Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. 

Expert Report of Professor John P. Weyant 

August 13, 2018 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 1 of 61
i 

Contents

I. Qualifications ...................................................................................................................... 1

II. Summary of Allegations and Assignment .......................................................................... 2

III. Overview of Report and Summary of Opinions ................................................................. 4

IV. Injury Asserted by Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Trenberth ........................................................... 5

A. Dr. Trenberth’s Criticisms of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are 

Misguided ............................................................................................................... 6

B. Dr. Trenberth’s Conditional Approach Lacks the Elements to Determine Regional 

and Sectorial Impacts .............................................................................................. 8

C. Unsupported Logical Leap of Dr. Trenberth’s Analysis ...................................... 10

V. Limitations of Prof. Running’s Analysis .......................................................................... 14

A. Extreme Events ..................................................................................................... 15

B. Human Influence on Wildfires.............................................................................. 16

C. Other Considerations in Attributing Impacts ........................................................ 18

VI. Modeling the Effects of a Cessation of U.S. CO2 Emissions ........................................... 19

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 2 of 61
1 

PRIVLEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

I. Qualifications 

1. I am a Professor of Management Science and Engineering, Director of the Energy 

Modeling Forum (EMF), and Deputy Director of the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at 

Stanford University. I am also a Senior Fellow of the Precourt Institute for Energy and an 

affiliated faculty member of the Stanford School of Earth, Energy, and Environmental Sciences, 

the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, and the Freeman Spogli Institute for 

International Studies at Stanford. My current research focuses on global climate change policy 

and systems analysis, energy systems analysis, energy technology assessment, and models for 

strategic planning. I currently serve as honorary co-editor of the journal Energy Economics and 

on the editorial board of the journal Energy. 

2. I have been a convening lead author or lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (“IPCC”) for chapters on integrated assessment, greenhouse gas mitigation, 

integrated impacts of climate change, and sustainable development. More recently, I served as a 

review editor for the climate change mitigation working group of the IPCC’s fourth (2003–2006) 

and fifth assessment (2010–2013) reports. I am a founder and have served as chairman of the 

Scientific Steering Committee of the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC)—a 

collaboration of over 50 global modeling centers from around the world—since its inception in 

2007. Over the years I have been active in the United States (“U.S.”) debate on climate change 

policy through the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (“EPA”). In California, I was a member of the California Air Resources 

Board’s Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee (ETAAC), which was 

charged with making recommendations for technology policies to help implement AB 32, The 

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. 

3. I have been awarded the U.S. Association for Energy Economics’ 2008 Adelman-Frankel 

award for unique and innovative contributions to the field of energy economics and the 

International Association for Energy Economics Outstanding Contributions to the Profession 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 3 of 61
2 

Award for 2017. I was honored in 2007 as a major contributor to the Nobel Peace Prize awarded 

to the IPCC and in 2008 by Chair Mary Nichols for contributions to the ETAAC on AB 32.

4. I was asked to provide Congressional testimony on oil security during the 1980s and 

climate policy during the 1990s and have testified before several California state agencies on 

climate policy during the 2000s. 

5. I earned a B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering and Astronautics, M.S. degrees in 

Engineering Management and in Operations Research and Statistics all from Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute, and a Ph.D. in Management Science with minors in Economics, Operations 

Research, and Organization Theory from University of California at Berkeley. After receiving 

my doctorate, I was a National Science Foundation post-doctoral fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy 

School of Government. 

6. My CV, which is attached as Appendix A, summarizes my professional experiences and 

accomplishments. It also includes a list of my publications, including those in the last 10 years. 

I have not previously testified in federal or state court. I am being compensated for my time on 

this matter at an hourly rate of $650. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of the 

litigation. I have been assisted in this matter by the staff of Cornerstone Research, who worked 

under my direction. A list of documents I have relied on for my report is attached as 

Appendix B. 

II. Summary of Allegations and Assignment 

7. Plaintiffs, a collection of young adults and youth, allege that the U.S. government, 

broadly, and specific federal governmental agencies have been aware for decades about the harm 

of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and the negative effects that unabated CO2 emissions have on 

the global climate.1 Plaintiffs point to a White House report on the environment in 1965 and to 

 

1 First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana et al., Plaintiffs, v. 

The United States of America et al., Defendants, 9/10/2015 (“Complaint”), ¶1 (“For over fifty years, the United 

States of America has known that carbon dioxide (‘CO2’) pollution from burning fossil fuels was causing global 

warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels would destabilize the climate system 

on which present and future generations of our nation depend for their wellbeing and survival.”). 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 4 of 61
3 

the EPA and Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reports in 1990 and 1991, 

respectively, as evidence of the government’s historical knowledge of the harms of greenhouse 

gases (“GHG”).2 This “knowledge,” combined with an alleged failure to act to phase out CO2

emissions (part of the Defendants’ conduct at issue) has allegedly resulted in exposing Plaintiffs 

to hazardous conditions through the mechanism of climate change.3 The Complaint specifies a 

list of injuries that each Plaintiff has allegedly incurred because of his or her exposure to humaninduced climate change.4

8. The Complaint alleges that there is consensus within the scientific community that 

“[p]resent climate change is a consequence of anthropogenic GHGs, primarily CO2, derived from 

the combustion of fossil fuels,”5 a position to which the federal Defendants agreed in their 

response to the Complaint.6 Plaintiffs state that atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 350 ppm 

have created energy imbalances in the global climate and, as part of their claimed remedies, ask 

the Court to direct the Defendants to take action “to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more 

concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100.”7

9. Plaintiffs have submitted multiple expert reports in support of their positions. I was 

directed to examine aspects of the reports of Dr. Kevin Trenberth and Prof. Steven Running. 

Counsel for Defendants in this matter asked me to: 

a. Evaluate whether the current climate models can tie increases in GHG (primarily 

CO2) emissions attributable to Defendants’ conduct at issue to the injuries alleged 

by Plaintiffs. Alternatively posed, can climate models demonstrate that Plaintiffs, 

living in the various states where they reside (Oregon, Colorado, Louisiana, etc.), 

suffered the types of climate-related injuries they have claimed because of 

increased CO2 emissions attributable to the actions of the Defendants? 

 

2 Complaint, ¶¶2–3. 

3 Complaint, ¶7 (“Yet, rather than implement a rational course of effective action to phase out carbon pollution, 

Defendants have continued to permit, authorize, and subsidize fossil fuel extraction, development, consumption and 

exportation – activities producing enormous quantities of CO2 emissions that have substantially caused or 

substantially contributed to the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Through its policies and practices, 

the Federal Government bears a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country for 

exposing Plaintiffs to the present dangerous atmospheric CO2 concentration.”). 4 Complaint, ¶¶16–92. 

5 Complaint, ¶202. 

6 Federal Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Defendants’ 

Answer), ¶202. 

7

 Complaint, ¶¶12, 203, 257. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 5 of 61
4 

b. Estimate what would have happened to atmospheric CO2 concentrations had the 

U.S. government curbed U.S. CO2 emissions in 1990. 

III. Overview of Report and Summary of Opinions 

10. As is not disputed in this lawsuit, the current scientific consensus is that global 

temperatures have increased, in part due to anthropogenic reasons (i.e., human-induced causes, 

where human-induced causes include some unrelated to GHG and some related to GHG, of 

which some part is related to Defendants’ conduct at issue). As is also not disputed in this 

lawsuit, this increase in global temperatures has resulted in climate change across the planet.8 I 

agree with the consensus view, and my report does not dispute this general understanding. 

Rather, I am addressing the current state of the science of climate change models and their ability 

to support the localized effects implicit in Plaintiffs’ claims of harm (i.e., what injury did they 

suffer as a result of the Defendants’ conduct at issue). 

11. My summary opinions in this matter are: 

x The reports of Plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Trenberth and Prof. Running do not and 

cannot reliably tie global climate change due to the Defendants’ conduct at issue 

to the claimed injuries they allege affected Plaintiffs where they live, work, or 

recreate. Their reports do not and cannot distinguish any injuries suffered by 

Plaintiffs to the specific Defendant conduct at issue (versus other entities, 

governments, or countries that have substantially contributed to human-induced 

climate change) because the current state of our scientific understanding is not 

sufficiently developed. This is because: 

o These climate and climate impact models generally cannot determine the 

regional effects of global climate change to the degree of specificity 

necessary to causally link to specific weather events, let alone to 

individuals and any claimed injuries. 

o A critical challenge is that it is difficult to disentangle the effect of 

regional climate changes from the effect of other region-specific 

confounding factors. While the local climate affects the circumstances of 

outcomes such as crop productivity, coastal damage from storms, 

frequency of wildfires, injury from heat stress, etc., so do other factors 

such as local economic growth, migration, urbanization, air and water 

 

8 Defendants’ Answer, ¶202. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 6 of 61
5 

pollution, forest and farm management processes, etc. The current set of 

climate and climate impact models cannot separate these factors with 

sufficient certainty to disentangle the effect of regional climate changes 

from the effect of other region-specific confounding factors. 

o Thus, the current state of the climate change and climate impact analysis 

and modeling do not allow one to determine if the specific types and 

magnitude of injuries to individuals, as asserted by Plaintiffs’ experts, are 

related to something as specific as CO2 emissions attributable to 

Defendants’ conduct at issue. 

x Dr. Trenberth’s use of the “conditional” approach that he describes does not 

remedy the inability of current climate models to determine if Plaintiffs have been 

injured due to the Defendants’ conduct at issue. 

x Had the U.S. government been able to stop all U.S. emissions of CO2 from fossil 

fuels immediately beginning in 1990—whether from government entities directly 

or from the U.S. private sector—I predict using a climate model that atmospheric 

CO2 concentration in 2015 (when the Complaint was filed) would have been 389 

ppm instead of 401 ppm, a 12 ppm difference. 

IV. Injury Asserted by Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Trenberth 

12. Dr. Trenberth discusses specific injuries that he claims Plaintiffs experienced as a 

consequence of human-induced climate change.9 Exhibit 1 is a summary of the types of climate 

change impacts Dr. Trenberth has made on behalf of Plaintiffs and the nature of Plaintiffs’ 

alleged injuries. In arriving at his conclusions, Dr. Trenberth discusses two approaches to the 

climatological science research associated with climate events—one he calls the “conventional” 

approach, and the other he calls the “conditional” approach.10 The conventional approach has 

been the fundamental approach used by scientists and is the basis for IPCC assessments used to 

inform policymakers on the state of scientific understanding of climate change and its impacts. 

13. Dr. Trenberth acknowledges the difficulties of determining if specific weather events are 

the result of naturally occurring cycles versus the result of human-induced climate change under 

the conventional approach. After acknowledging these limitations of the conventional approach 

 

9 Report of Kevin Trenberth (“Trenberth Report”), April 11, 2018, pp. 20–22. 

10 Trenberth Report, pp. 14–16. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 7 of 61
6 

to impact assessment, Dr. Trenberth dismisses the conventional approach in favor of a new 

“conditional” approach: 

x “The second kind of attribution study, the conditional approach, relates to the 

objective of assessing the role of human activities, and especially of humaninduced climate change, in the event. Results depend, however, upon how the 

questions are framed.” 11 

x “Because of the infinite variety of weather systems and how rapidly they develop 

and respond to small perturbations, the atmospheric circulation (dynamics) 

aspects of climate change are much less predictable than those associated with 

heat and temperature (thermodynamics). Hence separating out the thermodynamic 

from dynamic effects in extreme events, i.e., the conditional approach, is a new 

fruitful way forward in evaluating attribution and results in a different set of 

questions to be addressed than in the past (prior to 2015).”12

14. After introducing the conditional approach, Dr. Trenberth then discusses several 

examples of extreme climate events before summarizing how various Plaintiffs were affected. 

What Dr. Trenberth critically does not address is how the weather events Plaintiffs experienced 

resulted in the injury that he asserts they incurred due to human-induced climate change. To 

understand why his assertions are unsupported, it is necessary to understand why the 

conventional approach cannot translate into localized impacts at the scale necessary to know that 

an individual has been injured by a human-induced changing climate, let alone injured due to the 

Defendants’ conduct at issue. Dr. Trenberth’s use of the conditional approach does not remedy 

these limitations. 

A. Dr. Trenberth’s Criticisms of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change are Misguided 

15. Dr. Trenberth offered several criticisms of the IPCC process: 

x “it is a consensus assessment among very disparate scientists from many countries 

with varying expertise”; 

x “it is extremely conservative and lags behind the state-of-the-art scientific 

understanding”; 

 

11 Trenberth Report, p. 15. 

12 Trenberth Report, p. 16. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 8 of 61
7 

x “because it is thoroughly reviewed, it is not current at time of publication.”13

16. Scientists contributing to the IPCC reports arrive at a consensus opinion. Authors who 

are responsible for various chapters in the report (coordinating lead authors) work with the IPCC 

leadership to recruit additional lead authors for their chapters, but can also solicit help from other 

contributing authors who are scientists in specific key areas. Coordinating lead authors have 

great discretion in deciding who to invite to be contributing authors and in deciding how many of 

them would be useful in improving the quality of their chapters. These authors work with IPCC 

leadership and governments to get the best scientific and government reviewers of the work. A 

large amount of input is obtained from the experts that participate in the IPCC’s comprehensive, 

open, scientific and government review cycles. 

17. The process is designed to avoid bias and to avoid drawing strong conclusions from new 

literature that has not been replicated or thoroughly vetted by the relevant scientific communities. 

In my opinion, the IPCC process is a detailed but necessary one that serves the purpose that Dr. 

Trenberth notes: “to provide policy makers with an objective assessment of the scientific and 

technical information available about climate change, its environmental and socio-economic 

impacts, and possible response options.”14

18. In criticizing the timeliness of the information provided by IPCC reports, Dr. Trenberth 

ignores the flexibility in the IPCC process, afforded by its current rules, to consider the most 

recent scientific work that is published closer to the time of the issuance of the IPCC’s report. 

Additionally, the IPCC’s assessment reports are complemented by (a) IPCC special reports that 

operate on a faster time table; (b) National Climate Assessment (“NCA”) reports done in the 

U.S. every four years; and (c) analyses from the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) and 

other scientific bodies here and abroad to develop science consensus reports to fill in and update 

the state of the science between IPCC reports. 

 

13 Trenberth Report, p. 15, footnote 5. 

14 Trenberth Report, p. 15, footnote 5. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 9 of 61
8 

B. Dr. Trenberth’s Conditional Approach Lacks the Elements to Determine 

Regional and Sectorial Impacts 

19. As noted above, Dr. Trenberth endorses a “conditional” approach for evaluating whether 

extreme weather events were affected by human-induced climate change. To understand the 

flaws in Dr. Trenberth’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have been injured, it is useful to understand 

the models for studying climate change’s impacts. 

