Expert Witness Affidavit for environmental economics

Ontario Coal Phase-Out BETWEEN Marlen Inc. and Government of Ontario. PLAINTIFF Marlen Inc. is a recently bankrupted medium-sized metal stamping company in Ontario, who alleges that its bankruptcy was due to high electricity prices, and that the phase-out of coal power in Ontario caused it unreasonable harm by raising electricity prices with little or no compensating benefit to the electricity customers. Seeking damages from DEFENDANT Government of Ontario for loss of profits and for breach of contract. DEFENDANT maintains that phase-out of coal power was a necessary effort to improve the quality of the environment and did not cause unreasonable harm to the DEFENDANT. The PLAINTIFF seeks an expert opinion on the following questions. 1. What changes occurred in Ontario air pollution levels from 2000 to 2016? 2. What were the main contributors to Ontario air pollution levels over these years? 3. How has Ontario’s electricity supply mix changed over the same interval? 4. How likely is it that the coal phase-out was responsible for some or all of the changes in air quality? 5. How have Ontario electricity prices changed since 2000? 6. What factors likely caused these changes? 7. In your opinion, did the coal phase-out impose costs on electricity users without providing commensurate benefits in exchange? The DEFENDANT seeks an expert opinion on the following questions. 1. What changes occurred in Ontario air pollution levels from 2000 to 2016? 2. What role did Ontario’s coal-fired power plants play in Ontario air pollution levels? 3. How has Ontario’s electricity supply mix changed over the same interval? 4. How have Ontario residents benefited from improved air quality? 5. How have Ontario electricity prices changed since 2000? 6. Have electricity prices risen in other provinces? 7. In your opinion, did the coal phase-out yield benefits to Ontario residents that justified the costs that can reasonably be attributed to it? 2 CASE #2: US Withdrawal from the Paris Accord BETWEEN Simpson and Government of United States. PLAINTIFF Simpson resides in Bellingham, Washington State, where he owns a property along the oceanfront just one meter above sea level valued at US$8.1 million. PLAINTIFF alleges that rising seas due to global warming will flood his property and destroy it. PLAINTIFF seeks damages and an injunction requiring the United States to remain in and comply with the Paris Climate Accord by reducing greenhouse gas emissions according to the commitments made under President Obama. DEFENDANT United States alleges that the Paris decision had no measurable effect on the PLAINTIFF’s property value, that the costs of compliance are unreasonable and would impose more costs on the public than benefits. The PLAINTIFF seeks an expert opinion on the following questions. 1. What fraction of global CO2 emissions since 1750 are attributable to the United States? 2. How much has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 risen since 1750? 3. What is the current rate of global sea level rise, and according to experts how much of that is attributable to emissions of Greenhouse Gases like CO2? 4. What is the purpose of the Paris Climate Accord, and what nations belong to it? 5. Why did the United States withdraw from the Paris Accord? 6. What are some of the potential damages from rising sea levels for individuals living in coastal areas? 7. In your opinion, by withdrawing from the Paris Accord, did the United States expose the plaintiff to risk of flood damages due to sea level rise? The DEFENDANT seeks an expert opinion on the following questions. 1. What is the long term rate of sea level rise in the vicinity of Bellingham Washington? 2. At that rate, how long would it take to cover the first floor of a property built one meter above sea level to a depth of 50 centimeters? 3. What is the range of wave heights and tides along the Washington coast that a waterfront property owner must already anticipate and have protection against? 4. If all nations that have signed the Paris Accord honour their commitments, what will be the likely effect on global average temperatures over the next 20, 50 and 100 years? 5. Would continued adherence to the Paris Accord by the US be likely to have a large effect on long term sea level rise in the vicinity of Bellingham Washington? 6. What are the estimated costs to the US of remaining bound by the Paris Accord? 7. In your opinion, is US withdrawal from the Paris Accord likely to have a direct effect on the plaintiff’s property value through increased flood risk? 3 CASE #3: New Oil Pipelines in Western Canada BETWEEN EnerCo. and the Government of British Columbia. PLAINTIFF EnerCo. is a large oil and gas firm operating in Alberta. In 2015, after undergoing a lengthy and costly review process, it obtained National Energy Board approval to construct a pipeline to convey heavy oil (bitumen) to the west coast for export. The Government of British Columbia is refusing to issue construction permits for a 200 km portion of the pipeline through the Fraser valley, thus preventing construction. PLAINTIFF EnerCo. alleges abuse of power and unconstitutional conduct, and seeks an injunction ordering issuance of the permits plus financial compensation for the delay. DEFENDANT British Columbia alleges that climate change threatens large, irreparable damages to residents of British Columbia which requires extraordinary preventive measures, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the use of bitumen, justifying the refusal to issue construction permits. The PLAINTIFF seeks an expert opinion on the following questions. 