
hhrg82689/pdf/CHRG‐112hhrg82689.pdf
P00000001765‐
P00000001790
P00000000001‐
P00000000084
P00000010000‐
P00000010099
USDA
P00000017981‐
P00000017983
112th Congress
U.S. EPA and U.S.
Forest Service
David H. Slade, U.S.
DOE Office of Health
and Environmental
Research, Carbon
Dioxide and Climate
Division
Michael R. Riches &
Frederick A.
Koomanoff, U.S. DOE
Office of Basic Energy
Sciences, Carbon
Dioxide Research
Division
Craig Zamuda, U.S.
DOE Office of Policy
and International
Affairs
U.S. DOE, Office of
Fossil Energy
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/50460
01
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1
175/1520‐
0477%281985%29066%3C0152%3AOOTD
OE%3E2.0.CO%3B2
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2013/07/f2/20130710‐Energy‐Sector‐
Vulnerabilities‐Report.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/articles/departm
ent‐energy‐seeks‐information‐small‐scale‐
modular‐coal‐based‐power‐plants‐future
35a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐46
How to Obtain Authorization to Import and/or
Export Natural Gas and LNG
n.d.
P00000017944‐
P00000017947
U.S. DOE, Office of
Fossil Energy
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐47
U.S. DOE, Office of
Fossil Energy
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐48
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐50
Long Term Applications Received by DOE/FE to
16‐Mar‐18 P00000017927‐
Export Domestically Produced LNG from the Lower‐
P00000017933
48 States (as of March, 16, 2018)
LNG Monthly (YTD – through December 2016)
n.d.
P00000012109‐
P00000012120
U.S. Energy Facts Explained: Consumption &
19‐May‐17 P00000017956‐
Production
P00000017957
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐51
How Much Carbon Dioxide is Produced When
Different Fuels Are Burned?
8‐Jun‐17
P00000017943
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐52
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐53
Long Term Strategic Review of the U.S. Strategic
Petroleum Reserve: Report to Congress
Aug‐16
P00000017988‐
P00000017993
P00000011652‐
P00000011774
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐54
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
n.d.
P00000017934‐
P00000017939
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐55
Deep Energy Retrofit Guidance for the Building
America Solutions Center
2015
P00000011199‐
P00000011293
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐56
Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy 2001
Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000
P00000011806‐
P00000012046
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐57
18‐Jul‐18
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐58
Federal MultiAgency Collaboration on
Unconventional Oil and Gas Research: A Strategy
for Research & Development
FOTW #1022, March 26, 2018: U.S. Crude Oil
Exports Skyrocketed in 2016 and 2017
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐59
Apr‐15
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐60
WindVision: A New Era for Wind Power in the
United States
Methane Hydrate
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐62
Address at The Future of Energy Global Summit
Apr‐18
P00000011180‐
P0000001119
26‐Mar‐18 P00000017994‐
P00000017996
n.d.
P00000011294‐
P00000011641
P00000017984‐
P00000017987
P00000017948‐
P00000017949
U.S. DOE, Office of
Fossil Energy
U.S. DOE, Energy
Information
Administration
U.S. DOE, Energy
Information
Administration
U.S. DOE, Office of
Fossil Energy
Ernest J. Moniz, U.S.
DOE
U.S. DOE Office of
Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy
Brennan Less & Iain
Walker, U.S. DOE
Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory,
Environmental Energy
Technologies Division
Committee on
Benefits of DOE R&D
on Energy Efficiency
and Fossil Energy,
National Research
Council
U.S. DOE, U.S. DOI,
U.S. EPA
U.S. DOE, Office of
Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy,
Vehicle Technologies
Office
U.S. DOE
U.S. DOE, Office of
Fossil Energy
Rick Perry, U.S. DOE
https://energy.gov/fe/services/natural‐
gas‐regulation/how‐obtain‐
authorizationimport‐andor‐export‐
natural‐gas‐and‐lng
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2018/03/f49/Summary%20of%20LNG%20
Export%20Applications.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2017/03/f34/LNG%202016_0.pdf
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?p
age=us_energy_home
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?i
d=73&t=11
https://energy.gov/fe/services/petroleum
‐reserves/strategic‐petroleum‐reserve
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2016/09/f33/Long‐
Term%20Strategic%20Review%20of%20th
e%20U.%20S.%20Strategic%20Petroleum
%20Reserve%20Report%20to%20Congres
s_0.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/a
ppliance‐and‐equipment‐standards‐
program
https://eta.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/publi
cations/brennan_less_‐
_deep_energy_retrofit_guidance_for_the
_building_america_solutions_center.pdf
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10165/ener
gy‐research‐at‐doe‐was‐it‐worth‐it‐
energy‐efficiency
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2017/04/f34/Multiagency_UOG_Research
_Strategy.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/ar
ticles/fotw‐1022‐march‐26‐2018‐us‐
crude‐oil‐exports‐skyrocketed‐2016‐and‐
2017
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
WindVision_Report_final.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/fe/science‐
innovation/oil‐gas‐research/methane‐
hydrate
https://vimeo.com/264052877#t=1260s
36a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐64
US Energy Secretary: CO2 is Not the Primary
Control Knob for Climate Change
19‐Jun‐17 P00000017958‐
P00000017962
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐65