20. Scientists have developed a wide range of models of varying degrees of sophistication 

and resolution used to study climate changes and their impacts on natural and human systems. 

Three main types of models have been developed and applied in parallel. First, there are 

comprehensive large-scale earth systems models of the global climate system that have been 

developed over the last three or four decades. Second, a number of physical and social systems 

models have been developed to study the impacts of changes in climate and other physical and 

socioeconomic drivers on physical and economic activity in key sectors and regions of the 

United States and elsewhere. Finally, in parallel with the other two model types, so-called 

integrated assessment models have been developed and refined to combine representations of 

human behavior with simplified representations of the physical earth system to study interactions 

between the two in more detail. Taken together, these models are focused on measuring and 

predicting the effects of climate change on natural systems and human systems in specific 

locations. These models are used to try to draw conclusions about the global climate system 

changing beyond the annual to decadal cycles in average weather around the world and the role 

that human activities have played in driving these trends (i.e., the human-induced element of 

climate change). Results from all three types of models have been used to inform global 

understanding and decision making regarding global climate change and possible responses to it. 

21. The conditional approach is a partial substitute for the first type of model in the 

conventional approach (i.e., the comprehensive large-scale earth system models). The 

conditional attribution framework examines the influence of some meteorological measures of 

extreme climate events, but does not consider the factors included in the second and third types 

of models. Understanding impacts on physical and social systems—the goal of understanding 

how human-induced climate change may be affecting people—is not addressed by the 

conditional approach described by Dr. Trenberth. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 10 of 61
9 

22. The physical and social system models (second model type) and integrated assessment 

models (third model type) examine how we are impacted by the climate event, not simply 

whether the intensity of the extreme weather event may have been increased by additional GHG 

emissions. For example, changes in agricultural crop growth, coastal zone damage from 

hurricanes, heat stress–related illness, and wildfire activity can be affected by global climate 

change, but they are also impacted by other socioeconomic factors.15 In the conventional 

approach, attributing these specific changes to human-induced global climate change is a 

difficult research task because (1) relating changes in local climate to change in global 

climatology, including sorting out the global and regional effects of annual and inter-annual 

variability on the climate system, is complicated science; and (2) the local changes that have 

been observed may be due to a number of non-meteorological factors (e.g., population growth, 

urban development, air and water pollution, etc.), as well as changes in local climatology. The 

conventional approach attempts to understand the attribution “pathways” and has been an 

important aspect of climate change research. Dr. Trenberth’s use of the conditional approach 

does not eliminate the need to understand these pathways, even if it changes the initial manner in 

which the climatological influence on local meteorological conditions question is posed. 

23. Since the 2001 IPCC report, some of the pathways from increased GHG concentrations to 

regional changes in climate to changes on physical (e.g., crop growth, ecosystems, and sea 

levels) and socioeconomic systems (e.g., food prices and farm incomes, coastal zone storm 

damages) in those regions have been partially identified and measured at least qualitatively, but 

others remain largely unmeasured and/or unresolved. There are confounding factors that provide 

alternative explanations for regional and sectoral climate changes, and especially events that may 

cause negative impacts on people and property. These confounding factors can be other physical 

and human changes (e.g., population growth, urban development, costal development, forest and 

agricultural management practices, air and water pollution, etc.) that affect the ability to attribute 

local impacts to human-induced climate change. Also, any fine-scale projections of climate 

change impacts have to model the degree of adaptation assumed in past and projected future 

human behavior. Adaption refers to the process by which people change their behaviors to limit 

 

15 “Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,” IPCC Third Assessment Report Working Group 

II Summary for Policy Makers, p. 5, https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/pdf/WGII_TAR_full_report.pdf. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 11 of 61
10 

harmful effects from changing climates. Adaptation has been part of IPCC commentary to 

policymakers. Policymakers need to consider adaptation when they evaluate policy options 

relating to climate change. 

24. In attributing specific impacts in specific locations on specific individuals, it is necessary 

to analyze historical data on climate changes and other physical and socioeconomic trends in 

those specific locations. In the conventional approach, this creates the challenge of running a 

very high resolution climate model and/or “downscaling” the climatic conditions to the scale 

where the impacts are most effectively analyzed (e.g., growing regions, water and/or river basins, 

urban or rural neighborhoods, etc.). However, climate projections at finer scale are less reliable 

than global averages, and the techniques for downscaling to more specific geographic locations 

adds additional uncertainty to the calculations. This further adds to the lack of reliability in 

projections of regional impacts resulting from incremental changes in global GHG emissions. 

25. To understand fully how global GHG concentrations contribute to regional impacts, 

global climate models also need to be integrated with regional/sectoral models and then further 

integrated with physical and economic impacts that until recently have not generally accounted 

for other confounding influences that may affect local climate change impacts. These local 

conditions can include changes in demographics (e.g., population growth, migration, 

urbanization, forestry management practices) and other environmental stresses (e.g., water, air, 

and solid waste pollution). I am unaware of efforts to integrate the results of any conditional 

approaches with local conditions to attribute local impacts to human-induced climate change. By 

failing to analyze the potential confounding effect of local conditions, Dr. Trenberth reaches 

conclusions about the impacts on Plaintiffs that are unsupported and therefore unreliable. 

C. Unsupported Logical Leap of Dr. Trenberth’s Analysis 

26. Dr. Trenberth concludes that numerous Plaintiffs have experienced extreme weather 

events exacerbated by human-induced climate change and that based on where they live they 

likely will experience more.16 The analytical support that Dr. Trenberth provides for each 

 

16 Trenberth Report, p. 23 (“Plaintiffs including Jayden, Levi, Xiuhtezcatl, Victoria, Jaime, Journey, Zealand, and 

Nathan are already experiencing extreme weather events that have been exacerbated due to anthropogenic climate 

change. Furthermore, based on the regions where they live, it is my expert opinion that they are likely to experience 

even greater impacts from extreme weather events in the coming decades.”). 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 12 of 61
11 

Plaintiff varies, but all his conclusions of the injuries to Plaintiffs suffer from the same failure to 

connect his conditional approach conclusions to Plaintiffs’ local circumstances. 

27. To illustrate the incompleteness in Dr. Trenberth’s analysis, a few examples follow: 

a. Dr. Trenberth states: “Plaintiff Jaime from Cameron, AZ, has experienced water 

shortages related to increasing significant drought, wildfires and heat waves. 

Wildfires, drought and heatwaves have increased in the area of Jaime’s home and 

reservation because of human-induced climate change.”17 As a case in point, with 

regard to heat waves, Dr. Trenberth does not address her individual circumstance 

nor the conditions in Arizona where she lived when experiencing heat waves.18 

Increases in local temperature extremes have been observed in some locations as 

global mean temperature rises, but how this has caused the incidence of heat 

stress on local populations may also depend on whether the area has become 

urbanized, creating what is called an “urban heat island effect” that raises inner 

city temperatures more than in the surrounding suburban and rural areas. 

Complicating efforts to measure incidences of heat stress are changing 

demographics within communities, if, for example, the population becomes more 

vulnerable (e.g., becomes more weighted to the very young or very old). Further 

complication results if the population adapts its behavior in response to higher 

temperatures, including undertaking less rigorous activities during heat waves or 

times during the day when temperatures peak. Overall, Dr. Trenberth’s 

conclusions are not supported by analysis that allows one to determine how and to 

what degree Jaime’s experiences with water shortages, wildfires, droughts, or heat 

waves are exacerbated by human-induced climate change. In other words, how 

were these events different (e.g., more extreme) than in a normal year in arid 

Arizona? Dr. Trenberth’s conclusion about the causes of Plaintiff Jaime’s injuries 

are not based on any analysis of her situation. 

 

17 Trenberth Report, p. 21. 

18 Dr. Trenberth states that Plaintiff Jaime is from Cameron, Arizona, but the Complaint (¶66) states that she moved 

to Flagstaff in 2011. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 13 of 61
12 

b. Dr. Trenberth states that Plaintiffs Levi from Florida, Journey from Kauai, HI, 

and Victoria from White Plains, NY, all experienced hurricanes to one degree or 

another that were magnified in some manner by human-induced climate change.19 

Dr. Trenberth does not address the individual circumstances of the hurricanes that 

threatened Kauai in 2015, nor in any detail Hurricanes Matthew in 2016 or Irma 

in 2017 that reached landfall in Florida. He does discuss meteorological aspects 

of Super Storm Sandy which affected Plaintiff Victoria.20 Extreme weather events 

that are localized by their very nature, such as hurricanes, offer another example 

of the challenges of determining if, or to what extent, coastal zone damage from a 

hurricane can be attributed to human-induced climate change. Increases in 

property losses due to hurricanes may result from more intense storms involving 

higher winds, which may or may not be accompanied with more intense rainfall. 

Whether flooding and any related property losses occur depends on the 

topography of where the hurricane makes landfall combined with rainfall amounts 

and intensity. Property losses from high winds, rain, or flooding may increase 

simply because there are more people, infrastructure, and economic activity in 

coastal areas now than there has been historically. Such coastal migration would 

increase the expected damage from storms even without any climate change–

induced changes in the intensity of the storms.21 Dr. Trenberth concludes “Sandy 

was undoubtedly larger and stronger as a result of climate change, and the storm 

surge was much greater owing to high sea levels and strong winds” and that 

subways in New York would not have flooded without these warming-induced 

 

19 Trenberth Report, pp. 20–21. 

20 Trenberth Report, p. 18. Dr. Trenberth’s discussion includes cost estimates of the storm. 21 See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the 

Context of Climate Change (The National Academies Press, 2016) (“NAS Report 2016”), p. 41. (“The ‘extreme’ 

nature of coastal flooding is therefore a product of a combination of different anthropogenic impacts, some of which 

have little to do with climate-mediated effects like sea level rise.”). Adaptive strategies that can affect storm 

damage and complicate attribution efforts include items such as (a) improved predictions on storm direction 

providing more advanced warning times to threatened communities; (b) emergency preparedness efforts by 

individuals, firms, and government agencies; and (c) stricter building code rules and enforcement. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 14 of 61
13 

storm effects.22 Dr. Trenberth fails to analyze (or even discuss) the confounding 

factors I mention, which renders his attributions conclusory. 

c. Dr. Trenberth states: “Plaintiff Journey in Kauai is threatened by extreme storm 

events. In 2015 an unprecedented number of hurricanes threatened the Hawaiian 

Islands, again enhanced by human-induced climate change.”23 Dr. Trenberth 

offered this opinion without explanation for how and the degree to which these 

storms were “enhanced” by human-induced climate change compared to a year 

when Kauai would have experienced a typical number of hurricanes.24

d. Dr. Trenberth states: “Plaintiff Jacob, Roseburg, Oregon, lives on a farm and 

enjoys the outdoors. He has become very concerned and influenced by the 

expanding wildfire season, especially in 2015, when smoke degraded the air 

quality on many days. The wildfire season has become longer and more intense 

due to human-induced climate change.”25 Dr. Trenberth’s analysis does not 

address the degree to which the 2015 wildfire season in Oregon was affected by 

human-induced climate change compared to a normal wildfire season in the area 

where Plaintiff Jacob lives. Human activity in and near forests is a confounding 

factor in any analysis of the incidence of wildfire, and Dr. Trenberth is silent on 

such confounding factors. Importantly, in conjunction with the IPCC’s most 

recent report, the group summarizing the state of scientific understanding for 

policymakers noted that there was only medium confidence that climate change 

was a minor contributor to increased wildfire activity in western U.S. forests.26 

Specific to Oregon, Exhibit 2 is a chart prepared by the Oregon Department of 

Forestry (“ODF”) for forests in Oregon for which ODF is responsible. The chart 

 

22 Trenberth Report, p. 18. A Time article indicates that age or design likely contributed to the flooding problems 

that the New York subway experienced in the storm. The Lessons from New York’s Flooded Subways, Jeffrey 

Kluger, Time, October 30, 2012. 23 Trenberth Report, p. 21. 

24 See general discussion of hurricanes at pages 10–14 of the Trenberth Report. 

25 See general discussion of droughts and wildfires at pages 8–9 of the Trenberth Report. 

26 “Climate Change 2014: Impacts Adaptations, and Vulnerability,” IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, p. 31 

(“Increase in wildfire activity, fire frequency and duration, and burnt area in forests of the western U.S. and boreal 

forests in Canada, beyond changes due to land use and fire management (medium confidence, minor contribution 

from climate change)”.). 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 15 of 61
14 

overlays several types of historical data related to wildfire activity. Among the 

contributing or potentially contributing causes of fire activity, the chart depicts 

drought years, warm versus cool local climate phases, human-started versus 

lightning-caused fires, and regulatory and legislative changes involving forest 

management. Each of these factors is likely relevant in examining the extent of 

wildfire activity in Oregon. The ODF chart undermines Dr. Trenberth’s 

assertions that 2015 was extraordinary and that the wildfire season has become 

longer and more intense due to human-induced climate change. At a minimum, 

Exhibit 2 shows that Dr. Trenberth’s claims would require further analysis to be 

scientifically reliable. 

e. Dr. Trenberth states: “Plaintiff Nathan has experienced thawing permafrost and 

wildfires around his home in Fairbanks, Alaska, especially in 2015. Thawing 

permafrost is uneven and more likely on sunlight slopes, and has led to tilted and 

broken buildings and frost heaves in roads. Wildfires were widespread in Alaska 

in the summer of 2015. These harms are made worse by human-induced climate 

change.” 27 As with his other examples, Dr. Trenberth does not address any 

confounding factors that might have contributed to the specific weather outcomes 

in Alaska in 2015, the analysis of which is essential to reach a scientifically valid 

conclusion about any causal role played by human-induced climate change on 

Plaintiff Nathan. 

V. Limitations of Prof. Running’s Analysis 

28. Prof. Running concludes that climate change has affected Plaintiffs and impaired their 

quality of life.28 See Exhibit 1. He concludes that the inaction of the U.S. government “will 

serve to penalize future generations of Americans, including the Plaintiffs, for as far into the 

future as I can imagine.”29 Prof. Running’s report, however, does not measure the contribution 

of the U.S. government, either directly or via policy to change the behavior of the U.S. public, to 

 

27 Trenberth Report, p. 22. 

28 Report of Steven W. Running (Running Report), April 3, 2018, pp. 3, 9, 13, 14, 17. 

29 Running Report, p. 29. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 16 of 61
15 

the climate change trends that his report discusses. Specifically, his report fails to describe, 

because the science cannot support it, the interaction between these two factors: (a) how to 

disentangle natural cycles from human-induced climate change at the regional and sectoral level 

he examined, and (b) what the Defendants’ contribution (whether via its direct GHG emissions 

or a broader definition) is to the ecological impacts he addresses and the alleged injuries to 

Plaintiffs. 

