Investor Presentaiton

35 “adequately demonstrated" system. These terms carry a dose of empiricism. EPA must employ real-world solutions; "experimental" or "theoretical" will not do. Nat'l Asphalt Pavement Ass'n v. Train, 539 F.2d 775, 786 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Both terms align with source-specific technologies or processes—those in early research-and- development phases are not yet “adequately demonstrated," nor have they established what they might "achiev[e]." But the terms are a bad fit for many measures EPA could adopt under the majority's reading. Telling an operator to shift generation to hit an EPA- dictated target reflects a policy choice about emission outcomes and preferred sources; it does not assess evidence-based techniques. What would it mean for a system to be "adequately demonstrated" if EPA can pick any target it wants and instruct regulated parties to reduce or shift output until they meet it? And if EPA can average emissions across multiple categories of sources, zooming out far enough makes any “system” “achievable.” Section 111(a)(1) speaks to emission “limitation" and "reduction," as well. The D.C. Circuit (again) never defined these terms, but both imply lower emission levels, not elimination. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 436 (2d ed. 1989) (defining “reduction" as “diminution, lessening, cutting down"). Yet generation shifting involves a de facto bar on certain sources' emissions, potentially a complete one. The CAA refers to "reduction" and "elimination" separately, see 42 U.S.C. § 7401(a)(3), so treating the terms interchangeably would render one superfluous. See Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Dep't of Def., 138 S. Ct. 617, 632 (2018) (courts “give effect, if possible, to every word Congress used" (cleaned up)). Congress also knows how to write statutes that stop sources from performing rather than pushing them to perform more efficiently. E.g., 15 U.S.C. § 792(a)(1) (empowering

View entire presentation