Investor Presentaiton
20
Given the CPP's consequences, the dissent was right to
characterize the plan―a narrower one than those the
D.C. Circuit blessed-as "one of the most consequential
rules ever proposed." JA.225. Every factor for deciding
whether a question is "major" says the same. See, e.g.,
U.S. Telecom Ass'n, 855 F.3d at 422-23 (Kavanaugh, J.,
dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (listing cost,
overall economic impact, number of affected persons, and
degree of public and political attention).
First, take the money involved. It is hard to reduce the
colossal scale of the EPA's new mandate to dollars and
cents. Implementing even the CPP's vision would have
cost hundreds of billions of dollars. See, e.g., NERA
ECONOMIC CONSULTING, POTENTIAL ENERGY IMPACTS
OF THE EPA PROPOSED CLEAN POWER PLAN 21 (Oct.
2014), https://perma.cc/HFU2-QZSA. Costs of wholesale
electricity were expected "to rise by $214 billion,” with
another $64 billion needed to replace the capacity the CPP
axed. JA.226. EPA itself acknowledged these costs—not
to mention spikes in consumer electricity rates and the
tens of thousands of energy-sector jobs projected to
disappear before 2025. See EPA, REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS FOR THE CLEAN POWER PLAN FINAL RULE 6-
25 (Oct. 23, 2015), https://perma.cc/7FDZ-8M2C. These
numbers tower over even those for the major rules in
King, 576 U.S. at 486, and Alabama Ass'n, 141 S. Ct. at
2489; those cases involved "only" billions.
Second, economic costs fail to capture the broader
transformative effects of the majority's view of EPA's
power. Electricity is an "essential" and foundational
element of modern life. See Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal.
Tax-Free Tr., 136 S. Ct. 1938, 1950 (2016). The electric-
power industry is thus an even more "significant portion
of the American economy" than tobacco, and this CourtView entire presentation