Investor Presentaiton
37
statutory language is not merely an exercise in
ascertaining" its most expansive meaning, FCC v. AT&T,
562 U.S. 397, 407 (2011), as courts should not “indulge
efforts to endow the Executive Branch with maximum
bureaucratic flexibility," Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S.
Ct. 1474, 1484 (2021). The lower court erred in stopping
with "system's" broadest meaning without asking whether
context called for a more tempered read. At the least,
"system's" context demands only "complex unities" that
individual sources can perform.
The majority was also wrong to interpret "application"
in an unbounded, context-free way. Standards of
performance "reflect" the degree of limitation possible
"through the application" of the best system of emission
reduction. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1). As the noun form of the
verb "apply," "application" means "to put to use with a
particular subject matter." Application, BLACK'S LAW
DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). Putting a system of emission
reduction "to use" means using it for something. The
obvious "something” here is the facility that emits—in
Sections 111(b) and (d) terms, a new or existing stationary
source. Thus, the "best system" "appl[ies]" to a stationary
source that is, a "building, structure, facility, or
installation." 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(3).
The lower court resisted this conclusion by observing
that a sentence can be grammatically correct with no
express indirect object, particularly when it employs a
nominalized verb like “application." JA.111-13. In its
view, then, "best system" need not apply to any specific
entity. JA.112-13. But the insight that a sentence without
an indirect object may not break the rules of grammar
does not change the reality that "apply" (no matter its
form) must be directed to something (express or not).
Plenty of words work this way. "They told the story" is aView entire presentation