Revolution . . . Now: The Future Arrives for Five
Clean Energy Technologies – 2016 Update
Sep‐16
P00000011775‐
P00000011804
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐67
Strategic Plan
May‐11
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐68
Strategic Plan 2014‐2018
Mar‐14
P00000029877‐
P00000029936
P00000011148‐
P00000011179
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐69
Statement of Donna R. Fitzpatrick
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐70
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐71
Perry Welcomes Foreign Investment on All Energy
Fronts
U.S. Will Be The World’s Largest Oil Producer By
2023, Says IEA
22‐Sep‐88 P00000010512‐
P00000010781
20‐Jun‐17 P00000017963‐
P00000017965
5‐Mar‐18 P00000017978‐
P00000017979
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐72
An America First Energy Plan
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐73
President Donald J. Trump Unleashes America’s
Energy Potential
27‐Jun‐17 P00000017966‐
P00000017970
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐74
President Donald J. Trump’s Six Months of America 20‐Jul‐17
First
P00000017971‐
P00000017977
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐75
Statement from the Press Secretary on Fuel‐Secure 1‐Jun‐18
Power Facilities
P00000017980
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐76
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐77
Presidential Permit Review for Cross‐Border
19‐Apr‐17 P00000020356‐
Pipelines & Electric Transmission
P00000020376
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Construction 24‐Jan‐17 P00000020399‐
of the Keystone XL Pipeline
P00000020401
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐78
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐79
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐80
Press Releases, “Central American Senior‐Level
Natural Gas Policy and Investment Roundtable,”
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐81
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐82
News & Events, Remarks by DAS Sandra Oudkirk,
Bureau of Energy Resources, at Martens Centre in
Brussels (March 20, 2018)
John McCarrick, Deputy Assistant Sec., Remarks at
the U.S. Gas Infrastructure Exports Initiative
Launch Event
Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Energy
Facilities
Bureau of Energy Resources
P00000011805
1‐Aug‐17
P00000020377‐
P00000020387
n.d.
P00000020414‐
P00000020416
16‐Apr‐18 P00000020417‐
P00000020418
CNBC
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/06/19
/us‐energy‐secretary‐rick‐perry‐co2‐is‐
not‐the‐primary‐control‐knob‐for‐climate‐
change.html
Paul Donohoo‐Vallett, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
U.S. DOE Office of
2016/09/f33/Revolu onâ€Now%202016%
Energy Efficiency &
20Report_2.pdf
Renewable Energy
U.S. DOE
U.S. DOE
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2011_DOE_Strategic_Plan_.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2014/04/f14/2014_dept_energy_strategic
_plan.pdf
Donna R. Fitzpatrick,
U.S. DOE
Peter Behr, E&E News https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056
274
The White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings‐
statements/u‐s‐will‐worlds‐largest‐oil‐
producer‐2023‐says‐iea/
The White House
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume
nts/3387865‐An‐America‐First‐Energy‐
Plan‐From‐WhiteHouse‐gov.html
The White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings‐
statements/president‐donald‐j‐trump‐
unleashes‐americas‐energy‐potential/
The White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings‐
statements/president‐donald‐j‐trumps‐
six‐months‐america‐first/
The White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings‐
statements/statement‐press‐secretary‐
fuel‐secure‐power‐facilities/
Congressional
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44140.pdf
Research Service
Office of the President https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential
‐actions/presidential‐memorandum‐
regarding‐construction‐keystone‐xl‐
pipeline/
Congressional
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43261.pdf
Research Service
U.S. DOS
https://www.state.gov/e/enr/index.htm
U.S. DOS
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/
04/280511.htm
20‐Mar‐18 P00000020417‐
P00000020418
U.S. DOS
17‐Nov‐17 P00000020412‐
P00000020413
U.S. DOS
https://useu.usmission.gov/remarks‐das‐
sandra‐oudkirk‐bureau‐energy‐resources‐
martens‐centre‐brussels/
https://www.state.gov/e/enr/rls/2017/27
5826.htm
37a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐83
Remarks at the Platts 40th Coal Marketing
Conference
Three Presidential Permits Issued for U.S‐Mexico
Pipelines
Issuance of Presidential Permit to TransCanada for
Keystone XL Pipeline
“Acting Special Envoy Mary Bruce Warlick’s
Remarks for Petroleum Equipment and Services
Association Members and Foreign and Civil Service
Oil and Gas Industry Training Session Participants,”
(Feb. 8, 2017)
Office of Global Change, Remarks, Briefings,
Reports and Releases
FY 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Plan
(unclassified)
Observations by the United States of America on
the Relationship Between Climate Change and
Human Rights
Second Conference of the Parties Framework
Convention on Climate Change, Geneva
Switzerland (July 17, 1996)
26‐Sep‐17 P00000020419‐
P00000020423
29‐Jun‐17 P00000020424‐
P00000020425
24‐Mar‐17 P00000020426‐
P00000020427
8‐Feb‐17 P00000020428‐
P00000020431
U.S. DOS
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐84
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐85
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐86
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐87
16‐Nov‐17 P00000020432
U.S. DOS
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐88
n.d.
