Investor Presentaiton

47 Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 553 (1935) (Cardozo, J., concurring). Not so for the decision below. Section 111 applies beyond "a discrete set of pollutants" and does not specify "requisite" regulatory outcomes. Whitman, 531 U.S. at 473. This extended reach makes it even more troubling the majority untethered EPA from any meaningful statutory criteria. The majority found enough flexibility to support a broad delegation, yet left the central questions unanswered when it comes to how EPA may use it-including how to measure success and when, if ever, EPA must stop. Does a "best system of emission reduction" eliminate the source category's "significant contribution" to air pollution? 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1). Should EPA aim at mitigating danger to "the public health" or "public welfare?" Id. § 7409(b)(1)-(2). And should or even may-EPA worry about keeping some (all? many?) sources operational when identifying a "best system"? To be sure, EPA must "take [] into account" three factors when identifying the best system: "cost," "nonair quality health and environmental impact," and "energy requirements." 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1). Yet without the rest of the textual constraints the majority jettisoned, these are not "substantial" guidance. Whitman, 531 U.S. at 475. The majority itself recognized "no limits on the types of measures that EPA may consider." JA.108 (emphasis added). EPA must check the box to explain how the factors affect its ultimate choice, but it has a universe of options to start from. Nor does Section 111 explain what "taking into account” means or how strong countervailing factors must be to overlook even substantial downsides. The three factors will likely appear slight once EPA lines up the costs of not acting

View entire presentation