Document 856Bvm5YbM3RLOZp14w8Zxyne

Conversation Contents SCC Attachments: /2. SCC/1.1 SCC Methodology summary 9 18 14.docx /2. SCC/2.1 Kotchen NBER.pdf /2. SCC/2.2 Marten et al. 2015.pdf /2. SCC/2.3 NAS 1st report.pdf /2. SCC/2.4 PNAS-2017-Nordhaus-1518-23.pdf /2. SCC/2.5 social_cost_of_greenhouse_gases_factsheet.pdf /2. SCC/2.6 IWG TSD 2010.pdf /2. SCC/2.7 IWG TSD 2016.pdf Rebecca Moore <rmoore@blm.gov> From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Attachments: Rebecca Moore <rmoore@blm.gov> Thu Jun 15 2017 11:30:15 GMT-0600 (MDT) James Tichenor <jtichenor@blm.gov>, Michael Ford <mmford@blm.gov> Robert Winthrop <rwinthro@blm.gov> SCC SCC Methodology summary 9 18 14.docx James and Mike, As we consider questions regarding SCC in light of the recent E.O., I unearthed the attached draft briefing paper from about 3 years ago outlining options. I At least some of these report region-specific damages (e.g., US). Or, the Marten and Newbold paper looks like a viable source for CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide estimates. I plan to conduct an updated lit review over the next two weeks. If you have suggested references, or sources, or other ideas, I'm all ears. -Rebecca Rebecca Moore, PhD Senior Economist Bureau of Land Management (Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, WO-210) Phone: 970-226-9246; Cell: 202-641-5851; Email: RMoore@blm.gov Mail: Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg C., Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118 "Tichenor, James" <jtichenor@blm.gov> From: Sent: "Tichenor, James" <jtichenor@blm.gov> Thu Jun 15 2017 12:21:28 GMT-0600 (MDT) To: CC: Subject: Attachments: Rebecca Moore <rmoore@blm.gov> Michael Ford <mmford@blm.gov>, Robert Winthrop <rwinthro@blm.gov> Re: SCC Kotchen NBER.pdfM arte n et al. 2015.pdf NAS 1st report.pdf PNAS-2017-Nord hae s-1518-23.pdf social_cost_of_greenhouse_gases_factsheet.pdf IWG TSD 2010.pdf IWG TSD 2016.pdf Thanks Rebecca, I look forward to seeing that. Here is what I pulled when revisiting it a couple weeks back. That might help. I also wonder to what extent you would still want to discuss the IWG papers. The way that I discussed them in the recent RIA was as more of a practical manner. e.g., The RIA for the previous or 2016 final rule considered the SC values found in the 2016 IWG report... The EO...disbanded the IWG and rescinded its reports... In that context, it might be an opportunity to discuss what the previous reports may or may not have said, informing your opinions about how we should look at SC now. Also, noting the article today: https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/15/stories/1060056112 For various reasons, (b) (5) I'd be more than happy to discuss why and what we currently have in the new On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Rebecca Moore <rmoore@blm.gov> wrote: James and Mike, As we consider questions regarding SCC in light of the recent E.O., I unearthed the attached draft briefing paper from about 3 years ago outlining options. I At least some of these report region-specific damages (e.g., US). Or, the Marten and Newbold paper looks like a viable source for CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide estimates. I plan to conduct an updated lit review over the next two weeks. If you have suggested references, or sources, or other ideas, I'm all ears. -Rebecca Rebecca Moore, PhD Senior Economist Bureau of Land Management (Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, WO-210) Phone: 970-226-9246; Cell: 202-641-5851; Email: RMoore@blm.gov Mail: Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg C., Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118 James Tichenor Economist Energy, Minerals, and Realty Management Directorate wo-300 Bureau of Land Management itichenor@blm.aov 202-573-0536