Investor Presentaiton

38 grammatically correct sentence conveying that they told the story to someone. Though the D.C. Circuit imagined other potential indirect objects such as "the air pollutant to be limited" it explained neither the textual basis for those alternatives nor how they would work in practice. JA.113. This leap-before-you-look approach leaves States and regulated entities with empty assurance that the agency will figure it out later. Still, it is hard to fathom how "applying]" a "system" to carbon dioxide in the abstract results in a standard of performance for an individual stationary source. Even EPA has not stretched so far. To offset the CPP's "very broad" view of "system," EPA understood "application" to mean “measures that can be implemented-applied-by the sources themselves." JA.543. The CPP tried to get around this concededly "important [textual] limitation" by improperly redefining "source" to include "owners and operators." But unlike the D.C. Circuit, it never snatched "application" from its context. Neither should the Court. B. Other Parts Of Section 111 Confirm EPA's "Inside-the-Fenceline" Power. Determining whether Section 111 is “plain” requires reading its "words in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." King, 576 U.S. at 486 (cleaned up). As the CPP repeal correctly concluded, Section 111's operative provisions also show that "best system" is narrower than the majority thought. Section 111(a)(1)'s "standard of performance" definition applies to Sections 111(b) and (d) alike, so its construction must make sense of both provisions. The majority found "no basis" to read "the source-specific language of subsection (d)(1) ... upstream into subsection

View entire presentation