1. Does a provincial government have the authority to overturn a decision of the National Energy Board? 2. By refusing to permit construction along the planned route, is the Province of BC effectively nullifying the decision of the National Energy Board to authorize construction? 3. What fraction of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to the operation of pipelines, and what fraction is attributable to the end use of the fuel in the pipelines? 4. Are there alternative means of moving bitumen to the market, and are they currently used? 5. What fraction of global CO2 emissions are attributable to the operation of pipelines in British Columbia, and is this likely to go up or down in the event bitumen is transported by pipeline rather than by alternative modes? 6. Is it certain that global climate change will be catastrophic for British Columbia, and that completion of the pipeline will significantly contribute to the damages? 7. In your opinion, is the province of BC justified in attributing to the completion of the pipeline such large, irreparable climate damages as to justify its actions negating the Board’s approval of the project? The DEFENDANT seeks an expert opinion on the following questions. 1. What are some of the potential damages to British Columbia and its citizens from climate change in the coming decades? 2. Is there a risk that by allowing construction of the pipeline, these damages will be worsened? 3. Does the National Energy Board take account of the damages from global climate change in its approvals process for pipelines? 4. If the costs of climate change were charged to oil companies, would they still continue to extract and export bitumen? 5. Does the use of fuels transported by pipeline cause other harm to the environment besides climate change? 6. Does a provincial government have the authority to refuse permission for construction of a project it deems harmful to its citizens? 7. In your opinion, is the government of British Columbia correct to refuse to allow construction of the pipeline despite the Board approval? 4 Case #4: University Investments in Fossil Fuel Companies BETWEEN Sanderson and Simcoe University Board of Governors. PLAINTIFF is an undergraduate student at Simcoe University. She alleges that she is harmed by the University’s investments in fossil energy companies because they provide indirect financial support for, and earn profits from, an action that will increase the risk to her of injury and death over the course of her lifetime. She seeks an injunction requiring the University to divest from all its holdings in fossil fuel companies. DEFENDANT Simcoe University alleges that the sale of its investments in fossil fuel companies would have no climatic effect, neither would it change the behaviour of the companies involved or the laws under which they operate, but it would impose financial costs on the University and is therefore inconsistent with its duty to manage its investments in a financially responsible manner. The PLAINTIFF seeks an expert opinion on the following questions. 1. Is there evidence that use of fossil fuels has caused, and will continue to cause, climate change? 2. Is there evidence that climate change will impose serious risks including increased likelihood of injury and death? 3. Is there a principle in law that sellers of a product that poses a public hazard can be held responsible for the damage? 4. How much have shareholders in fossil fuel corporations profited from the sale of fossil fuels over the past decade? 5. What is the total volume of greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian oil and gas sector over the past decade? 6. Are alternative investments available to the defendant that would yield approximately equivalent returns to those earned by investing in fossil fuel corporations? 7. In your opinion, should the University be obliged to divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies as a means of mitigating the risk of harm to members of the public, including the plaintiff? The DEFENDANT seeks an expert opinion on the following questions. 1. Are the environmental impacts of oil and gas primarily associated with the production, distribution or use of the fuels? 2. What are some of the rules and processes in Canada for managing the environmental impacts associated with the production of oil and gas use? 3. Does the PLAINTIFF have the option of seeking changes to these rules and regulations through other channels, including appeals to elected officials? 4. Is it legally permissible for universities to invest in oil and gas companies in Canada? 5. Will the remedy sought by the plaintiff likely have a material effect on the global climate? 6. Will the remedy sought by the plaintiff have a material effect on the environmental regulations governing oil and gas production in Canada? 7. In your opinion should the court make a finding that the University’s investment in fossil fuel companies harms the PLAINTIFF and thereby order it to divest?