Investor Presentaiton
25
113th Cong. (2013); fees on greenhouse gas emissions,
Climate Prot. Act of 2013, S. 332, 113th Cong. (2013); and
a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, Clean Energy
Jobs & Am. Power Act, S. 1733, 111th Cong. (2009); Am.
Clean Energy & Security Act, H.R. 2454, 111th Cong.
(2009). It has continued debating approaches to emission
regulation in the years since. See, e.g., Am. Energy
Innovation Act of 2020, S. 2657, 116th Cong. (2020);
Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 506-09 (describing
congressional efforts to address climate change). And it
has created programs encouraging investment in natural
gas and renewables in the meantime. See, e.g., Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-
94 (extending Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit
through 2020); EIA, DIRECT FEDERAL FINANCIAL
INTERVENTIONS AND SUBSIDIES IN ENERGY IN FISCAL
YEAR 2016, at 3, 16 (Apr. 24, 2018), https://perma.cc/YPY8
-F4B6 (identifying billions in subsidies to the renewable-
energy industry). The Court should not permit EPA to
short-circuit this ongoing legislative process.
For that matter, when EPA did try to assume control
of these major issues, Congress condemned the attempt
by passing a joint resolution under the Congressional
Review Act to overturn the CPP. S.J. Res. 24, 114th Cong.
(2015) (later vetoed). This "unique political history" is yet
another reason to think Congress did not silently shunt
the task of reordering the energy system to EPA. Brown
& Williamson, 529 U.S. at 159.
As for public attention, EPA received over 4.3 million
comments when it proposed the CPP-the most the
agency had ever received. JA.284. The rule spurred
litigation before EPA even finalized it. See generally In
re Murray Energy Corp., 788 F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
More generally, everyone agrees "[c]limate change hasView entire presentation