P00000020333‐
P00000020355
P00000020325‐
P00000020332
U.S. DOS
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐89
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐92
17‐Jul‐96
P00000037883‐
P00000037887
270‐93
Climate Adaptation Plan: Ensuring Transportation
Infrastructure and System Resilience 5–6 (2014),
2014
P00000028083‐
P00000028111
The Honorable
Timothy E. Wirth,
Under Secretary for
Global Affairs on
behalf of the United
States of America
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐94
Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Apr‐10
Gas Emissions: Volume 1 Synthesis Report
P00000028491‐
P00000029095
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐95
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
n.d.
U.S. EPA
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐96
Research, Development, and Technology Strategic
Plan
Dec‐16
P00000029759‐
P00000029775
P00000026778‐
P00000026909
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐97
March 2018: Monthly Energy Review
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐98
Transportation Energy Data Book
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐99
Use of Energy in the United States Explained
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐100
Transportation Statistics Annual Report
27‐Mar‐18 P00000027839‐
P00000028082
Dec‐17
P00000027319‐
P00000027718
n.d.
P00000028377‐
P00000028378
2016
P00000026910‐
P00000027155
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐102
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐104
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐105
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐108
Power Sector Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fall Below 19‐Dec‐17
Transportation Sector Emissions
Carbon Intensity of Energy Use is Lowest in U.S.
1‐May‐17
and Electric Power Sectors,
Light‐Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Jan‐18
Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975
Through 2017
Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Jul‐17
Gas Emissions 1990–2015
n.d.
P00000027314‐
P00000027316
P00000027317‐
P00000027318
P00000028212‐
P00000028369
P00000028476‐
P00000028480
U.S. DOS
U.S. DOS
U.S. DOS
U.S. DOS
https://www.state.gov/e/enr/rls/2017/27
4576.htm
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/
06/272288.htm
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/
03/269074.htm
https://www.state.gov/e/enr/rls/2017/26
8180.htm
https://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/rmk
s/index.htm
https://www.state.gov/documents/organi
zation/233779.pdf
https://www.state.gov/documents/organi
zation/138855.pdf
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.
dev/files/docs/DOT%20Adaptation%20Pla
n.pdf
N/A
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sourc
es‐greenhouse‐gas‐emissions
U.S. DOT
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.
gov/files/docs/USDOT‐RD%26T‐Strategic‐
Plan‐Final‐011117.pdf
U.S. EIA
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/m
onthly/pdf/mer.pdf
Oak Ridge National Lab https://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml
U.S. EIA
na
U.S. DOT, Bureau of
Transportation
Statistics,
U.S. EIA
https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/file
s/docs/TSAR_2016.pdf
U.S. EIA
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail
.php?id=34192
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail
.php?id=31012
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dock
ey=P100TGDW.pdf
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dock
ey=P100S7NK.pdf
38a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐109
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐111
Use of Energy in the United States Explained:
Energy Use for Transportation
2016 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan
17‐May‐17 P00000028375‐
P00000028376
Jun‐16
P00000028379‐
P00000028467
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐113
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards n.d.
P00000028468‐
P00000028470
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐114
P00000029776
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐115
Information about Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) Standards
Transportation Energy Data Book
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐119
Table A‐22: Long‐Distance Trips and Trip Miles by
Mode, in Millions
P00000027319‐
P00000027718
20‐May‐17 P00000029777‐
P00000029778
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐120
Supplemental Table A: Means of Transportation by 2009
Selected Characteristics: 2009
P00000026461‐
P00000026465
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐121
Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to
Climate Change
Jan‐10
P00000026758‐
P00000026777
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐122
Strategies for Integrating Electric Vehicles into the
Grid
Feb‐18
P00000027264‐
P00000027313
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐123
Feasibility and Implications of Electric Vehicle (EV)
Deployment and Infrastructure Development
Jan‐15
P00000026517‐
P00000026757
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐125
FHWA NHTS Brief: Electric Vehicle Feasibility
Jul‐16
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐128
May‐09
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐129
NHTSA Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information
Program Development: Phase 1 – Evaluation of
Laboratory Test Protocols
Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information—Part 2
P00000028370‐
P00000028373
P00000026357‐
P00000026460
2016
P00000029779‐
P00000029780
Office of Info. & Reg.