29. When Prof. Running makes claims about injuries to Plaintiffs, he simply presumes that 

human-induced climate change is the major cause of the multiple hydrological and ecological 

changes that he discusses, despite the fact that population growth and migration, forest and water 

management practices, and wildfire and flood prevention measures are also important 

determinants of the climate events he analyzed. For example, while global warming and less 

precipitation lead to dryer forests on average, other human activities confound attempts to isolate 

the impact of climate variables on the area of forest land burned by fires in a given region, unless 

they are explicitly in the specifications of the model.30

A. Extreme Events 

30. Identifying the root causes of extreme events, including storms, droughts, and wildfires, 

can be particularly difficult. A recent compilation report from the NAS of the known science 

related to these events examined the degree to which they can be attributed to human-induced 

climate change, noting: 

x “Some types of observation-based approaches to event attribution use the 

historical context in order to determine changes in the rarity of an observed event 

based on long-term data. For example, this might involve comparing the 

statistical probability of an event in today’s climate to its probability in some 

previous time several decades earlier when the concentration of anthropogenic 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) was much lower. In practice, historical observations 

are often not available for a long enough period to enable a reliable statistical 

 

30 Studies that consider the role of climate change in increasing fire extent may not be very definitive if, for 

example, changes in the number of trees resulting from forest management practices, number of people living near 

forests, number of people visiting forests, and number of forest rangers are all changing simultaneously and those 

changes are not taken into account. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 17 of 61
16 

evaluation of whether there has been a significant change in event frequency or 

intensity.”31

x “Droughts, floods, and wildfires, for instance, all have human, as well as natural, 

components. Land management, controlled burning, and dams and levees impact 

the magnitude and frequency of these extreme events.”32

x “Non-meteorological factors can limit the accuracy of model simulations of 

extreme events and confound observational records. Drought and wildfire are 

examples of events for which non-meteorological factors can be especially 

challenging in attribution studies.”33

x “Event attribution can be further complicated by the existence of other factors that 

contribute to the severity of impacts. For example, while many studies have 

linked an increase in wildfires to climate change, the risk of any individual fire 

depends on past forest management, natural climate variability, human activities 

in the forest, and possibly other factors, in addition to any exacerbation by 

human-caused climate change.”34

B. Human Influence on Wildfires 

31. Human activity is a distinct confounding factor in evaluating the causes of wildfires. 

Humans are frequently responsible for starting fires. The ODF chart (Exhibit 2) shows that 

human-started fires were more common than lightning-caused fires in each year between 1957 

and 2017 in Oregon. It is estimated that across the coterminous U.S. 84 percent of wildfires 

between 1992 and 2012 were started by people, with distinct regional differences in the 

proportion of human-initiated fires.35 This research also notes that, by starting fires when they 

would not start naturally, humans have prolonged the wildfire season outside of the normal 

summer months.36 Finally, by starting fires where they would not start naturally, humans have 

 

31 NAS Report 2016, p. 3. 

32 NAS Report 2016, p. x. 

33 NAS Report 2016, p. 7. 

34 NAS Report 2016, pp. 7–10. 

35 Jennifer K. Balch et al., “Human-Started Wildfires Expand the Fire Niche across the United States,” Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS 114, no. 11 (March 14, 2017) (“Balch et al. (2017)”), pp. 1–2 (“[O]ver 

84% of the government-recorded wildfires were started by people from 1992 to 2012. Sixty percent of the total land 

area of the coterminous United States was dominated by human-started wildfires, whereas only 8% of the area was 

dominated by lightning fires.”). 

36 Balch et al. (2017), p. 2 (“Of all lightning-ignited fires, 78% occurred in the summer (June–August), 9% in the 

spring (March–May), and 12% in the fall (September–November). In contrast, human-ignited wildfires were more 

evenly distributed throughout the year, with 24% in summer, 38% in spring, 19% in fall, and 19% in winter.”). 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 18 of 61
17 

expanded the area where wildfires likely occur.37 Other papers suggest human presence 

“swamps” the effect of climate on wildfire activity.38

32. More people living in and near forests is a confounding factor when evaluating the causes 

and impacts of wildfires. For example, the population in Oregon nearly doubled between 1969 

and 2016, growing from 2.1 million to 4.1 million. Eugene, Oregon, were several Plaintiffs live, 

grew 77 percent over that same period.39 Recent research indicates that people are encroaching 

on forested areas, which complicates firefighting policy and potentially diverts wildfire fighting 

resources.40

33. The management of U.S. forests is another confounding factor when examining the 

incidence of wildfires. Forestry management practices of fire suppression, combined with other 

factors, have increased fuel loads in forests, increasing hazards compared to historical norms.41 

34. In sum, humans are frequently responsible for starting fires, but our impact on the 

incidence and extent of wildfires is similarly pronounced. These types of complicated 

interactions are emblematic of the confounding factors that scientists need to consider when 

examining the influence of climate change. It is the part of the reason why Prof. Running’s 

 

37 Balch et al. (2017), p. 3 (“Areas and months of moderate to high human-caused fire density had approximately 

40% fewer lightning strikes, and nearly 50% higher fuel moisture levels (based on median values) than for moderate 

to high lightning-caused fire density.”). 

38 Alexandra D. Syphard et al., “Humans Diminish Climatic Influence on Wildfire,” Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, PNAS Early Edition, December 11, 2017, p. 1 (“Climatic variation played a significant role in 

explaining annual fire activity in some regions, but the relative importance of seasonal temperature or precipitation, 

in addition to the overall importance of climate, varied substantially depending on geographical context. Human 

presence was the primary reason that climate explained less fire activity in some regions than in others. That is, 

where human presence was more prominent, climate was less important. This means that humans may not only 

influence fire regimes but their presence can actually override, or swamp out, the effect of climate.”) See also 

Michael L. Mann et al., “Incorporating Anthropogenic Influences into Fire Probability Models: Effects of Human 

Activity and Climate Change on Fire Activity in California,” PLOS One, April 28, 2016. 39 Eugene MSA’s population rose from 208,936 in 1969 to 369,519 in 2016. “Eugene MSA vs. Oregon, 

Comparative Trends Analysis: Population Growth and Change, 1969–2016,” Oregon Regional Economic Analysis 

Project, https://oregon.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-trends-analysis/population/tools/78570000/410000/. 

40 Scott L. Stephens et al., “U.S. Federal Fire and Forest Policy: Emphasizing Resilience in Dry Forests,” Ecosphere, 

November 11, 2016 (“Stephens et al. (2016)”), p. 1 (“Current U.S. forest fire policy emphasizes short-term 

outcomes versus long-term goals. This perspective drives managers to focus on the protection of high-valued 

resources, whether ecosystem-based or developed infrastructure, at the expense of forest resilience.” “Expansion of 

the wildland–urban interface will continue to drive suppression costs higher; new federal partnerships with States 

and local governments are needed to address this problem.”). 41 Stephens et al. (2016), p. 6 (“Accordingly, fire suppression response continues to prevail due to a set of decisions 

and disincentives that heavily favor short-term outcomes. First, it is often most cost-effective in the short-term to 

contain fire at the smallest reasonable extent but the collective impact of this response over the long-term is to 

ensure continued fuel accumulation and greater future fire hazard...”). 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 19 of 61
18 

statement that an increased wildfire season due to climate change has and will affect many of the 

Plaintiffs is an overbroad assertion.42 Until our scientific understanding is improved and without 

a more specific examination of Plaintiffs’ circumstances, we cannot know.43 Lastly, Prof. 

Running makes no effort to address the relative contribution of the Defendants versus other 

global actors to his opinions. 

C. Other Considerations in Attributing Impacts 

35. Climate change attributable to GHG emissions is a global phenomenon. Other sources of 

GHG emissions dwarf emissions from fossil fuels in the United States, let alone GHG emissions 

of the U.S. government. Prof. Running attributes none of Plaintiffs’ injuries to non-U.S. sources 

of GHG. Not only do other countries generate the majority of GHG emissions, they also do 

other things that influence outcomes in the United States. For example, Prof. Running discusses 

the impacts of wildfire smoke on Plaintiffs and notes that Plaintiff Aji of Seattle experienced 

smoke and ash from a wildfire in 2017, but fails to mention the Canadian influence on that 

smoke and ash. The news article to which he cites notes that wildfires in Canada were 

combining with smoke from other U.S. fires to inundate the Pacific Northwest.44 In this 

circumstance, events in Canada influenced by regional environmental factors, Canadian forest 

management practices, and Canadian wildfire fighting policies and resources contributed to the 

impact on Plaintiff Aji in Seattle. 

 

42 Running Report, p. 13 (“...will impact the many Plaintiffs in the West who suffer increased risk and severity of 

impacts from wildfires near their homes, in places that they visit for recreation, and in the air they breathe during the 

extended fire season, including Xiuhtezcatl, Jaime Lynn, Jacob, Sahara, Kelsey, Alex, Zealand, Nick, Aji, Nathan, 

Hazel and Avery.”). 

43 Additionally, the 2014 IPCC assessment report offers only medium scientific confidence that human-induced 

climate change had a minor contribution to wildfire activity in the western U.S., a conclusion at odds with Prof. 

Running. This IPCC report also notes low scientific confidence involving a minor contribution from climate change 

on impacts to North American terrestrial ecosystems involving regional increases in tree mortality and insect 

infestations in forests—another topic to which Prof. Running attributed a larger impact from human-induced climate 

change and one he indicated negatively affected several Plaintiffs. See “Climate Change 2014: Impacts 

Adaptations, and Vulnerability,” IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, p. 31; Running Report, pp. 13, 17. 44 Alan Blinder and Christina Caron, “Seattle Chokes as Wildfire Smoke from Canada Blankets the Northwest,” 

New York Times, August 7, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/us/wildfires-canada-seattle.html 

(“Government officials have cautioned people about air quality in a region that is usually known, especially at this 

time of year, for pristine cobalt skies. But that has not been the case since last week, as the Pacific Northwest has 

been inundated by plumes of smoke from Canada, where more than 20 wildfires are blazing.... ‘There are several 

fires in the Pacific Northwest that have contributed to the smoke as well,’ said Mr. Apfel, who estimated that there 

were currently about 16 large fires in Washington and Oregon. ‘Previous years have had quite a bit of rainfall, and 

you get a lot of vegetation — and when it dries up, that’s what starts burning when the fire starts.’”). 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 20 of 61
19 

VI. Modeling the Effects of a Cessation of U.S. CO2 Emissions 

36. As an additional element of my assignment, I was asked to determine, if possible, what 

the effects would be on atmospheric CO2 concentrations had the United States eliminated all 

fossil fuel CO2 emissions starting in 1990. In this analysis, I have assumed that the U.S. 

government as well as all of the U.S. private sector ceased fossil fuel CO2 emissions beginning in 

1990. 

37. I examined the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1990 to 2015 (the date of 

the Complaint), using the “Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate 

Change” (MAGICC), a widely used representation of the climate system that links CO2

emissions to the mean surface temperature on the earth.45 The IPCC has used MAGICC 

extensively to predict global mean temperature increase and sea-level rise.46

38. I used the most recent version of the model, MAGICC 6, to calculate CO2 concentrations 

in the earth’s atmosphere under two CO2 emissions scenarios:47 (1) a baseline business as usual 

emissions path, and (2) a 100% emissions reduction scenario where the U.S. completely stops 

emitting CO2 from burning fossil fuels from 1990 forward. In the no-emissions case, I find that 

global CO2 concentrations would decline by 12 ppm (from 401 to 389) in 2015 relative to the 

baseline business as usual scenario. Exhibit 3A illustrates the effect of the no-emissions case. 

Cases predicated on more modest emission reductions assumptions result in smaller effects on 

atmospheric CO2 levels. For example, assuming an immediate and sustained 25 percent 

reduction in U.S. CO2 fossil fuel emissions from 1990 forward, atmospheric CO2 concentrations 

would decline from 401 ppm to 398 ppm in 2015, a 3 ppm reduction (see Exhibit 3B).48

 

45 MAGICC has a carbon cycle that describes how atmospheric CO2 concentrations change as a function of 

emissions and a climate model that relates greenhouse gas concentrations to radiative forcing and mean surface 

temperature. Major carbon sources and syncs in the carbon cycle component of MAGICC include (1) CO2

emissions from fossil fuel combustion, industrial activity, and other human-related activity such as agriculture; (2) 

carbon sequestration in the ocean; and (3) carbon sequestration in land-based biomass. For more details, see Malte 

Meinshausen et al., “Emulating Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean and Carbon Cycle Models with a Simpler Model, 

MAGICC6 – Part 1: Model Description and Calibration,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11, no. 4 (2011), pp. 

1417–1456 (“Meinshausen et al. (2011)”). 46 Meinshausen et al. (2011). 47 MAGICC 6 makes several updates to previous versions, including a more detailed carbon cycle. Meinshausen et 

al. (2011) provide a summary. 

48 If asked, I could do this calculation for other assumptions about U.S. CO2 emissions. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 21 of 61
20 

Executed this 13th day of August, 2018 

___________________________________ 

 John P. Weyant, Ph.D. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 22 of 61
Appendix A 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 23 of 61
Page 1 

CURRICULUM VITAE

(as of August 11, 2018) 

John P. Weyant 

 

BACKGROUND

ADDRESSES

Room 260 Huang Engineering Center

Stanford University 

Stanford, CA 94305-4121 

(650) 723-3506 

 

861 Allardice Way

Stanford, CA 94305 

(650) 494-3570 

 

PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS

Application of quantitative methods to policy development and strategic planning. 

