Investor Presentaiton
42
C. The CAA As A Whole Confirms Section
111(d)'s Limited Scope.
Going broadest still, the rest of the CAA confirms that
best systems of emission reduction apply at the source.
See Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 222 (2008)
(whenever possible, courts construe statutes to make "the
statutory scheme ... coherent and consistent").
When Congress wants an industry or source to hit an
emission target by any means—including outside-the-
fenceline measures-it says so directly. The CAA has
express cap-and-trade programs, after all. Title IV's Acid
Deposition Control program includes a trading system
pegged to specific tonnage-based emission levels. 42
U.S.C. § 7651(b). Congress added that program in 1990—
the same time it amended Section 111(d) and did not
revise it to include cap-and-trade or other non-
performance-based measures. The Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program uses a similar trading approach, id.
§ 7671d, and Congress approved market-based trading
options under the national ambient air quality program, as
well, id. § 7410(a)(2)(A).
Section 111 is not like these target-driven programs.
Contrary to the majority's view that Congress' express
discussion of cap-and-trade in the acid-rain program is
evidence it silently authorized a similar program here,
JA.151, Section 111 does not mention cap-and-trade or
credits. So while the text creating those programs started
elephant-sized, Section 111's requires the lower court's
convoluted approach to get there. This Court should
"presume[]" Congress acted deliberately when it
"include[d] particular language in one section of [the CAA]
but omit[ted] it in another." INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421, 432 (1987).View entire presentation