Affairs
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐130
Gas Pipeline Miles by System Type – 2017
2017
P00000028374
PHMSA
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐132
U.S. Natural Gas Regulatory Authorities
n.d.
P00000029786‐
P00000029787
U.S. EIA
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐133
General Pipeline FAQs
PHMSA
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐134
Annual Report Mileage for Natural Gas
Transmission & Gathering Systems
14‐Feb‐18 P00000029781‐
P00000029785
4‐Apr‐18 P00000028471‐
P00000028473
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐135
Annual Report Mileage for Gas Distribution System 4‐Apr‐18
P00000029096‐
P00000029098
PHMSA
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐136
Underground Natural Gas Storage
P00000029099‐
P00000029100
PHMSA
Feb‐10
Dec‐17
n.d.
U.S. EIA
U.S. DOT
Bureau of
Transportation
Statistics
U.S. Census Bureau
U.S. DOT
PHMSA
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?p
age=us_energy_transportation#tab2
https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/20
16%20DOT%20SSPP%20Final_Complete_S
ept_2016.pdf.
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/s
ustainability/corporate‐average‐fuel‐
economy‐cafe‐standards
https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/laws_re
gs/pdf/811286.pdf
https://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications
/highlights_of_the_2001_national_househ
old_travel_survey/table_a22
https://www2.census.gov/programs‐
surveys/commuting/tables/2009/acs‐
15/means‐of‐transportation.pdf
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.
gov/files/docs/PublicTransportationsRoleI
nRespondingToClimateChange2010.pdf
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/s
ustainability/energy/publications/ev_depl
oyment/fhwahep15021.pdf
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/s
ustainability/energy/publications/ev_depl
oyment/fhwahep15021.pdf
https://nhts.ornl.gov/briefs/EVFeasibility2
0160701.pdf
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.go
v/files/fmvss/Laboratory_Test_Protocols.p
df
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgen
daViewRule?pubId=201610&RIN=2127‐
AK76
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/faqs/general
‐pipeline‐faqs
https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/archive/a
nalysis_publications/ngpipeline/regulatory
.html
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/faqs/general
‐pipeline‐faqs
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data‐and‐
statistics/pipeline/annual‐report‐mileage‐
natural‐gas‐transmission‐gathering‐
systems
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data‐and‐
statistics/pipeline/annual‐report‐mileage‐
gas‐distribution‐systems
https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ung/index.h
tm
39a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐137
Natural Gas Consumption (Billion Cubic Feet)
n.d.
P00000029805‐
P00000029809
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐138
Pipeline Spills
Jun‐18
P00000029804
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐140
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks 1990‐2016
2018
P00000029104‐
P00000029758
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐141
Overview
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐142
Freight Facts and Figures 2017
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐143
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐144
Movements of Crude Oil and Selected Products by
Rail
Transporting Crude Oil by Rail: State and Federal
Action
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐146
Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions
Expected to Grow, but Technological and
Operational Improvements and Government
Policies Can Help Control Emission
Jun‐09
P00000028112‐
P00000028211
U.S. Government
Accountability Office
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐147
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/fuel.asp
270‐148
P00000029788‐
P00000029795
P00000026475‐
P00000026516
U.S. DOT
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
Airline Fuel Cost and Consumption (U.S. Carriers – 2018
Scheduled)
Aviation Emissions, Impacts & Mitigation: A Primer Jan‐15
Fed. Aviation Admin
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐149
Aviation Environmental and Energy Policy
Statement
Jul‐12
P00000026466‐
P00000026474
Fed. Aviation Admin
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐150
n.d.
270‐151
P00000029101‐
P00000029103
P00000029796‐
P00000029797
Fed. Aviation Admin
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐152
Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned
Aircraft
Deepwater Port Licensing Program: Welcome to
the Maritime Administration’s Deepwater Port
Licensing for LNG and Oil Webpage
Deepwater Port Licensing Program: Approved
Applications and Operational Facilities
n.d.
P00000029798‐
P00000029803
MARAD
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐154
Public Land Statistics 2015
May‐16
P00000024610‐
P00000024885
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐156
New Energy Frontier
13‐Jan‐12 P00000020743‐
P00000020756
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/Prim
er_Jan2015.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he
adquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_gui
dance/policy/media/FAA_EE_Policy_State
ment.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?new
sId=76240
https://www.marad.dot.gov/ports/office‐
of‐deepwater‐ports‐and‐offshore‐
activities/
https://www.marad.dot.gov/ports/office‐
of‐deepwater‐ports‐and‐offshore‐
activities/
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
documents/files/Public%20Land%20Statis
tics2015%20%281%29.pdf
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ib
mcloud.com/files/uploads/FY2013_BIB_D
H027.pdf
P00000028474‐
P00000028475
2017
P00000027156‐
P00000027263
n.d.
