Investor Presentaiton

31 States unlucky enough to lack the wind, solar, or other power generators that EPA preferred would have also become necessarily reliant on resources or emission credits from their more fortunate neighbors. With many losers in this scenario already among our nation's most economically disadvantaged States, these federalism intrusions deserve more than the majority's passing glance. In the end, Congress must decide whether and how to assign federal pieces of a problem to a federal agency. When that choice comes at the expense of traditional state power, Congress must state it with "exceeding[]" clarity. Cowpasture, 140 S. Ct. at 1849-50. Lack of that clear statement-what Congress did not say in the text-is reason enough to reverse. II. Section 111's Text and Context Require Source- Specific Regulation. No fair construction of what Congress did say in Section 111 supports the majority's near-boundless view, either. As EPA correctly explained when repealing the CPP, Section 111 operates “inside the fenceline." JA.1760-69. Again, although EPA sets standards for new sources directly, 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b), EPA creates a process for States to set "standards of performance for any [covered] existing source," id. § 7411(d)(1). An “existing source” is any "stationary source" other than a new one, and a "stationary source" means "any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant." Id. §7411(a)(3), (6). A "standard of performance," in turn, is:

View entire presentation