Investor Presentaiton

27 of the statute," Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,65 (1989). The Court thus demands even plainer terms when a statute implicates federalism concerns than when Congress delegates major questions. 1. Regulating utilities, including electricity generation, is “one of the most important ... functions traditionally associated with the police power of the States." Ark. Elec. Co-op Corp. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 375, 377 (1983); see also Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 568-69 (1980). States have "traditional authority over the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land use, ratemaking, and the like." Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190, 212 (1983). They also have wide discretion when modifying existing energy systems or exploring new ones. See Hughes v. Talen Energy Mktg., LLC, 136 S. Ct. 1288, 1299 (2016). The federal government can play a role in this space- within limits. In statutes focused on power and energy needs, for instance, Congress assigned only certain regulatory duties to federal agencies and maintained States' existing authority over many others. FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n, 577 U.S. 260, 266-73 (2016) ("EPSA"). Regulations under these statutes "would exceed [the agencies'] authority" if they intrude on "a job for the States alone." Id. at 280. Respect for the traditional assignment of power is even more important here. State regulators have "the greatest knowledge regarding questions of grid reliability” in their States, while power-grid-related issues lie outside EPA's expertise. Texas v. EPA, 829 F.3d 405, 433 (5th Cir. 2016). 2. Nothing in the CAA suggests Congress crossed this time-honored, state-federal line. Quite the opposite. The

View entire presentation