P00000028481‐
P00000028482
30‐Oct‐15 P00000028483‐
P00000028490
n.d.
Bureau of
Transportation
Statistics
PHMSA
U.S. EPA
Fed. Railroad Admin
U.S. DOT
U.S. EIA
Daniel Shea, Kristy
Hartman, & Sijia Qiu
MARAD
U.S. DOI
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/osea/seaso
naladjustment/?PageVar=NATURAL_GAS
https://hip.phmsa.dot.gov/ (last visited
Apr. 25, 2018) (access through search in
Pipeline Data Mart).
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data‐and‐
statistics/pipeline/national‐pipeline‐
performance‐measures (access through
"Accidents Impacting People or the
Environment" link)
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fil
es/2018‐
01/documents/2018_complete_report.pd
f
https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0351
https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/file
s/docs/FFF_2017.pdf
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move
_railNA_a_EPC0_RAIL_mbbl_a.htm
http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/tra
nsporting‐crude‐oil‐by‐rail‐state‐and‐
federal‐action.aspx
40a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐157
How it Works: Coal
n.d.
P00000024957‐
P00000024962
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
270‐158
DOI Secretarial Order 3338: Discretionary
15‐Jan‐16 P00000024079‐
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to
P00000024088
Modernize the Federal Coal Program
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐1
Energy Fast Facts
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐2
Coal Data Browser
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐3
Electricity Data Browser
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐4
U.S. BLM
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐5
2 Final Environmental Impact Statement: Eastern n.d.
Powder River Coal
Basin of Wyoming
BLM Oil and Gas Lease Sales Generate $360 Million 31‐Jan‐18 P00000024970‐
in 2017: Total Is Highest in Nearly a Decade
P00000024972
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐6
Press Release: Secretary Zinke Announces Plan for
Unleashing America’s Offshore Oil and
4‐Jan‐18
P00000024973‐
P00000024979
U.S. DOI
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐8
Coal
n.d.
U.S. BLM
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐9
Coal Data
n.d.
P00000024895‐
P00000024899
P00000024595
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐10
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐11
Instruction Memorandum No. 2018‐034: Updating 31‐Jan‐18 P00000024980‐
P00000024989
Oil and Gas Leasing Reform – Land Use Planning
and Lease Parcel Reviews
Oil and Gas Statistics
n.d.
P00000025010
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐13
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐14
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐16
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐17
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐18
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐20
P00000024963‐
P00000024967
P00000024968‐
P00000024969
P00000024940‐
P00000024941
P00000024110‐
P00000024327
U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in
Federal and Nonfederal Areas
BLM Releases Statistics on Oil and Gas Activity on
Federal, Indian Lands
22‐Jun‐16 P00000024096‐
P00000024109
11‐Apr‐16 P00000025011‐
P00000025014
Interior Department Supported $106 Billion in
Recreation, Conservation, Water and Renewable
Energy Investments, Supporting More than
860,000 Jobs in FY 2015
Total Number of Leases in Effect
17‐Jun‐16 P00000024900‐
P00000024906
Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and
Indian Lands, FY 2003 through FY 2014
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
2005‐2018
n.d.
P00000024585‐
P00000024594
Jul‐15
P00000024043‐
P00000024078
P00000024886
6‐Mar‐18
U.S. DOI, Natural
Resources Revenue
Data
U.S. DOI
https://revenuedata.doi.gov/how‐it‐
works/coal/
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
programs_energyandminerals_coalSO333
8.pdf
U.S. DOI
https://www.doi.gov/energy/fast‐facts
U.S. EIA
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/bro
wser
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/bro
wser
https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl‐
frontoffice/projects/nepa/67005/82492/9
8469/EPRB_FEIS_Vol2.pdf
https://www.blm.gov/press‐release/blm‐
oil‐andgas‐lease‐sales‐generate‐360‐
million‐2017.
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secret
ary‐zinke‐announces‐plan‐unleashing‐
americasoffshore‐oil‐and‐gas‐potential.
https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy‐
and‐minerals/coal
https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy‐
and‐minerals/coal/coal‐data
https://www.blm.gov/policy/im‐2018‐
034.
U.S. EIA
U.S. BLM
U.S. BLM
U.S. BLM
U.S. BLM
https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy‐
and‐minerals/oil‐and‐gas/oil‐and‐gas‐
statistics
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42432.pdf.
Marc Humphries;
Congressional Service
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
https://www.blm.gov/press‐
release/blmreleases‐statistics‐oil‐and‐gas‐
activity‐federal‐indian‐lands‐0.
U.S. DOI
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interi
or‐department‐supported106‐billion‐
recreation‐conservation‐water‐and‐
renewable.
