comm-appendix-support-cross

2 February 29, 2016
target. First; we contend this is not the' case since, as indicated in the Company No Action
Letter there exist a wide range of probabilistic analyses as to the emission reductions necessary
to make a 2 degree target more likely than not, and a yirtdally infinite combination of policy
actions that could be taken by Hundreds of governments around the world to attempt to achieve
those targets. Moreover, the knowledge of specific institutions Which have made an extensive
study of the 2 degree issue cannot be imparted to shareholders generally. The argument in the
Proponehtletter requires ail of the Company's shareholders to have a High level of specific
knowledge and expertise in climate change and related policy in order to understand and
evaluate the Proposal's undefined reference to a 2 degree target; 1
The Proponent Letter refers to numerous varied and complicated external analyses and
reports, of which only a limited portion is either excerpted or explained in the Proponent Letter, to
bolster the Proponent Letter's position that there is a "consistently understood" meaning of the 2
degree target. Based on prior Staff decisions, the Proposal cannot contain any particular set of
external guidelines as a reference, ? so it is not appropriate to end run the inability to actually
include those references in the Proposal by Citing to them in the Proponent Letter, as if they
should be understood to be part of the Proposal;
Further, In addition to the vagueness of the 2 degree target itself, the specific types of
analysis referred to in the Proponent Letter, none of Which can be assumed to be within the.'
knowiedge of shareholders voting on the Proposal, are in any case themselves vague. As the
Proponent Letter points out,."there are many pathways to achieving" the 2 degree target. The
Company and the scientific community agree with this statement, whicb illustrates why the
Proposal is inherently vague.
As previously explained in the Company No Action Letter, if one Way of aehieving the 2
degree target is to engage in massive worldwide depioyment of nuclear and other renewable
energy generation, this will require one specific type of analysis. However, If the method for
achieving the 2 degree target is instead the Widespread use of more techhoiogically advanced
carbon capture and sequestration or dramatic gains In energy efficiency, an entirely different
analysis is necessary. While the Proponent Letter states that "there iS much more consensus
around" what methods will be required to reach the 2 degree target, the Proponent Letter tellingly
doeS hot cite to any examples of this claimed consensus. As a result, shareholders cannot be
expected to have sufficient knowledge of the range of methods that could be employed under the
Proposal, much less which of those methods shareholders afeibeihg asking the Company to
assess. Thus the Proposal fails to address essential aspects of its: own implementatipn, making it
vague.
Finally, the Proponent Letter claims that the Company's publicly available March 2014
report titled "Energy and Carbon - Managing the Risks" (the "2014 Report") "adequately
1
As an example of the complexity of the 2 degree target, the United Nations Infergdverrimentai Panel on
Climate Gharige. iii Us advice to policymakers, explains that various projections rieed to' be made based on
factors such as"population size, economic activity, lifestyle, energy use, land use patterns, technplogy and
climate change" to determine a pathway that would be "representative of a scenario that aims to keep global
warming likely below^"C above pre-ihdustrial temperatures." See page 8 at https://wvvw.ipcG.ch/pdf/assessmentfeport/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf.
2
For example, see httD5://wwv.sec.oov/divisions/cGrDfin/cf-no3ction/143-8/2Q11/bartlettnavior0321 'II-
1.4a8.pdf.
#1P353.541V11
App. 384