 

ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS

 STANFORD UNIVERSITY

 Professor – Dept. of Management Science and Engineering (1/2000 – present)

 Professor- Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research (9/96-12/99) 

Professor - Department of Engineering-Economic Systems (9/89-8/96) 

Associate Professor - Department of Engineering-Economic Systems (9/84-8/89) 

Senior Research Associate - Department of Operations Research (9/80-8/84) 

Research Associate - Department of Operations Research (6/77-8/80) 

 

EDUCATION

 HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

Postdoctoral Fellow - John F. Kennedy School of Government 

Research Topic: Quantitative Models in Energy Policy

 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY:

Doctor of Philosophy - Management Science 

Minor Fields: Economics, Operations Research, Organization Theory 

RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE:

Master of Science in Operations Research and Statistics 

Master of Science in Management 

B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering and Astronautics 

 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 24 of 61
Page 2 

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

PROGRAM ON INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT MODELING DEVELOPMENT 

DIAGNOSTICS AND INTERCOMPARISONS: Cutting edge research on uncertainty, 

technology dynamics, and fine scale climate impacts, model diagnostics development, and 

scenario ensemble construction for IAM community- Lead PI (20 PIs at seven institutions) 8/10- 

ENERGY MODELING FORUM: The EMF conducts systematic comparative studies of 

energy-economic models applied to policy problems of current interest. 

Director (9/84-present) 

Executive Director (J.L. Sweeney, Director): 1/83 - 8/84 

Deputy Director (J.L. Sweeney, Director): 12/79 – 12/82 

Associate Director (J.L. Sweeney, Director): 8/78 – 11/79 

Research Staff (W.W. Hogan, Director): 6/77 – 11/79 

SNOWMASS SUMMER WORKSHOPS ON INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE

CHANGE: Inter-disciplinary workshops on critical issues for integrated assessment - 6/95- 

PRECOURT INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY:

Deputy Director (J.L. Sweeney, Director): 9/07-present 

GLOBAL CLIMATE AJND ENERGY PROJECT

Staff (Lynn Orr, Director): 9/02-9/06 

GENERAL MOTORS COLLABORATIVE LABORATORY ON WORK SYSTEMS 

Co-Director (With Arthur Veinott): 9/00-9/03 

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM: The IEP conducted studies on international energy 

policy issues of current interest. 

Research Staff (A.S. Manne, Director). 7/81 – 8/85 

Research Staff (H.S. Rowen, Director): 9/77 - 6/81 

COMBINING ENERGY MODELS PROJECT: The CEM project attempted to develop a set of 

rules for the combination of energy models of different types. 

 Research Staff (W.W. Hogan & L.J. Lau, Principal Investigators): 8/77 - 4/81 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY CENTER: 4/76 - 6/77 

 . 

RAND CORPORATION (Summer Internships) 

Air Force Energy Problems (for J.R. Gebman): 6/75 - 3/76 

 Air Force R&D Planning (for G.K. Smith): 6/74 - 9/74 

Air Quality Modeling (for J.R. Gebman): 6/72 - 9/72 

Aerodynamics Computer Module (for G.K. Smith): 6/70 - 9/70 

U.C., BERKELEY

ENERGY & RESOURCES PROGRAM:

 Post Graduate Researcher (J.P. Holden, Director): 9/74-6/75 

 

OPERATIONS RESEARCH CENTER:

 Postgraduate Researcher (R.C. Grinold, Director): 10/72-12/73 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 25 of 61
Page 3 

 

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

COURSES TAUGHT:

Energy Policy and Strategy Modeling (EES 283 & EES&OR 483 & MS&E 473) 

 1979 – 2001 

 International Environmental Policy (MS&E 92Q): 2001-present

 Policy and Strategy Analysis (MS&E 190): 2006-2009 

 Public Policy Analysis (MS&E 290): 2000-2006 (with William Perry)

Climate Policy Analysis (MS&E 294): 2004-present

 Energy Policy Analysis (MS&E 295): 2005-present

 Doctoral Research Seminar in Advanced Energy and Environmental Analysis 

 (MS&E 391): 2011-present. 

 Entrepreneurship through the Lens of Venture Capital 

 (MS&E 476): 2014-present (with Ernestine Fu) 

The Energy Seminar

 (MS&E 494): 2014-present

 Entrepreneurship from Business to Government 

 (MS&E 477): 2015-present (with Ernestine Fu) 

 Seminar on Business & Technology 

 Department of Engineering-Economic Systems 1987 – 1993 

 Models and Applications of Operations Research in Society (O.R. 50/150) 

 Department of Operations Research 1979-1980 

 Contingency Planning – The World Oil Market 

 (O.R. 348 A, B, and C, with A. S. Manne) 

 Department of Operations Research 1981 – 1982 

 Financial Decisions, IE 235 

 Department of Industrial Engineering 

 Winter 1990, fall 1990, Winters 1993, 1994 & 1995 

DISSERTATION COMMITTEES (Total – 191; Principal Adviser – 42): 

Principal Advisees (Completed Only) 

Gregory Hamm (Engineering-Economic Systems – 1986) 

Xia Shi (Engineering-Economic Systems – 1989) 

Douglas Robinson (Engineering-Economic Systems – 1990) 

Peter Lilienthal (Engineering-Economic Systems- 1991) 

Hean-Lee Poh (Engineering-Economic Systems -1991) 

Sylvia Kwan (Engineering-Economic Systems – 1994) 

Eric Johnson (Engineering-Economic Systems – 1994) 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 26 of 61
Page 4 

Ming-Fai Sit (Engineering-Economic Systems – 1994) 

Elisabeth Browne (Engineering-Economic Systems – 1995) 

Thomas Hoff (Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1996) 

Robert Earle (Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1996) 

Chi-Peng Chu (Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1996) 

Shu-Cheng Liu (Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1997) 

Enrique Garza-Escalante (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research- 1998) 

Quingxuan Meng (Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1998) 

Michael Hsu (Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1999) 

Akira Maeda (Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1999) 

Karen (Cushing) Sepucha (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1999) 

 Karl Knapp (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1999) 

Kevin Zhu (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 1999) 

Antje Kann (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 2000) 

Wenlong Weng (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 2001) 

Michelle Freed (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 2001) 

John McConnell (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 2001) 

Erin Baker (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 2002) 

Jochen Kleinknecht (Eng.-Economic Systems and Operations Research – 2002) 

Kazuhiro Ninomiya (Management Science and Engineering – 2003) 

Tao Yao (Management Science and Engineering – 2005) 

Albert Whangbo (Management Science and Engineering – 2005) 

Geoff Blanford (Management Science and Engineering – 2006) 

Oytun Eskiyenenturk ((Management Science and Engineering – 2006) 

Leslie Holmes Hummel (Interdisciplinary Program on Environment and Resources-2006) 

Katherine Calvin (Management Science and Engineering-2007) 

Dhruv Sharma (Management Science and Engineering -2010) 

 Nikit Abhyankar (Interdisciplinary Program on Environment and Resources -2013) 

Danny Cullenward (E-IPER & JD Stanford Law School- 2013) 

John Bistline (Management Science and Engineering – 2013) 

Jordan Wilkerson (Management Science and Engineering – 2014) 

Delavane Diaz (Management Science and Engineering – 2015) 

Ben Leibowicz (Management Science and Engineering – 2016) 

Karim Farhat (Management Science and Engineering – 2016) 

Lauren Culver (Management Science and Engineering – 2017) 

 

ENGINEER’S THESIS ADVISEES (3):

Teodoro Myslabodski (Operations Research) 

Anousheh Alamzad (Engineering-Economic Systems) 

Vincent Lui (Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research)

OTHER ACTIVITIES

MAJOR ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 27 of 61
Page 5 

x N.R.C. Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (1975-77) 

x The Institute for the Future – Advisory Board on NSF Interactive Modeling (1978-82) 

x Scientists’ Institute for Public Information – Oil Emergency Task Force (1980) 

x Energy Research Commission of Sweden-Research Program Evaluation Comm. (1982-84) 

x Office of Technology Assessment – Advisory Board on U.S. Gas Supply (1983-84) 

x Chairman: E.P.A. Peer Review Panel on Acid Deposition Research (1983-87) 

x Advisory Board – Electric Power Research Institute Visibility Valuation Project (1983-87) 

x National Academy of Sciences: Committee on the Gas Research Institute (1985-87) 

x Advisory Board on Utility Model Reviews, California Public Utilities Commission (1986-89) 

x Peer Reviewer Final Assessment Report-National Acid Precipitation Assessment Prog. (1990) 

x Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (1992-1993) 

x Nat. Renewable Energy Lab., Analytic Studies Division Advisory Board (1993-1996) 

x Convening Lead Author: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment 

Report, Chapter on Integrated Assessment– Working Group III on Economic and Social 

Dimensions (1993-1995) 

x Lead Author: The Contribution of the Social Sciences to Global Climate Change Policy: 

A State of the Art Report (1993-1996) 

x Director: Snowmass Workshops on Climate Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment 

 (1995-) 

x Advisory Board, Consortium on International Earth Sciences Information Network (1995-2002) 

x Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on Emissions 

 Scenarios (1996-1998).

x Advisory Board: Yale/National Bureau of Economic Research Program on Economics and 

 Policy Issues in Global Warming National Science Foundation Center (1996-2005) 

x Adviser: National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan (1997-) 

x Chairman: External Review Panel- Electric Power Research Institute: Environment Division 

x Coordinating Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third 

Assessment Report, Working Group II on Climate Impacts and Working Group III on 

Climate Change Mitigation (1998-2001). 

x Independent Expert Review Panel, Energy Information Administration Report on Likely Costs 

and Energy Sector Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change Policy, Report Prepared 

for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science (1998). 

x Chairman, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Director’s Review Panel, Environmental Energy 

Technologies Division (1998, 2003, 2008, 2011, 2015).

x Co-founder, The Boathouse Group of Climate Negotiators fro the twelve largest carbon emitting 

countries (2003- ). 

x Review Editor, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Assessment Report Number Four, 

(2004-2007). 

x California Air Resources Board, (ARB) –Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory 

Committee (ETAAC) (2007- ). 

x World Bank – Academic Advisory Board for World Development Report on Climate Change – 

2010. 

x Chairman, Scientific Advisory Board, European Commission’s AMPERE Project on Integrated 

Assessment Model Diagnostics. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 28 of 61
Page 6 

x Steering Committee, Latin American Modeling Project

x Member: Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to the California Air 

 Resources Board on Implementation of AB32 the Climate Solutions Act of 2006 

x American Statistical Association Review Committee, the Energy Information Administration – 

U.S. Department of Energy (2006-2012) (2015- ). 

x Co-Editor in Chief , Energy Economics 

x Editorial Board, The Energy Journal 

x Chairman: Scientific Steering Committee of the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium 

(IAMC) - 50 International Member Institutions (2007-present). 

x National Academy of Sciences Committee on America’s Climate Choices; Advancing the 

Science of Climate Change, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Academy of 

Sciences (2008-2010). 

x Review committee member and chair: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. 

x Participant, Forums on Global Change, Joint Program on the Science and Economics of Global 

Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

x Adviser: National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan. 

x Member, Steering Committee, The International Project on “Developing a Technology Strategy 

for Dealing With Climate Change,” Lead by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for An 

 International Consortium of Government and Industry Sponsors. 

x Review Editor, Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change Report Number Five, 

(2010-2013). 

x Chairman, Scientific Advisory Board, European Commission’s ADVANCE Project on Cutting 

Edge Research for Integrated Assessment Modeling. 

x Chairman, Scientific Advisory Board, European Commission’s Climate and Development 

Linkages (CD-LINKS) Project on Cutting Edge Research for Integrated Assessment Modeling. 

x Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Board, Office of Science, U.S. Department of 

Energy (2014- ). 

x National Academy of Sciences Committee on Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of 

the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National 

Academy of Sciences (2015-2017). 

 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 29 of 61
Page 7 

OTHER UNIVERSITY ACTIVITIES

Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies 

SENIOR FELLOW (1998-2012) 

Woods Institute for the Environment 

SENIOR FELLOW (2007-2016) 

 Precourt Institute for Energy 

SENIOR FELLOW (2010- ) 

 

Northeast Asia - United States Forum on International Policy 

FELLOW (1982 - 1985) 

 

Engineering Library Committee 

MEMBER 1986-1995 

CHAIRMAN 1988-1991 

 

University Committee on Libraries 

MEMBER 1988-1991 

OFFICES IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

 President, Northern California Chapter-International Association of Energy Economists 

Vice President, U.S. Institute of Energy Economics 

Vice President, International Association for Energy Economics 

Chairman, IAEE Nominating Committee for 1989 

Selection Committee – Best Paper in the Energy Journal for 1997 - 1998 

 

CONSULTING

 Rand Corporation 

Electric Power Research Institute 

U. S. Department of Energy 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Pan Heuristics 

Applied Decision Analysis 

Science Applications, Inc. 

Charles River Associates 

U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 

United States Synthetic Fuels Corporation 

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program 

California Energy Commission 

Federal Trade Commission 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 30 of 61
Page 8 

MAJOR HONORS and AWARDS

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Outstanding Contributions to the Profession Award for 2017, International Association for 

Energy Economics (Maximum One Award per Year)

Adelman Frankel Award for 2008, U.S. Association for Energy Economics, for Unique and 

Enduring Contributions to the Field (Maximum One Award per Year) 

Nobel Peace Prize, 2007, Significant Contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change Award. 

 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY: 

POSTDOCTORAL FELLOW, National Science Foundation, Harvard University (1976-1977) 

 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY: 

REGENTS FELLOW (1972-1974) 

DISTINCTION Plus, Ph.D. Qualifying Examination in Economic Theory (June 1973) 

DISTINCTION Plus, Ph.D. Qualifying Examination in Operations Research (September 1973) 

DISTINCTION Plus, Ph.D. Qualifying Examination in Management Science (Dec. 1973) 

PUBLICATIONS

JOURNAL ARTICLES 

R.C. Grinold and J.P Weyant (1976). “The Transition Fractions in Organizational Manpower 

Planning Models,” Behavioral Science, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 240-251. 

J.P. Weyant (1978). “A Comparative Analysis of Three of ERDA's Major R & D Programs 

Energy - The International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 747-768. 

 

J.L. Sweeney and J.P Weyant (1978/79). “The Energy Modeling Forum: Past, Present, and 

Future,” Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 10, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 295-320. 

A.S. Manne, R.G. Richels and J.P Weyant (1979). “Energy Policy Modeling: A Survey,” 

Operations Research, January/February (feature article), Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-36. 

 

J. P. Weyant, “Quantitative Models in Energy Policy (1980),” Policy Analysis, Published by the 

University of California, spring 1980, pp. 211-234. 

 

H.S. Rowen and J.P Weyant (1981). “Oil and National Security: An Integrated Program for 

Surviving an Oil Crisis,” Annual Review of Energy, Vol. 6, pp. 171-198. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 31 of 61
Page 9 

 

W.W. Hogan, J.L. Sweeney and J.P Weyant (1981). “Aggregate Elasticity of Energy Demand,” 

The Energy Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, April, pp. 37-76. 