U.S. DOI
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
oilandgas_ogstatistics_t2totalnumberleas
esineffect.xlsx
U.S. EIA
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fe
derallands/pdf/eiafederallandsales.pdf.
U.S. DOI, Bureau of
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
iles/Annual%20Production%202005%20‐
Safety and
%20Present.pdf.
Environmental
Enforcement, Gulf of
Mexico Region
41a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐21
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
2000‐2004
4‐May‐06
P00000020449
U.S. DOI, Minerals
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
Management Service, iles/Annual%20Production%202000%20‐
Gulf of Mexico Region %202004.pdf.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐22
Annual Summary of
Production for Entire Region 1995‐1999
4‐May‐06
P00000020450
U.S. DOI, Minerals
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
Management Service, iles/Annual%20Production%201995%20‐
Gulf of Mexico Region %201999.pdf.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐23
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
1989‐1994
14‐Oct‐97 P00000024887
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐24
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
1983‐1988
14‐Oct‐97 P00000024888
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐25
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
1977‐1982
14‐Oct‐97 P00000024889
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐26
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
1971‐1976
14‐Oct‐97 P00000024890
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐27
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
1965‐1970
14‐Oct‐97 P00000024891
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐28
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
1959‐1964
14‐Oct‐97 P00000024892
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐29
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
1953‐1958
14‐Oct‐97 P00000024893
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐30
Annual Summary of Production for Entire Region
1947‐1952
14‐Oct‐97 P00000024894
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐32
Remarks by President Trump at Signing Executive
Order to Create Energy Independence
28‐Mar‐17 P00000024990‐
P00000024994
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐33
2019 Beaufort Sea OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐34
25‐Apr‐18 P00000024996
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐36
BOEM to Extend Call for Information and
Nominations for Proposed
2019 Beaufort Sea Lease Sale
President Trump Takes Action to Expedite Priority
Energy and Infrastructure Projects
U.S. DOI, Minerals
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
Management Service, iles/Region%20Production%20by%20Year
Gulf of Mexico Region %201989‐
1994.pdf.
U.S. DOI, Minerals
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
Management Service, iles/Region%20Production%20by%20Year
Gulf of Mexico Region %201983‐
1988.pdf.
U.S. DOI, Minerals
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
Management Service, iles/Region%20Production%20by%20Year
Gulf of Mexico Region %201977‐
1982.pdf.
U.S. DOI, Minerals
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
Management Service, iles/Region%20Production%20by%20Year
Gulf of Mexico Region %201971‐ 1976.pdf.
U.S. DOI, Minerals
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
Management Service, iles/Region%20Production%20by%20Year
Gulf of Mexico Region %201965‐
1970.pdf.
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
U.S. DOI, Minerals
Management Service, iles/Region%20Production%20by%20Year
Gulf of Mexico Region %201959‐
1964.pdf.
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
U.S. DOI, Minerals
Management Service, iles/Region%20Production%20by%20Year
Gulf of Mexico Region %201953‐
1958.pdf.
https://www.data.boem.gov/Production/F
U.S. DOI, Minerals
Management Service, iles/Region%20Production%20by%20Year
Gulf of Mexico Region %201947‐
1952.pdf.
The White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings‐
statements/remarkspresident‐trump‐
signing‐executive‐order‐create‐energy‐
independence
Bureau of Ocean
https://www.boem.gov/beaufort‐call/
Energy Management
Bureau of Ocean
https://www.boem.gov/press04252018/.
Energy Management
P00000024995
24‐Jan‐17 P00000025001‐
P00000025004
The White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings‐
statements/president‐trump‐takesaction‐
expedite‐priority‐energy‐infrastructure‐
projects/.
42a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐37
Livestock Grazing on Public Lands
n.d.
P00000024913‐
P00000024916
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐39
Public Land Statistics 2014
May‐15
P00000023763‐
P00000024042
2014
P00000037603‐
P00000037882
Jun‐13
P00000023479‐
P00000023762
May‐12
P00000020757‐
P00000021042
Jun‐11
P00000020453‐
P00000020742
May‐10
P00000021043‐
P00000021317
May‐09
P00000021318‐
P00000021587
May‐08
P00000021588‐
P00000021854
Apr‐07
P00000021855‐
P00000022118
Apr‐05
P00000022119‐
P00000022379
Apr‐05
P00000022380‐
P00000022646
n.d.
P00000022647‐
P00000022931
n.d.
P00000022932‐
P00000023208
n.d.
