Investor Presentaiton
21
considered an attempted overhaul of the latter to be a
major question. Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 159.
What EPA already tried under Section 111 is no less an
overhaul: EPA designed the CPP to be "groundbreaking"
and economy-changing. JA.225. Starting from the
premise that "lives are at stake," it was intended to mark
"the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow
and our planet began to heal." JA.227, 229. EPA was
forthright about its goals, too: It wanted to boost "zero-
emitting generation" and reduce significantly "CO2-
emitting generation." JA.558-59, 572-73. Yet the D.C.
Circuit looked at all this and told EPA, "Do more."
The court below dismissed the breadth and costs of the
CPP by linking them to the size of the "problem, not of the
best-system's role in the solution." JA.148. But a
regulation's scope is most always tied to the scale of the
issue it aims to solve; an agency's decision to "assert
jurisdiction" over vast questions like these is what
triggers the need for a clear statement. Brown &
Williamson, 529 U.S. at 159; see also MCI, 512 U.S. at 229
(agency action could "be justified only if it ma[de] less than
radical or fundamental change" to the regulatory scheme).
Similarly, the lower court was wrong to brush aside costs
by guessing that any "system of emission reduction"
might have a similar price tag. JA.148-49. No one
suggests source-specific measures would have imposed
extraordinary and system-wide expense. The ACE rule's
projected costs, for instance, were orders of magnitude
lower than the CPP's. See EPA, FACT SHEET: PROPOSED
AFFORDABLE CLEAN ENERGY RULE-OVERVIEW (Aug.
2018), https://perma.cc/U79K-ZYX9 (estimating $400
million in annual savings).
Third, the vast powers claimed in the CPP and
extended in the decision below are new. Just asView entire presentation