 

B. Ball, J. Houghton, J.L. Sweeney and J.P Weyant (1981). “U.S. Oil and Gas Supply,” in J.B. 

Ramsey, ed., The Economics of Exploration for Natural Resources, Contemporary Studies in 

Economic and Financial Analysis, Vol. 26, pp. 119-149. 

Theodore Myslabodski and J.P Weyant (1981). “Managing an Oil Bonanza: An Analysis of 

Alternative Mexican Export Policies,” Energy Policy, September, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 186-196. 

H.S. Rowen and J.P Weyant (1981). “Will Oil Prices Collapse?” Challenge; The Magazine of 

Economic Affairs, November/December, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 11-17. 

 

D.M. Kline and J.P Weyant (1982). “Reducing Dependence on Oil Imports,” Energy Economics, 

January, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 51-64. 

 

 H.S. Rowen and J.P Weyant (1982). “Reducing the Economic Impacts of Oil Supply 

Interruptions; An International Perspective,” The Energy Journal, January (feature article), Vol. 

3, No. 1, pp. 1-34. 

 

W.W. Hogan and J.P Weyant (1982). “Combined Energy Models,” in J. R. Moroney, editor, 

Formal Energy and Resource Models, Advances in the Economics of Energy and Resources, Vol. 

4, pp. 117-150. 

H.G. Huntington, J.L. Sweeney and J.P. Weyant (1982). “Modeling for Insights, Not Numbers; 

The Experiences of the Energy Modeling Forum,” OMEGA; The International Journal of the 

Management Sciences, August, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 449-462. 

 

J.P. Weyant and D.M. Kline (1982). “Policies to Reduce OECD Vulnerability to Oil Supply 

Disruptions,” Energy - The International Journal, December, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 199-211. 

 

J.P. Weyant (1982). “OPEC and the Oil Glut: Outlook for Oil Export Revenues during the 1980s 

and 1990s” OPEC Review, winter, Vol. VI, No. 4, pp. 333-364. 

 

 W.W. Hogan and J.P. Weyant (1983). “Methods and Algorithms for Combining Energy Models; 

Optimization in a Network of Process Models,” in B. Lev, editor, “Energy Models and Studies,” 

Studies in Management Science and Systems, Vol. 20, pp. 3-43. 

 

J.P Weyant and D.M. Kline (1983). “Key Determinants of Optimal Oil Import Tariffs; An 

International Perspective,” Energy Policy, June, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.101-118. 

 

J.P. Weyant (1983). “Reducing the Economic Impacts of Oil Supply Interruptions; Reply,” The 

Energy Journal, April, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 59-61. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 32 of 61
Page 10 

J.P. Weyant (1983). “The Energy Crisis is Over ... Again?” Challenge: The Magazine of 

Economic Affairs, September/October, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 12-17. 

 

J.P. Weyant (1983). “Comment on the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook,” 

The Energy Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 91-94. 

 

J.P. Weyant (1984). “The Continuing Threat of Oil Supply Interruptions,” Journal of Policy 

Analysis and Management, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 393-405. 

T.E. Daniel, H.G. Goldberg, and J.P. Weyant (1984). “Canadian Gas Exports to the U.S.; A 

Monopolistic Intertemporal View,” The Energy Journal, October, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 21-34. 

A.S. Manne, J.P. Weyant, C. Nelson, and R. So (1985). “A Contingency Planning Model of the 

International Oil Market,” Applications of Management Science, Vol. 4, pp. 1-35. 

S.C. Peck and J.P. Weyant (1985). “Electricity Growth in the Future,” The Energy Journal, Vol. 

6, No. 1, January, pp. 23-43. 

 

J.P. Weyant (1985). “General Economic Equilibrium as a Unifying Concept in Energy-Economic 

Modeling,” Management Science, May, Vol. 31, No.5, pp. 548-563. 

 

J.P. Weyant (1985). “Using Data Analysis and Modeling in Planning,” Petroleum Management, 

July, Vol. 7, No. 7, pp. 35-37. 

 

J.P. Weyant (1986). “The Price Collapse of '86,” Petroleum Management, June, Vol. 8, No.6, pp. 

20-23. 

 

M.A. Beltramo, A.S. Manne, and J.P Weyant (1986). “A North American Gas Trade Model: 

GTM,” The Energy Journal, June, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 15-32. 

 

S.C. Peck, D.K. Bosch, and J.P. Weyant (1988). “Industrial Energy Demand: A Simple Structural 

Approach,” Resources and Energy, June, Vol. 10. No. 2, pp.111-134. 

 

J.P. Weyant (1988). “Is There Policy-Oriented Learning in the Analysis of Natural Gas Policy 

Issues?” Policy Sciences, Vol. 21, pp. 239-261. 

T.A. Kuczmowski and J.P. Weyant, editors (1990). “Energy Modeling for an Uncertain Future: 

Modeling for Policy Development,” Part I of Special Issue of Energy - The International Journal, 

March/April, Volume 15, Number 3/4. 

 

T.A. Kuczmowski and J.P. Weyant, editors (1990). “Energy Modeling for an Uncertain Future: 

Models for Decision Making,”“Engineering-Economic Modeling: Energy Systems,” Part II of 

Special Issue of Energy - The International Journal, May/June, Volume 16, Number 1/2. 

J.P. Weyant (1990). “Application of Models in the Process of Legislation,” Energy: The 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 33 of 61
Page 11 

International Journal, April, Vol. 15, No. 3/4, pp. 187-201. 

J.P. Weyant (1990). “Policy Modeling: An Overview,” Energy: The International Journal, April, 

Vol. 15, Nos. 3/4, pp. 203-206. 

J.P. Weyant (1990). “Integrated Models,” Energy: The International Journal, June 1990, Vol. 15, 

No. 4, pp. 341-345. 

J.P. Weyant (1990). “Energy-Economy Models: A Survey,” Energy: The International Journal, 

June 1990, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 387-395. 

D.W. Gaskins and J.P. Weyant (1993). “Model Comparisons of the Costs of Reducing CO2

Emissions,” American Economic Review, May, Volume 83, Number 2, pp. 318-323. 

J.P. Weyant (1993). “Costs of Reducing Global Carbon Emissions,” Journal of Economic 

Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 4, fall, pp. 27-46. 

J.P. Weyant (1996). “Commentary on the IPCC Energy Assessment,” Energy Policy, Vol. 24, 

Nos. 10/11, October/November, pp. 1005-1008. 

J.P. Weyant and Thomas Olavson (1999). “Issues in Modeling Induced Technological Change in 

Energy, Environment, and Climate Policy,” Journal of Environmental Management and 

Assessment, Vol. 4, pp. 67-85. 

J.P. Weyant and Jennifer Hill (1999). “Introduction and Overview of The Costs of the Kyoto 

Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation,” The Energy Journal, Special Issue, pp. vii-xiv. 

H.S.Rowen and J.P. Weyant (1999). “Staying Cool About Global Warming,” The National 

Interest, No. 57, Fall, pp. 87-93. 

Antje Kann and J.P. Weyant (1999). “A Comparison of Approaches for Performing Uncertainty 

Analysis in Integrated Assessment Models,” Journal of Environmental Management and 

Assessment, Vol.5, No.1, pp 29-46. 

T. Hoff, C. Herig, H.Wenig, and J.P Weyant (2001). “Reduce, Reuse, Renew: One Possible 

Approach to Cutting Carbon Emissions,” International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Vol.15, 

Issue.1-2, February, pp. 73-83 

J. Hartmann, K. Ebi, K.J. McConnell, N. Chan and J.P. Weyant (2002). "Climate Suitability for 

Stable Malaria Transmission in Zimbabwe under Different Climate Change Scenarios," Global 

Change and Human Health, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.2-14. 

Kevin Zhu and J.P. Weyant (2003). "Strategic Exercise of Real Options: Investment Decisions in 

Technological Systems," Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 34 of 61
Page 12 

September, pp. 257-278. 

Kevin Zhu and J.P. Weyant (2003). “Strategic Decisions of New Technology Adoption 

Under Asymmetric Information: A Game Theoretic Model,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 4, 

pp. 643-675. 

John P. Weyant, editor (2004). “EMF 19: Alternative Technology Strategies for Climate Change 

Policy,” Energy Economics, Special Issue, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 501-755. 

John P. Weyant (2004). “Introduction to Alternative Technology Strategies for Climate Change 

Policy,” Energy Economics, Special Issue, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 501-525. 

Kristie L. Ebi, Jessica Hartman, Nathan Chan, John McConnell, Michael Schlesinger and 

John Weyant (2005). “Climate Suitability for Stable Malaria Transmission in Zimbabwe under 

Different Climate Change Scenarios,” Climatic Change, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 375-393. 

Detlef van Vuuren, John Weyant, and Francisco de la Chesnaye (2006). “Multigas Scenarios to 

Stabilize Radiative Forcing,” Energy Economics, Vol. 28, No. 1, January, pp. 102-120.

Erin Baker, J.P. Weyant and L.G. Clarke (2006). “Optimal Technological R&D in the Face of 

Climate Uncertainty.” Climatic Change, Vol.78, No. 1, September, pp. 157-179. 

Leon Clarke, John Weyant, and Alison Birky (2006). “On the Sources of Technological 

Advance: Assessing the Evidence,” Energy Economics, Vol. 28, No. 5-6, November, pp. 579-

595. 

Leon Clarke, John Weyant, Jae Edmonds (2006). “The Sources of Technological Advance: What 

do the Models Assume?” Energy Economics, In Press.

Jae Edmonds, Tom Wilson, Marshall Wise and John Weyant (2006). “Electrification of the 

Economy and CO2 Emissions Mitigation,” Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Vol. 7, 

pp. 175-203. 

John P. Weyant, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, and Geoff J. Blanford (2006). “Overview of EMF21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy,” in Special Issue of The Energy Journal, Francisco 

C. de la Chesnaye and John P. Weyant, editors, December, pp. 1-32. 

John P. Weyant (2007). “Comment on Alternative Measures of Output in Global EconomyEnvironmental Models: Purchasing Power Parity or Market Exchange Rates,” Energy 

Economics, Vol. 29, No. 3, May, pp. 375-377. 

John P. Weyant (2008), “A Critique of the Stern Review's Mitigation Cost Analyses and 

Integrated Assessment” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2: 77-93 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 35 of 61
Page 13 

Sonia Yeh, Alex Farrell, Richard Plevin, Alan Sanstad and John Weyant (2008). “Optimizing 

U.S. Mitigation Strategies for the Light-Duty Transportation Sector: What We Learn from a 

Bottom-Up Model,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 42 (22), pp 8202–8210. 

John P. Weyant (2009). A Perspective on Integrated Assessment, Climatic Change, 95:317-

323. 

Allen A. Fawcett, Katherine V. Calvin, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, John M. Reilly, John P. 

Weyant (2009). “ Overview of EMF 22 U.S. Transition Scenarios,” Energy Economics, Vol. 31, 

Supplement 1, Pages S198-S211, Available online 28 October. 

Leon Clarke, John Weyant (2009). Energy Economics, Introduction to the EMF 22 Special Issue 

on Climate Change Control Scenarios, Vol. 31, Supplement 1, Page S63, Available online 26 

October. 

Richard H. Moss, .., John P. Weyant. (2010). The Next Generation of Scenarios for Climate 

Change Research and Assessment, Nature, Vol. 463, No. 7282, 11 February, pp 747-756. 

Detlef P. van Vuuren,, James A. Edmonds, Mikiko Kainuma, Keywan Riahi and John P. Weyant

(2011) Special Issue: The Representative Concentration Pathways in Climatic Change, Climatic 

Change:109:1-2, 241 pp. Introduction and Overview paper plus editor of whole volume. 

John P. Weyant (2011). Accelerating the development and diffusion of new energy technologies: 

Beyond the “Valley of Death”, Energy Economics, Volume 33(4): 674-682. 

Pamela. A. Matson, Thomas Dietz..., John P. Weyant, et al. (2010), America’s Climate Choices; 

Advancing the Science of Climate Change, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, 

National Academy of Sciences. 

 

Tao Yao, John Weyant, Baichun Feng (2011). “Competing or Coordinating: IT R&D Investment 

Decision Making Subject to Information Time Lag”, Information Technology and Management, 

Vol. 12 (3), 213-228. 

Leon.E. Clarke, Volker. Krey, and John.P. Weyant (2012), “Regional Energy System Variation 

in Global Models: Results From the Asian Modeling Exercise Scenarios,” Energy Economics,

Volume 34 Supplement 3: S293–S305. 

Christoff Böhringer, C., Thomas.F. Rutherford, Edward J. Balistreri and John P. Weyant (2013), 

“Introduction to the EMF 29 Special Issue on the Role of Border Carbon Adjustment in

Unilateral Climate Policy,” Special Issue of Energy Economics, Volume 34, Supplement 2: S95-

S250. 

John E. Bistline and John P.Weyant (2013), “Electric Sector Investments under Technological 

and Policy-Related Uncertainties: A Stochastic Programming Approach,” Climatic Change, 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 36 of 61
Page 14 

November, 121(2): 143–160. 

John P. Weyant, Brigette Knopf, Enrica De Cian, Ilka. Keppo, and Detlef P. van Vuuren (2013), 

“Introduction to the EMF 28 Study on Scenarios for Transforming the European Energy System,” 

Climate Change Economics, Vol. 4, Suppl. 1. (Also, editors of whole special issue volume). 

Jordan T. Wilkerson, Danny Cullenward, Danielle Davidian, and John P. Weyant (2013). “End 

Use Technology Choice In The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS): An Analysis of the 

Residential and Commercial Building Sectors” Energy Economics, Volume 40, November, 

Pages 773-784. 

Elmar Kriegler, John P. Weyant, et al. (2014). “The Role of Technology for Achieving Climate 

Policy Objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy,” 

Special Issue of Climatic Change, Volume 123, pp. 345-352, (also editors of two volume special 

issue, 438 p.).

Masahiro Sugiyama, O. Akashi, Ken Wada, Amit. Kanudia, Jia Li, and John P. Weyant (2014), 

“Energy Efficiency Potentials in Global Climate Change Mitigation; A Comparison of Modeling 

Approaches,” in Special Issue of Climatic Change Volume 123: 397-411. 

Stephen Rose, Elmar Kriegler, Alexander Popp, and John P. Weyant (2014), “Bioenergy in

Energy Transformation and Climate Management,” Climatic Change. Volume 123, pp. 345-352, 

p. 773-784.