P00000023209‐
P00000023478
Mar‐00
P00000024917‐
P00000024923
Mar‐99
P00000024924‐
P00000024929
Mar‐98
P00000024930‐
P00000024935
31‐Dec‐96 P00000024936‐
P00000024939
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐40
Public Land Statistics 2013
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐41
Public Land Statistics 2012
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐42
Public Land Statistics 2011
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐43
Public Land Statistics 2010
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐44
Public Land Statistics 2009
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐45
Public Land Statistics 2008
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐46
Public Land Statistics 2007
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐47
Public Land Statistics 2006
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐48
Public Land Statistics 2005
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐49
Public Land Statistics 2004
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐50
Public Land Statistics 2003
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐51
Public Land Statistics 2002
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐52
Public Land Statistics 2001
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐53
Public Land Statistics 1999
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐54
Public Land Statistics 1998
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐55
Public Land Statistics 1997
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐56
Public Land Statistics 1996
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐58
Wildlife Refuge Oil and Gas Activity
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐59
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐60
31‐Oct‐01 P00000020433‐
P00000020448
Non‐Federal Oil and Gas Activities on National
Nov‐16
P00000024328‐
Wildlife Refuge System Lands
P00000024329
Fact Sheet on Methane and Waste Prevention Rule n.d.
P00000024330‐
P00000024333
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
U.S. Government
Accountability Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services
U.S. DOI
https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural‐
resources/rangelands‐and‐
grazing/livestock‐grazing
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls14/pls2014.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls13/pls2013.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls12/pls2012.pdf
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls11/pls2011.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls10/pls10.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls09/pls09.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls08/pls08.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls07/pls07.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls06/pls06.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls05/pls05.pdf
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls04/pls04.pdf
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls03/pls03.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls02/pls02.pdf.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls01/pls01.pdf
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls99/index.html.
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls98/index.html
https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statisti
cs/pls97/index.html
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO‐DOI‐
BLM‐PUBLAND‐1996/content‐detail.html
http:www.gao.gov/new.items/d0264r.pdf.
https://www.fws.gov/refuges/oil‐and‐
gas/pdfs/Oil‐Gas‐Fact‐sheet.pdf.
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/u
ploads/methane_waste_prevention_rule_
factsheet.pdf.
43a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐61
Regulatory Impact Analysis for: Revisions to 43 CFR 10‐Nov‐16 P00000024334‐
3100 (Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing) and 43 CFR
P00000024500
3600 (Onshore Oil and Gas Operations); Additions
of 43 CFR 3178 (Royalty‐Free Use of Lease
Production) and 43 CFR 3179 (Waste Prevention
and Resource Conservation)
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStre
amer?documentId=BLM‐2016‐
0001‐9127&contentType=pdf.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐62
OCS Oil and Natural Gas: Potential Lifecycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Social Cost of
Carbon
Nov‐16
P00000024501‐
P00000024556
https://www.boem.gov/OCS‐Report‐
BOEM‐2016‐065/
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐64
Powering Up Renewable Energy on Public Lands
Sep‐16
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐65
Wind Energy Fact Sheet
Mar‐18
P00000024943‐
P00000024951
P00000024942
E. Wolvovsky & W.
Anderson; U.S. DOI,
Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management
U.S. DOI
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐66
Solar Energy Fact Sheet
Mar‐18
P00000037602
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐68
The U.S. Geological Survey’s Gas Hydrates Project
Jan. 2018
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐69
Gas Hydrates on Alaska’s North Slope
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐70
News Release: Gas Hydrates on Alaska’s North
Slope Hold One of Nation’s Largest Deposits of
Technically Recoverable Natural Gas
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐71
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐72
New Interior Department Survey Shows Significant 22‐Dec‐17 P00000024954‐
P00000024956
Increase in Recoverable Energy Resources in
Federal, State and Tribal Lands and Waters in
Alaska
Issue Summary: Energy Management in DOD
n.d.
P00000019919
Facilities
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐74
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐75
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
P00000024606‐
P00000024609
11‐Nov‐08 P00000025005
12‐Nov‐08 P00000024952‐
P00000024953
Annual Energy Management Report Fiscal Year
2015
Defense
Jun‐16
299‐76
Comprehensive Annual Energy Data and
Sustainability Performance
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐77
Today in Energy
5‐Feb‐15
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐79
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
n.d.
P00000019314‐
P00000019464
P00000020214‐
P00000020217
P00000020301‐
P00000020302
https://www.doi.gov/blog/powering‐
renewable‐energy‐public‐lands.
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
energy_renewablewindfactsheet.pdf.
U.S. DOI, U.S. BLM
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
energy_renewablesolarfactsheet.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2017/3079/fs201
73079.pdf.
Jessica Robertson;
https://www.usgs.gov/media/audio/gas‐
U.S. Geological Survey hydrates‐alaskas‐north‐slope.
U.S. DOI
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/ar
chive/news/archive/08_News_Releases/1
11208.html.
U.S. Geological Survey https://www.usgs.gov/news/new‐interior‐
department‐survey‐shows‐significant‐
increaserecoverable‐energy‐resources‐
federal.
