Investor Presentaiton

10 discretion of this breadth"-including power to regulate "fundamental sector[s] of the economy." JA.1772. EPA replaced the CPP with new Section 111(d) guidelines for existing coal-fired power plants, saving natural-gas-fired plants for another rulemaking. JA.1786. EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule ("ACE") affirmed that measures achievable on only a regional or grid-wide level could not be a valid "system of emission reduction." JA.89-94. 6. A new group of States and other parties challenged the CPP repeal and ACE replacement, with many others (including Petitioners) intervening to support both rules. JA.95-96, 224. In January 2021, the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 decision vacating and remanding ACE and the CPP's repeal. JA.53-215, 224. The majority rejected EPA's position that Section 111(d) requires a more inhibited view of EPA's powers than the agency had claimed in the CPP. The majority relied on an expansive understanding of two words— "system" and "application,” JA.108-10-found in Section 111(a)(1)'s definition of “standard of performance.” These standards in turn apply to a particular source, but the majority concluded that EPA could rely on systems that apply to "the source category" as a whole or all "emissions" in general. JA.115, 118. The majority also rebuffed the renewed regulatory restraint that led EPA to repeal the CPP. According to the majority, EPA unduly "tied its own hands" even in the CPP by considering only systems that "target supply- side" activities or reduce emissions directly rather than offset their effects. JA.143 n.9. The majority thought Section 111 was a broader statute-"Congress imposed no limits on the types of measures the EPA may consider" as

View entire presentation