John P. Weyant, Allen A. Fawcett, Leon Clarke, eds. (2014). “The role of technology for 

achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 24 study on U.S. technology and 

climate policy,” Energy Journal Special Issue on U.S. Technology And Climate Policy, Volume 

35, Special Issue #1, p. 1-8 (also edited whole volume, 247 p.) 

Allen A. Fawcett, Leon C. Clarke, Sebastian Rausch, John P. Weyant (2014),, “Overview of 

EMF 24 policy scenarios,” The Energy Journal, Volume 35, Special Issue #1, p. 33-60. 

Clarke, L.C., Fawcett, A.A., McFarland, J., Weyant (2014), “Overview of the EMF 24 

technology scenarios,” Energy Journal, Volume 35, Special Issue #1, p. 33-60. 

Elmar Kriegler, Keywan Riahi, Valentina Bosetti, Pantelis Capros, Nils Petermann, Detlef P. van 

Vuuren, John P. Weyant, and Ottmar Edenhofer (2015), “Introduction to the AMPERE Model 

Intercomparison Studies On The Economics Of Climate Stabilization,” Technological 

Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 90, Part A, Pages 1-354. 

John P. Weyant (2014). Integrated assessment of climate change: state of the literature. Journal 

of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 5:377-409. doi:10.1515/jbca-2014-9002. 

Jordan T. Wilkerson, Benjamin D. Leibowicz, Delavane Diaz Turner, and John P. Weyant 

(2015), “Comparison of Integrated Assessment Models: Carbon Price Impacts on U.S. Energy,” 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 37 of 61
Page 15 

Energy Policy 01/2015; 76(January):18-3. 

Maureen Cropper, Richard. Newell,..., John P. Weyant, National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social 

Cost of Carbon Dioxide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2017. 

https://doi.org/10.17226/24651. 

John P. Weyant (2017). “Some Contributions of Integrated Assessment Models of Global 

Climate Change,” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Volume 11(1):115–137. 

Christopher T. M. Clack, Staffan A. Qvist, Jay Apt, Morgan Bazilian, Adam R. Brandt, Ken 

Caldeira, Steven J. Davis, Victor Diakov, Mark A. Handschy, Paul D. H. Hines, Paulina 

Jaramillo, Daniel M. Kammen, Jane C. S. Long, M. Granger Morgan, Adam Reed, Varun 

Sivaram, James Sweeney, George R. Tynan, David G. Victor, John P. Weyant, and Jay F. 

Whitacre (2017), “Evaluation Of A Proposal For Reliable Low-Cost Grid Power With 100% 

Wind, Water, And Solar,” PNAS, 114 (26): 6722-6727; published ahead of print June 19, 2017. 

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610381114 

Allen A. Fawcett, James R. McFarland, Adele C. Morris, and John P. Weyant (2018), 

“Introduction to the EMF 32 Study On U.S. Carbon Tax Scenarios,” Climate Change Economics, 

Volume 9(1): 1-7. (Also co-editors for whole volume-323 pp) 

 

BOOKS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOOKS 

T.C. Koopmans, R.E. Litan, and J.P. Weyant, Energy Modeling for an Uncertain Future, 

Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Modeling Resource Group of the 

Synthesis Panel, National Research Council, December 1977. 

W.W. Hogan and J.P Weyant, editors, Coal in Transition: 1980-2000, 3 Volumes, Energy 

Modeling Forum, Stanford University, Stanford, California, July 1978. 

 

W.W. Hogan and J.P. Weyant, “Stripping the Coal Models: Mining for the Essentials,” 

Appendix A in Coal in Transition: 1980 -2000, Volume 2, Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford 

University, Stanford, California, September 1978. 

 

J.L. Sweeney and J.P. Weyant, “The Energy Modeling Forum: Past, Present, and Future,” in 

Energy Policy - The Global Challenge, Peter N. Nemetz, editor, Institute for Research on Public 

Policy, 1979, pp. 295-317 (reprinted from Journal of Business Administration).

R.G. Richels and J.P. Weyant, “Models for Energy Technology Assessment,” in Advances in 

Energy Systems and Technology, Peter Auer, editor, Academic Press, 1979, pp. 179-260. 

 J.L. Sweeney and J.P Weyant, editors, Aggregate Elasticity of Energy Demand, 2 Volumes, 

Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford University, Stanford, California, November 1981. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 38 of 61
Page 16 

J.P. Weyant, W.W. Hogan and D.R. Fromholzer, “The Design of the Experiment,” Chapter 2 in 

Aggregate Elasticity of Energy Demand, Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford University, Stanford, 

California, November 1981. 

 

D. Nissen and J.P. Weyant, “Energy System Elasticities,” Chapter 5 in Aggregate Elasticity of 

Energy Demand, Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford University, Stanford, California, November 

1981. 

 

J.P. Weyant and J.L. Plummer, “International Institutional Approaches to Energy Vulnerability 

Problems,” in Energy Vulnerability, J.L. Plummer, editor, Ballinger Publishing, 1982. 

 

H.S. Rowen and J.P. Weyant, “Tradeoffs Between Military Policies and Vulnerability Policies,” 

in Energy Vulnerability, J.L. Plummer, editor, Ballinger Publishing, 1982. 

 

J.P. Weyant and D.M. Kline, “Energy Crisis Meets Oil Glut: Implications for Oil Policy during 

the 1980s,” in M.S. Wionczek, editor, World Hydrocarbon Markets: Current Status, Projected 

Prospects and Future Trends, Pergamon Press, October 1982, pp. 49-74. 

 

J.P. Weyant, A Dynamic Model of The U.S. Energy System: A Tool for Energy R&D Planning, 

Outstanding Dissertations in Economics Series, Garland Publishing, 1984. 

 

J.P. Weyant and D.B. Sheffield, editors, The Energy Industries in Transition: 1984-2000, 

proceedings of the Sixth Annual North American Meeting of the International Association of 

Energy Economists, Westview Press, 1984, Two Vols., 1506 pp. 

J.P. Weyant and J.A. Salinas, “A Comparison of Macroeconomic Model Structures,” in 

Macroeconomic Impacts of Energy Shocks, B. Hickman, H. Huntington and J. Sweeney, editors, 

North Holland Publishing, 1987, pp. 269-331. 

 

J.P. Weyant, “Coordinated Stock Drawdowns: Pros and Cons” in G. Horwich and D.L. Weimer, 

editors, Responding to International Oil Crises, American Enterprise Institute, 1988, pp. 179-199. 

J.P. Weyant, “Is There Policy-Oriented Learning in the Analysis of Natural Gas Policy Issues?” 

in Policy Sciences, 1988, No. 21, pp. 239-261. 

J.P. Weyant, Industrial Energy Demand: Energy Modeling Forum Study Number 8, editor, 

Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford University, 1990. 

J.P. Weyant, “The Technology and Economics of Energy Alternatives,” in Louis Rosen and 

Robert Glasser, editors, Climate Change and Energy Policy, 1992, American Institute of Physics, 

New York.

J.P. Weyant and D. W. Gaskins, “Tentative Conclusions from Energy Modeling Forum Study 

Number 12 on Controlling Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” in Costs, Impacts, and Benefits of CO2

Mitigation, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, June 1993, 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 39 of 61
Page 17 

pp. 235-246. 

J.P. Weyant, “Energy Policy Applications of Operations Research,” Chapter 8 in Handbooks in 

Operations Research and Management Science, Volume 6, Operations Research and the Public 

Sector, North-Holland, 1994, pp. 263-288. 

J.C. Hourcade, K. Halnaes, M. Jacard, W.D. Montgomery, R. Richels, J. Robinson, P.R. Shukla, 

P. Sturm. W. Chandler, O. Davidson, J. Edmonds, O. Finon, F. Krause, A Kolesov, E. LaRovere, 

P. Nastari, A. Pegov, K. Richards, L. Schrattenholzer, R. Shackleton, Y. Sokona, A. Tudini, and 

J.P. Weyant, “A Review of Mitigation Cost Studies,” Chapter 9 in Climate Change 1995: 

Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 1996. 

J.P. Weyant, O. Davidson, H. Dowlatabadi, J. Edmonds, M. Grubb, E.A. Parson, R. Richels, J. 

Rotmans, PR. Shukla, and R.S.J. Tol, “Integrated Assessment of Climate Change: An Overview 

and Comparison of Approaches and Results,” Chapter 10 in Climate Change 1995: Economic 

and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 1996. 

J.P. Weyant, “Incorporating Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment of Climate Change,” in 

Elements of Change –1996, Aspen Global Change Institute, 1997, pp. 258-263. 

J.P. Weyant, “Insights from Integrated Assessment,” in Critical Issues in the Economics of 

Climate Change, International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 

1997, pp. 245-278. 

J.P. Weyant, and Yukio Yanigisawa, “Resources and Technology” chapter 4 in Volume 2 of 

Steve Rayner and Elizabeth L. Malone, editors, Human Choice and Climate Change, Battelle 

Press, 1998, pp. 203-290. 

J.P. Weyant, “The Costs of Carbon Emission Reductions,” in William D. Nordhaus, editor, The 

Economics and Policy Issues in Climate Change, Resources for the Future Press, 1998, pp. 191-

214. 

J.P. Weyant, “Integrated Assessment Modeling of Climate Change; A Comment,” in William D. 

Nordhaus, Editor, The Economics and Policy Issues in Climate Change, Resources for the Future 

Press, 1998, pp. 287-290. 

Kevin Zhu and J.P. Weyant, “Corporate Investment Options in Competitive Situations,” in 

Leonis Trigeorgis, editor, Innovation and Strategy, Flexibility, Natural Resources and Foreign 

Investment, Oxford University Press, 1999. 

J.P. Weyant, editor and introductory chapter, Energy and Environmental Policy Modeling, 

Kluwer Academic Publishing, 1999. 

J.P. Weyant, editor and introductory chapter, Special Issue of the Energy Journal on “The Costs 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 40 of 61
Page 18 

of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation,” editor, 1999, 398 pp. 

Paul Portney and J.P. Weyant, editors and introductory chapter, Discounting and 

Intergenerational Equity, Resources for the Future Press, 1999. 

Weyant, J.P. (contributing author), Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2000. 

Mirza, M.Q., H.J. Schellnhuber, Joel Smith, Samuel Fankhauser, Rik Leemans, Lin Erda, Laban 

Ogallo, Barrie Pittock, Richard Richels, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Urie Safriel, Richard Tol, J.P. 

Weyant and Gary Yohe, “Synthesis and Integration of Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,” 

Chapter 19 in Climate Change 2001:Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Cambridge 

University Press, 2001. 

Banuri, Tariq, John Weyant, Grace Akumu, Adil Najam, Luiz Pinguelli Rosa, Steve Rayner, 

Wolfgang Sachs, Ravi Sharma, Ferenc Toth, and Gary Yohe, “Setting The Stage: Climate 

Change And Sustainable Development,” Chapter 1 in Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, 

Cambridge University Press, 2001. 

Banuri, Tariq (Pakistan), Terry Barker (UK), Igor Bashmakov (Russian Federation), Kornelis 

Blok (Netherlands), John Christensen (Denmark), Ogunlade Davidson (Sierra Leone), Michael 

Grubb (UK), Kirsten Halsnaes (Denmark), Catrinus Jepma (Netherlands), Eberhard Jochem 

(Germany), Pekka Kauppi (Finland), Olga Krankina (Russian Federation), Alan Krupnick 

(USA), Lambert Kuijpers (Netherlands), Snorre Kverndokk (Norway), Anil Markandya 

(UK), Bert Metz (Netherlands), William R. Moomaw (USA), Jose Roberto Moreira (Brazil), 

Tsuneyuki Morita (Japan), Jiahua Pan (China), Lynn Price (USA), Richard Richels (USA), John 

Robinson (Canada), Jayant Sathaye (USA), Rob Swart (Netherlands), Kanako Tanaka (Japan), 

Tomihiru Taniguchi (Japan), Ferenc Toth (Germany), Tim Taylor (UK), John Weyant (USA), 

Technical Summary, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation in Climate Change 2001. Cambridge 

University Press, 2001.

Ferenc Toth, Mark Mwandosya, John Christiansen, Jae Edmonds, Brian Flannery, Carlos GayGarcia, Hoesung Lee, Klaus Meyer-Abich, Elena Nikitina, Atiq Rahman, Richard Richels, Ye 

Riqui, Arturo Villavicencio, Yoko Wake, and John Weyant, “Decision-making frameworks,” 

Chapter 10 in Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Cambridge University Press, 2001. 

Tariq Banuri, Terry Barker, Igor Bashmakov, Kornelis Blok, John Christensen, Ogunlade 

Davidson, Michael Grubb, Kirsten Halsnaes, Catrinus Jepma, Eberhard Jochem, Pekka Kauppi, 

Olga Krankina, Alan Krupnick, Lambert Kuijpers, Snorre Kverndokk, Anil Markandya, Bert 

Metz, William R. Moomaw, Jose Roberto Moreira, Tsuneyuki Morita, Jiahua Pan (China), Lynn 

Price, Richard Richels, John Robinson, Jayant Sathaye, Rob Swart, Kanako Tanaka, Tomihiru 

Taniguchi, Ferenc Toth, Tim Taylor, John Weyant, “Technical Summary,” for Climate Change 

2001: Mitigation, Cambridge University Press, 2001. 

Weyant, John P., “Economic Models: How They Work and Why Their Results Differ,” in 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 41 of 61
Page 19 

Climate Change: Science, Strategies and Solutions, Eileen Claussen, Executive Editor, The Pew 

Center on Global Climate Change, Brill, Boston, 2001. 

Weyant, John P., “Review Of Mitigation Cost Studies And Trajectories, And Assumptions That 

Drive Them,” in U.S. Policy on Climate Change: What Next? Frank Loy and Bruce Smart, 

editors, Aspen Institute, 2002. 

Leon E. Clarke and John P. Weyant, “Modeling Induced Technological Change: An Overview,” 

in Technological Change and the Environment, Arnulf Grübler, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, and 

William D. Nordhaus, editors. Resources for the Future Press, 2002. 

Francisco de la Chesnaye and John P. Weyant, editors, Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and 

Climate Policy, Special Issue of the Energy Journal, December 2006, 524 p.. 

Pamela. A. Matson, Thomas Dietz..., John P. Weyant, et al., America’s Climate Choices; 

Advancing the Science of Climate Change, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, 

National Academy of Sciences, 2010. 