Government
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/energy_
Accountability Office management_dod_facilities/issue_summa
ry
U.S. DOD
https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/downloads/i
e/fy%202015%20aemr.pdf
National Renewable
https://www.nrel.gov/workingwithus/def
Energy Lab.
ense.html
U.S. DOE
http://ctsedwweb.ee.doe.gov/Annual/Rep
ort/TotalSiteDeliveredEnergyUseInAllEndU
seSectorsByFederalAgencyBillionBtu.aspx
P00000020218‐
P00000020219
Implications for US National Security of Anticipated 21‐Sep‐16 P00000019557‐
Climate Change
P00000019569
U.S. EIA
299‐80
Screening‐Level Assessment of Projects with
Respect to Sea Level Change
Jun‐15
P00000019290‐
P00000019313
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
299‐81
Climate Preparedness and Resilience: Climate
Change Adaptation
n.d.
P00000019920‐
P00000019921
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
National Intelligence
Council
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail
.php?id=19871 (February 5, 2015)
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Ne
wsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/Implica
tions_for_US_National_Security_of_Antici
pated_Climate_Change.pdf
http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/CESL_S
creening_level_assessment_sea_level_cha
nge_JUN_2015.pdf
http://www.corpsclimate.us/ccaceslcurve
s.cfm
44a
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐84
Jan‐18
299‐85
Climate‐Related Risk to DoD Infrastructure: Initial
Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Report 2
(2018)
Secretary of Defense Speech, Conference of
Defense Ministers of the Americas, As Prepared
For Delivery by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel,
Arequipa, Peru, October 13, 2014
P00000019827‐
P00000019858
U.S. DOD
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
13‐Oct‐14 P00000020220‐
P00000020224
U.S. DOD
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐89
The Joint Operating Environment 2010
18‐Feb‐10 P00000018694‐
P00000018769
2017
P00000019730‐
P00000019812
U.S. Joint Forces
Command
U.S. Government
Accountability Office
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐91
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐92
Climate Change Adaptation: DOD Needs to Better
Incorporate Adaptation into Planning and
Collaboration at Overseas Installations
Quadrennial Defense Review Report
Feb‐10
P00000018566‐
P00000018693
U.S. DOD
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐93
Quadrennial Defense Review 2014
4‐Mar‐14
P00000019062‐
P00000019149
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐94
2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap
2014
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐85
Response to Congressional Inquiry on National
Security Implications of Climate‐Related Risks and
a Changing Climate
23‐Jul‐15
P00000019221‐
P00000019240
P00000019276‐
P00000019289
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐98
Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of 2018
the United States of America
P00000019813‐
P00000019826
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐99
City of Imperial Beach, et al. v. Chevron Corp., et al.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐100
Relocation Planning Project Master Plan: Kivalina,
Alaska
Jun‐06
P00000019690‐
P00000019727
P00000018329‐
P00000018464
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐101
Alaska District, AVETA Report Summary –
Shishmaref, Alaska
n.d.
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐102
R44880, Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines: Role of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐103
Global Climate Change and Implications for the
United States Navy (May 1990)
May‐90
P00000035548‐
P00000035634
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐104
Corps Grants Easement to Dakota Access, LLC,
Release No. 17‐015
8‐Feb‐17
P00000020259
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐106
2016
MIL 1 (June 28, 2018)
299‐107
Sustainable Solutions to America’s Water
Resources Needs
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Issues Report on
Nationwide Permits, Release No. 17‐110
P00000018486‐
P00000018491
P00000019657‐
P00000019689
P00000019150‐
P00000019185
25‐Oct‐17 P00000019922‐
P00000019923
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress
.com/2018/01/tab‐b‐slvas‐report‐1‐24‐
2018.pdf
https://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches
/Speech‐View/Article/605617/
https://fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688323.
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/featu
res/defenseReviews/QDR/QDR_as_of_29J
AN10_1600.pdf
U.S. DOD
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/featu
res/defenseReviews/QDR/2014_Quadren
nial_Defense_Review.pdf
U.S. DOD
https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/
CCARprint_wForward_e.pdf
U.S. DOD
http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724‐
congressional‐report‐on‐national‐
implications‐of‐climate‐
change.pdf?source=govdelivery
U.S. DOD
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Docu
ments/pubs/2018‐National‐Defense‐
Strategy‐Summary.pdf
N.D. California
No. 4:17‐cv‐04934 (N.D. Cal.) (filed Aug.
24, 2017)
U.S. Army Corps of
http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/3
Engineers
4/docs/civilworks/reports/KivalinaMaster
PlanMainReportJune2006.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of
http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/3
Engineers
4/docs/civilworks/BEA/Shishmaref_Final%
20Report.pdf
Congressional
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20
Research Service
170628_R44880_1105a52fd838d2e8d342
c75e49199c8bcdeb6607.pdf
U.S. Naval War College http://documents.theblackvault.com/doc
umen
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.