Investor Presentaiton
41
(10th ed. 1995). It is therefore narrower than terms akin
to "concern," like “relating to." United Rentals Nw., Inc.
v. Yearout Mech., Inc., 237 P.3d 728, 732 (N.M. 2010)
(explaining that "contracts for construction" describes a
narrower category than "contracts relating to
construction"); see also, e.g., United States v. Pinson, 331
F.2d 759, 760 (5th Cir. 1964) ("easements for public
utilities" meant easements for facility construction and
maintenance, not all easements "belonging to public utility
companies"). Even when a statute does use broader terms
"like 'relating to' or 'in connection with," courts reject
"hyperliteral meaning[s]" that risk allowing a statute to
"assum[e] near infinite breadth." EPSA, 577 U.S. at 278.
Here, if standards of performance need only "concern" an
existing source, then EPA could use Section 111(d) to set
standards for anything directly or indirectly connected to
the source. Context joins with text to refute a construction
of “for” this far afield, as performance standards are not
only "for" any existing source, but also "apply[]" and are
"applicable to" the source. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)(1), (e).
Finally, Section 111(d) requires EPA to preserve
States' authority to "take into consideration" source-
specific factors like an existing facility's "remaining useful
life." 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)(1). As retrofits can be pricier
and harder to justify than incorporating measures into a
new build, this Section 111(d) safeguard allows flexibility
that Congress did not write into Section 111(b). If,
however, best systems can apply across a source category,
market, or pollutant, States would have little room to
consider something as granular as "useful life.” The CPP
showed what that approach does to source-specific
tailoring when EPA both sets standards and effectively
dictates how they apply, state "discretion" becomes an
illusion. JA.537.View entire presentation