M. Cropper, R. Newell,..., J. Weyant, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon 

Dioxide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.17226/24651. 

John P. Weyant, contributor to Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Council 

(BERAC), “Grand Challenges for Biological and Environmental Research: Progress and Future 

Vision; A Report from the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee,” 

DOE/SC–0190, member of BERAC Subcommittee on Grand Research Challenges for Biological 

and Environmental Research, 2017 (science.energy.gov/~/media/ber/berac/pdf/Reports/BERAC2017-Grand-Challenges-Report.pdf). 

John Weyant, Ernestine Fu and Justin Bowersock, Renewed Energy: Insights for Clean Energy's 

Future, Kauffman Fellows Press; 1 edition, August 9, 2018.

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS: PEER REVIEWED

 

J.P. Weyant, “Energy Models in the Policy Process: Oil Price Decontrol and Synthetic Fuels 

Commercialization,” Proceedings of the Second Lawrence Symposium on Systems and Decision 

Sciences, Berkeley, California, October 3 and 4, 1978. 

J.P. Weyant, “The Energy Modeling Forum and Model Assessment: Substitutes or 

Complements,” in Validation and Assessment of Issues of Energy Models, Saul I. Gass, editor, 

Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 

January 10-11, 1979. 

J.P. Weyant, “The Experiences of the Energy Modeling Forum,” in Beyond the Energy Crisis; 

Opportunity and Challenge, Third International Conference on Energy Use Management, Berlin, 

Germany, October 26-30, 1981. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 42 of 61
Page 20 

A.S. Manne, J.P. Weyant and K.C. So, “OTM: An International Oil Trade Model,” in Energy 

Markets in the Longer Term: Planning Under Uncertainty, A.S. Kydes and D.M. Geraghty, 

editors, Proceedings of the IMACS Second International Symposium, Upton, New York, August 

1984, pp. 241-244. 

J.P. Weyant, “The World Oil Market: Lessons of the Past,” in Ten Years After the First Oil 

Shock, Center for the Study of Foreign Affairs, U. S. Department of State, February 28, 1985. 

 

J.P. Weyant, “Comment on System Effects and Policy Options,” in Energy Economics and 

Politics, proceedings of an International Symposium arranged by the National Energy 

Administration of Sweden, Stockholm, October 8-10, 1984, pp. 219-221. 

J.P. Weyant, “Comparative Model Analyses: Understanding Alternative Projections of 

Economic Behavior,” paper presented at the Workshop for a DOE Economic and Modeling 

Research Agenda (sponsored by the Task Force on Economic Analysis and Modeling Related to 

Energy - Secretary of Energy Advisory Board), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Alexandria, 

Virginia, June 3-4, 1992. 

J.P. Weyant, “Areas of Agreement and Disagreement on Energy Subsidies,” Evaluating Energy 

Subsidies: Information for Today’s Policy Choices, Washington, D.C., September 7, 1995. 

 J.P. Weyant, “Insights From Integrated Assessment and the Role of the Developing Nations in 

Global Climate Policy Development,” proceedings of the IPCC Asia-Pacific Workshop on 

Integrated Assessment Models, United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan, Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, 1997, pp. 109-121. 

“Some Perspectives on Future Energy Technologies,” Electric Power Research Institute, Annual 

Research Conference, May 21, 2008. 

“The Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency: An Overview,” Global Technology Strategy 

Project Annual Research Meeting, Joint Global Change Research Institute, University of 

Maryland and Pacific Northwest Laboratory, May 28, 2008. 

“Energy R&D, Facilitating the Great Transition in Energy Systems,” Global Climate and Energy 

Program Annual Research Symposium, October 1, 2008. 

“Overview of Climate Change Mitigation Costs,” National Academy of Sciences Workshop on 

Climate Change Economics, October 2, 2008. 

“Risk, Uncertainty and Model Validation in Integrated Assessment,” Integrated Assessment 

Research Program, Basic Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy, November 15, 2008. 

‘Energy Modeling: Past Present and Future,” Acceptance Speech for Adelman-Frankel Award for 

2008, International Association for Energy Economics, 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 43 of 61
Page 21 

New Orleans, December 4, 2008. 

“GHG Emissions: Post Kyoto Protocol,” The Stanford Kyoto Trans-Asian Dialogue, Kyoto 

Japan, September 10-11, 2009. 

“Making Integrated Assessment More Integrated,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory,

Golden, Colorado, December 7, 2009. 

“Developing Global Climate Scenarios with Integrated Models,” National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, December 8, 2009. 

“The EMF 22 International Climate Policy Scenarios and Beyond: 

Are We Whistling in the Grave Yard?” AEA/ IAEE Session on Climate Policy for a PostKyoto World, American Economics Association, Annual Meeting, Atlanta, January 3, 2010. 

“Global Climate Policy Objectives and Architectures: Are We Whistling in the Grave Yard?” 

The Energy Seminar, Stanford University, January 6, 2010. 

“The Rationale for Developing Global Techno-Economic Scenarios,” National Academy of 

Sciences-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Workshop, Washington, D.C., 

February 5, 2010. 

“Toward a Community of Practice: EMF, Snowmass Workshops and the IAMC,” Department of 

Energy, Clim ate Ch an ge Modelin g PI Meetin g, Gaithersburg, MD 

March 29, 2010. 

“Overview and Introduction to Climate Economics” National Academy of Sciences Workshop, 

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2010. 

“Communicating with policy makers –informing not confusing? Two Examples From the 

 Energy Modeling Forum,” Snowmass Workshop on Climate Change Impacts and Integrated 

Assessment, July 30, 2010. 

 

“Stimulating Energy Technology Innovation, Beyond the Valley of Death, Session on “The 

Economics of Technologies To Combat Global Warming,” Snowmass Workshop on Climate 

Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment, August 3, 2010. 

“The Energy Modeling Forum: Past, Present and Future,” presentation at the third meeting of the 

Asian Modeling Exercise, Seoul Korea, September 13, 2010. 

“Climate and Energy Policy & Strategy Research at Stanford/MS&E” 

Presentation at the 10 Year Anniversary Celebration of the Department of Management Science 

and Engineering, October 16, 2010. 

“Overview on the Progress of the EMF 24 (US) and EMF 27 (Global) Climate Policy Transition 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 44 of 61
Page 22 

Scenarios With Advanced Technology Impacts Studies,” EMF 24/27 Working Group Meeting, 

Washington, DC, October 24, 2010. 

“Progress of the EMF 24 (US) and EMF 27 (Global) Climate Policy Transition Scenarios with 

Advanced Technology Impacts Studies,” Fourth Annual Meeting of the Integrated Assessment 

Modeling Consortium, Washington, D.C., October 27, 2010. 

“Overview of the Activities of the Program on Integrated Assessment Modeling Development, 

Diagnostics and Inter-Comparison,” Fourth Annual Meeting of the Integrated Assessment 

Modeling Consortium, Washington, D.C. October 28, 2010. 

“Climate and Energy Policy Analyses: Current Status and Future Directions,” Key note address 

at the Institute for Operations Research and Management Science (INFORMS) 2010 Annual 

Meeting, Austin, Texas, November 7, 2010. 

“Sources of Technological Change,” presentation at the Workshop on R&D Portfolio Analysis 

Tools and Methodologies, Washington, DC, December 2, 2010 

“Perspectives on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” plenary penal at the Annual 

Meetings of the American Economics Association, Denver, January 7, 2011. 

“Overview of EMF Activities,” American Statistical Association Advisory Board to the Energy 

Information Administration Annual Meeting, March 7, 2011. 

“Perspectives on Federal Energy Technology Innovation Policies,” panel presentation on the 

occasion of the retirement of William Perry from the MS&E Department, April 6, 2011. 

“The International Energy Workshop at Age Thirty,” annual meeting of the International Energy 

Workshop, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, July 6, 2011. 

“Approaches for Dealing with Uncertainty in Energy-Environmental Policy Analyses,” 

Snowmass Colorado, August 1, 2011. 

“Progress Report on Integrated Assessment of Climate Change,” Symposium Honoring the 

career of Steven H. Schneider, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, 

August 26, 2011. 

“Progress Report on the Development of the Program on Integrated Assessment Modeling 

Assessment Development, Diagnostics and Inter-comparisons,” DOE Biological and 

Environmental Research Program Principal Investigators Meeting, Washington, DC. 

September 21, 2011. 

“Progress Report on the Development of the Program on Integrated Assessment Modeling 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 45 of 61
Page 23 

Assessment Development, Diagnostics and Inter-comparisons,” second meeting of the European 

Commission’s Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Pathways and Evaluation of the 

Robustness of Mitigation Cost Estimates” (AMPERE) project, Vienna Austria, October 3, 2011. 

“Progress Report on the Development of the Program on Integrated Assessment Modeling 

Assessment Development, Diagnostics and Inter-comparisons,” fourth annual meeting of the 

Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC), Vienna Austria October 6, 2011 

 “Progress Report on EMF 24 and EMF 27,” fourth annual meeting of the Integrated Assessment 

Modeling Consortium (IAMC), Vienna Austria October 6, 2011. 

 

“Foundations of Energy Modeling,” presentation at Seminar organized by the King Abdullah 

Petroleum Analysis and Research Center, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, October 10, 2012. 

“Review and Assessment of Approaches to Oil Price Forecasting,” presentation at Seminar 

organized by the King Abdullah Petroleum Analysis and Research Center, Dhahran, Saudi 

Arabia, October 10, 2012. 

“Perspectives on Oil Security,” presentation at Seminar organized by the King Abdullah 

Petroleum Analysis and Research Center, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, October 10, 2012. 

“Introduction to Strategy Concepts for Major Exporting Nations,” presentation at Seminar 

organized by the King Abdullah Petroleum Analysis and Research Center, Dhahran, Saudi 

Arabia, October 10, 2012. 

“Overview of EMF 24, 27 and 28,” EMF Working Group Meeting, Potsdam, Germany, 

November 7, 2012. 

“Integrated Assessment of Climate Change,” The Climate Works Foundation, San Francisco, 

January 14, 2013. 

“Perspectives on Energy-Environmental Analysis,” Annual Symposium of the Joint Institute for 

Strategic Energy Analysis, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, March 20, 

2013. 

“The Future of Natural Gas from a Global Energy Perspective,” Global Technology Strategy 

Workshop on the Shale Gas Revolution, Joint Global Change Research Program, Maryland 

Eastern Shore, April 15, 2013. 

“Some Possible Interests of the Financial Community in Climate Change” American Meteorological 

Association Special Workshop, Washington, DC, June 4, 2013. 

“Overview of Approaches to Modeling Technological Change,” third meeting of the European 

Commission’s Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Pathways and Evaluation of the 

Robustness of Mitigation Cost Estimates” (AMPERE) project, Seville, Spain, May 28, 2013. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 46 of 61
Page 24 

“Overview of Approaches to Model Assessment,” Third meeting of the European Commission’s 

Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Pathways and Evaluation of the Robustness of 

Mitigation Cost Estimates” (AMPERE) project, Seville, Spain, May 29, 2013. 

“Progress Report on the Development of the Program on Integrated Assessment Modeling 

Assessment Development, Diagnostics and Inter-comparisons,” Third meeting of the European 

Commission’s Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Pathways and Evaluation of the 

Robustness of Mitigation Cost Estimates” (AMPERE) project, Seville, Spain, May 30, 2013. 

“Overview of Integrated Assessment,” Snowmass Workshop on Climate Change Impacts and 

Integrated Assessment,” Snowmass, Colorado, July 22, 2013. 

“An IA Perspective on New Global Scenario Development,” Snowmass Workshop on Climate 

Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment, Snowmass, Colorado, July 29, 2013. 

“An IA Perspective on New Global Scenario Development,” Aspen Global Change Institute, 

Aspen, Colorado, August 4, 2013. 

“Overview of EMF Climate Change Studies,” Washington D.C Roll Out of EMF 24 – U.S. 

Technology Strategies and Climate Policy, Washington D.C., September 16, 2013. 

“Progress Report on the Development of the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium,” sixth 

annual meeting of the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC), Tsukuba, Japan, 

October 28, 2013. 

“Progress Report on the Work of the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center” sixth annual meeting of 

the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC), Tsukuba, Japan, October 29, 2013. 

“Progress Report on the Development of the Program on Integrated Assessment Modeling 

Assessment Development, Diagnostics and Inter-comparisons,” sixth annual meeting of the 

Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC), Tsukuba, Japan, October 29, 2013. 

“Progress Report on EMF 24 and EMF 27,” sixth annual meeting of the Integrated Assessment 

Modeling Consortium (IAMC), Tsukuba, Japan, October 29, 2013. 

Developing Global Community Scenarios; Why and How? Center for Climate and Energy 

Decision Marking Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University November 5, 

2013. 

“The role of simulation models and big data in mitigation and adaptation planning, and how they 

can be opened up to influence the general public,” Conference on “Crowds and Climate 

Mobilizing Crowds to Develop Ideas and Take Action on Climate Change,” 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA November 7, 2013. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 47 of 61
Page 25 

“An Integrated Assessment Community View on the Development of New Global Scenarios,” 

Workshop on the Development of New Global Scenarios, National Academy of Sciences, Keck 

Center, Washington, DC, December 13, 2013. 

“Energy Modeling Forum Study 27: The Role of Technology for Achieving Climate Policy 

Objectives,” White House International Policy Development Group, Old Executive Office 

Building, Washington, DC, December 20, 2013. 

 “Evaluation of EU AMPERE Climate Policy Analysis Project by AMPERE External Science 

Advisory Panel,” EU Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, January 21, 2014 

“Perspectives on Energy-Environmental Analysis,” Annual Symposium of the Joint Institute for 

Strategic Energy Analysis, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, March 23, 

2014. 

“Summary Assessment of the Latin American modeling Project,” Bogota, Columbia, April 29. 

 “Progress Report on the Development of the Program on Integrated Assessment Modeling 

Assessment Development, Diagnostics and Inter-comparisons,” DOE Biological and 

Environmental Research Program PI Meeting, Rockville, Maryland, May 30, 2014. 

“Overview of IPCC Mitigation Work for Governors Briefing on Climate Policy Analysis,” 

Sacramento, California, May 29, 2014. 

“Overview of Integrated Assessment,” Snowmass Workshop on Climate Change Impacts and 

Integrated Assessment,” Snowmass, Colorado, July 28, 2014. 

“An IA Perspective on New Global Scenario Development,” Snowmass Workshop on Climate 

Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment, Snowmass, Colorado, July 31, 2014. 

