Investor Presentaiton slide image

Investor Presentaiton

13 congressional wrangling. The agency may compel plant owners to pay competitors. It can even force plants to shut down. Yet Congress did not clearly say in any part of the CAA, much less Section 111, that EPA can exercise this transformative power. That omission dooms any claim that EPA can. Second, the D.C. Circuit's opinion reordered the traditional "division of responsibilities” between States and the federal government-over clean air and energy- related issues alike. Train v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 79-80 (1975). Regulating electricity generation is the States' domain. The CAA, too, assigns the States primary responsibility for regulating existing emission sources. Yet the D.C. Circuit's approach to Section 111 allows EPA to drive the essential decisions in both areas. If Congress meant for that result, it would have clearly said so. Here again, it did not. II. The text Congress set down limits EPA's power, too. Section 111 directs EPA to identify an "achievable" "best system of emission reduction"; that system is then used to calculate guidelines, and the States must develop plans for sources within their borders to meet them. Everything about Section 111-the words Congress used, the structure, the context-shows that "system" means measures implemented at the source level, that is, inside a facility's fenceline. The D.C. Circuit, however, concluded that Congress put "no limits" on what "systems" EPA may use. The court plucked select words from a definitional provision and read them broadly, then refused to test its construction against the statute's operative provisions to see if it held up in practice. This approach was wrong. A plain reading of the statute does not give EPA power to reorder entire economic sectors.
View entire presentation