“Climate Policy Scenarios; Past, Present and Future,” Stanford Center at 

Peking University, Peking China, September 17, 2014. 

“Overview of EMF 32 Study on US Power Plan and Revenue Recycling Climate Policies,” 

Washington, D.C., October 22, 2014. 

“Progress Report on the Development of the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium,” 

seventh annual meeting of the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC), Hyattsville 

Maryland, November 17, 2014. 

“Overview of EMF 30 Global Studies on Short Lived Climate Forcers and Bioenergy, Study on 

US Power Plan and Revenue Recycling Climate Policies,” Hyattsville Maryland, November 19, 

2014. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 48 of 61
Page 26 

“Progress Report on the Work of the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center” sixth annual meeting of 

the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC), Tsukuba, Japan, October 29, 2013. 

“Contributions of Integrated Assessment and the Energy Modeling Forum,” Center for Climate 

and Energy Decision Making, Department of Engineering and Public Policy 

Carnegie Mellon University, December 1, 2014. 

“The State of the Art in Integrated Climate Impacts Analysis,” Snowmass Annual Meeting on 

Climate Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment, Snowmass Colorado, July 28, 2015. 

“An Integrated Assessment Perspective on High Resolution Climate Projects for Stakeholder 

Climate Impact Analyses,” Aspen Global Change Institute, August 1, 2015. 

“The State of the Art in Integrated Assessment Modeling,” Integrated Assessment Modeling 

Consortium Annual Meeting, Potsdam, Germany, November 16th, 2015. 

“The State of the Art in Integrated Climate Impacts Analysis”

Snowmass Annual Meeting on Climate Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment, Snowmass 

Colorado, July 28, 2016. 

“Advisory Committee Assessment of The European Advance Project on Improving Integrated 

Assessment” presentation to the European Commission, Brussels, October 7, 2016. 

“Progress of the EMF 33 Project on Advanced Bio-Fuels and Climate Change Policy,” Paris, 

April 24th, 2017. 

“Advisory Committee Assessment of Progress of the European CD-LINKS Project on Climate 

and Development Linkages” CD-LINKS Project Annual Meeting, Potsdam, May 16, 2017. 

“The State of the Art in Integrated Climate Impacts Analysis” Snowmass Annual Meeting on 

Climate Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment, Snowmass Colorado, July 19, 2017. 

“Analysis and Modeling: What has analysis and modeling really taught us about deriving impact 

from technical innovation?” Workshop on Accelerating Climate-Mitigating Technology 

Development and Deployment, University of Maryland, College Park, June 6, 2018. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 49 of 61
Appendix B 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 50 of 61
Appendix B

Documents Relied Upon by John P. Weyant

 

Page 1 

Pleadings

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana et al., Plaintiffs, v. The United 

States of America et al., Defendants, September 10, 2015

Federal Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Kelsey Cascadia Rose 

Juliana et al., Plaintiffs, v. The United States of America et al., Defendants, January 13, 2017

Expert Reports / Declarations

Expert Report of Frank Ackerman, April 13, 2018

Expert Report of Peter Ericson, April 12, 2018

Expert Report of James E. Hansen, Ph.D., April 13, 2018

Expert Report of Mark Jacobson, Ph.D., April 6, 2018

Expert Report of Steven W. Running, Ph.D., April 3, 2018 and associated supporting materials

Expert Report of Joseph E. Stiglitz, Ph.D., April 13, 2018

Expert Report of Kevin E. Trenberth, Sc.D., April 11, 2018 and associated supporting materials

Expert Report of James H. Williams, Ph.D., April 13, 2018

Books / Publications

Aspen Global Change Institute, workshop on Impact Relevance and Usability of High Resolution Climate Modeling and 

Datasets, https://www.agci.org/event/15s2, August 2-5, 2015, Aspen Colorado. 

Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Council (BERAC), “Grand Challenges for Biological and Environmental 

Research: Progress and Future Vision; A Report from the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee,” 

DOE/SC–0190, BERAC Subcommittee on Grand Research Challenges for Biological and Environmental Research, 2017 

(science.energy.gov/~/media/ber/berac/pdf/Reports/BERAC-2017-Grand-Challenges-Report.pdf).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Contribution of Working 

Group I to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1995.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: 

Scientific-Technical Analyses, Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, 1995.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report – Summary for Policymakers, 2001. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of 

Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for 

Policymakers, 2001.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report – Summary for Policymakers, 2007.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis – Evaluation of Climate 

Models, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

2013.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, 2014.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 51 of 61
 

Page 2 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of 

Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for 

Policymakers, 2014.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate 

Change, 2016.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Review of the Draft Fourth National Climate Assessment, 2018.

U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment, 2014.

U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I,

2017.

Academic Literature

Abatzoglou, J. T., & Williams, A. P. “Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests,” PNAS,

2016, 113(42), 11770-11775. doi:10.1073/pnas.1607171113

Balch, Jennifer et al., “Human-started Wildfires Expand the Fire Niche Across the United Stated,” PNAS, 2017.

Luo, Lifeng et al., “Will Future Climate Favor More Erratic Wildfires in the Western United States?” Journal of Applied 

Meteorology and Climatology, 52(11), 2410-2417. doi:10.1175/jamc-d-12-0317.1

Jones, A., K. Calvin, and J.-F. Lamarque (2016). Climate modeling with decision makers in mind. Eos, 97, 

doi:10.1029/2016EO051111. Published on 27 April 2016. https://eos.org/meetingreports/climate-modeling-with-decisionmakers-in-mind.

Mann, M. L., et al. “Incorporating Anthropogenic Influences into Fire Probability Models: Effects of Human Activity and 

Climate Change on Fire Activity in California,” Plos One, 2017, 11(4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153589

Meinshausen, Malte, Sarah C.B. Raper, and Tom M.L. Wigley, "Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle 

models with a simpler model, MAGICC6–Part 1: Model description and calibration." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11, 

no. 4 (2011): 1417-1456.

Syphard, A. D., et al. “Human presence diminishes the importance of climate in driving fire activity across the United 

States.,” PNAS, 2017, 114(52), 13750-13755. doi:10.1073/pnas.1713885114

Stephens, S. L., et al. “U.S. federal fire and forest policy: Emphasizing resilience in dry forests,” Ecosphere, 2016, 7(11). 

doi:10.1002/ecs2.1584

Trenberth, K., “Opinion: Super Storm Sandy,” The Scientist, October 31, 2012, https://www.thescientist.com/opinion/opinion-super-storm-sandy-40282 

Trenberth, K., et al., “Attribution of climate extreme events,” Nature Climate Change, Perspective, published online: June 22,

2015. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2657

Yoon, J. H., et al., “2015: Extreme fire season in California: A glimpse into the future?” [in “Explaining Extremes of 2014 

from a Climate Perspective”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96 (12), S5–S9.

Public Press, Web Pages, and Other Publicly Available Materials

Alan Blinder & Christina Caron, “Seattle Chokes as Wildfire Smoke from Canada Blankets the Northwest,” New York Times, 

August 7, 2017, at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/us/wildfires-canada-seattle.html.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “IPPC Factsheet: What is the IPCC?”, available at

https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_what_ipcc.pdf

Oregon Department of Forestry, “About the Fire Program,” https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Fire/Pages/default.aspx

Oregon Department of Forestry, “Fire protection district maps,” https://gisapps.odf.oregon.gov/ProtectionMapDownload/

Oregon Department of Forestry, “ODF Fire History 1911 –2017,” 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/Fire/FireIntelGIS/20180305_ODF_CenturyFireHistory_11x17.pdf

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 52 of 61
 

Page 3 

Oregon Regional Economic Analysis Project, “Eugene MSA vs. Oregon, Comparative Trends Analysis: Population Growth 

and Change, 1969-2016,” https://oregon.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-trendsanalysis/population/tools/78570000/410000/. 

“Software Can Model How a Wildfire Will Spread, and Also How to Stop It Happening,” The Economist, August 2, 2018, 

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/08/02/software-can-model-how-a-wildfire-willspread?cid1=cust/ddnew/email/n/n/2018082n/owned/n/n/ddnew/n/n/n/nna/Daily_Dispatch/email&etear=dailydispatch&utm_s

ource=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily_Dispatch&utm_term=2018082.

“The Carbon Cycle,” http://wiki.magicc.org/index.php?title=The_Carbon_Cycle. 

Jeffrey Kluger, “The Lessons from New York’s Flooded Subways,” Time, October 30, 2012, 

http://science.time.com/2012/10/30/the-lessons-from-new-yorks-flooded-subways/

UCAR Center for Science Education, “Climate Modeling,” https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-modeling

Data Sources

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division, 

ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_gl.txt, accessed August 3, 2018

U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics

Software

Meinshausen, Malte, Sarah C.B. Raper, and Tom M.L. Wigley. MAGICC (version 6). Windows. 2011. (Model software and 

input data files.)

Any other documents or materials cited in this report.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 53 of 61
Exhibit 1 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 54 of 61
Page 1

Exhibit 1

Dr. Trenberth and Prof. Running's

Alleged Climate Change Impacts and Injuries to Plaintiffs

Youth Plaintiffs Identified in 

the Complaint

Alleged Climate 

Change Effect

Alleged Plaintiff 

Injury/Impact

Alleged Climate 

Change Effect

Alleged Plaintiff 

Injury/Impact

1 Aji P.

West Seattle, Washington

Wildfires,

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality

2 Alexander Loznak

Kellogg, Oregon

Wildfires,

Drought,

Excessive Heat,

Freshwater 

Degradation,

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality,

Economic Loss

3 Avery M. 

Eugene, Oregon

Wildfires,

Excessive Heat,

Ecological Changes,

Freshwater 

Degradation

Recreation,

Air Quality

4 Hazel V.

Eugene, Oregon

Wildfires,

Excessive Heat,

Ecological Changes,

Freshwater 

Degradation

Recreation,

Air Quality

5 Isaac V.

Beaverton, Oregon

6 Jacob Lebel

Roseburg, Oregon

Wildfires Air Quality Wildfires,

Drought,

Excessive Heat,

Freshwater 

Degradation

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality,

Economic Loss

7 Jaime B.

Flagstaff, Arizona

Drought,

Wildfires,

Excessive Heat

Water Quality & 

Scarcity

Wildfires,

Excessive Heat,

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality,

Water Quality & 

Scarcity,

Economic Loss

8 Jayden F.

Rayne, Louisiana

Storms & 

Hurricanes

Economic Loss

9 Journey Z.

Kaua'i, Hawai'i

Storms & 

Hurricanes

Economic Loss,

Safety

10 Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana

Eugene, Oregon

Wildfires,

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality

11 Kiran Isaac Oommen

Eugene, Oregon

12 Levi D.

Indialantic, Florida

Storms & 

Hurricanes,

Coastal Erosion

Economic Loss,

Recreation

13 Miko V.

Beaverton, Oregon

Dr. Trenberth Dr. Running

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 55 of 61
Page 2

Exhibit 1

Dr. Trenberth and Prof. Running's

Alleged Climate Change Impacts and Injuries to Plaintiffs

Youth Plaintiffs Identified in 

the Complaint

Alleged Climate 

Change Effect

Alleged Plaintiff 

Injury/Impact

Alleged Climate 

Change Effect

Alleged Plaintiff 

Injury/Impact

Dr. Trenberth Dr. Running

14 Nathaniel B.

Fairbanks, Alaska

Wildfires,

Excessive Heat

Economic Loss Wildfires,

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality

15 Nicholas V.

Lakewood, Colorado

Wildfires,

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality

16 Sahara V.

Eugene, Oregon

Wildfires,

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality

17 Sophie K.

Allentown, Pennslyvania

18 Tia Marie Hatton

Bend, Oregon

19 Victoria B.

White Plains, New York

Storms & 

Hurricanes

Economic Loss,

Safety

20 Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M.

Boulder, Colorado

Storms & 

Hurricanes

Economic Loss Wildfires,

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality,

Spiritual & Cultural 

Practice

21 Zealand B.

Eugene, Oregon

Wildfires Economic Loss Wildfires,

Ecological Changes

Recreation,

Air Quality,

Economic Loss

Source: Complaint, pp. 6-33; Trenberth Report, pp. 20-22; Running Report, pp. 6-17

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 56 of 61
Exhibit 2 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 57 of 61
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 58 of 61
Exhibit 3 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 59 of 61
401

389

350

370

390

410

430

450

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020

Exhibit 3A

Projected Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

No U.S. Fossil Fuel Emisisons after 1990

Source: Author's calculations using MAGICC6; U.S. Energy Information Administration ("EIA"), "International Energy Outlook 2017," September 2017; EIA, "Annual 

Energy Outlook 2017," January 2017; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division.

Note: 

[1] Projections are from the MAGICC6 model using the RCP45 concentration pathway as a baseline and historical concentration data through 1989. Actual CO2

emissions from fossil fuels from 1990 – 2015 and projected emissions from 2015 – 2020 are subtracted from the baseline RCP45 emissions path to predict CO2

concentration with no US Emissions. Actual U.S. emission data is from the EIA. 

[2] In 2015, actual CO2 Atmospheric Concentration was 399 ppm as measured by the Earth System Research Laboratory; Predictions from the model only use 

historical concentration data through 1989, which causes a deviation from the measured concentrations. 

CO2

Concentration 

(ppm)

World

(with U.S. Emission)

World

(without U.S. Emissions)

2015

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 60 of 61
401

398

350

370

390

410

430

450

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020

Exhibit 3B

Projected Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

25% Reduction in U.S. Emissions after 1990 Relative to BAU

Source: Author's calculations using MAGICC6; U.S. Energy Information Administration ("EIA"), "International Energy Outlook 2017," September 2017; EIA, "Annual 

Energy Outlook 2017," January 2017; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division.

Note: 

[1] Projections are from the MAGICC6 model using the RCP45 concentration pathway as a baseline and historical concentration data through 1989. Actual CO2

emissions from fossil fuels from 1990 – 2015 and projected emissions from 2015 – 2020 are multiplied by .25 and subtracted from the baseline RCP45 emissions 

path to predict CO2 concentration with a 25% reduction in U.S. emissions. Actual U.S. emission data is from the EIA. 

[2] In 2015, actual CO2 Atmospheric Concentration was 399 ppm as measured by the Earth System Research Laboratory; Predictions from the model only use 

historical concentration data through 1989, which causes a deviation from the measured concentrations. 

CO2

Concentration 

(ppm)

World

(with U.S. Emission)

World

(US Reduces 25% Relative to Baseline)

2015

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 338-5 Filed 08/24/18 Page 61 of 61