Investor Presentaiton
12
question no longer at issue," he was also highly skeptical
that Congress implicitly delegated the vast power the
CPP and majority opinion reflect-particularly
considering the major consequences that would have
followed. JA.217-33. The CPP was designed to push
"groundbreaking" restructuring of the country's power
sector and slash carbon emissions “equal to the annual
emissions from more than 166 million cars," while levying
"almost unfathomable costs." JA.225-26 (footnotes
omitted).
The dissent accordingly found nothing "minor" about
"one of the most consequential rules ever proposed by an
administrative agency." JA.225. How to address climate
change and "who should pay" for solutions are matters of
"vast economic political significance." JA.229 (quoting
Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)
("UARG")). And a little play in the enabling statute's
joints was not enough to give EPA the go-ahead to
address so great an issue: "Either a statute clearly
endorses a major rule, or there can be no major rule."
JA.230, 232.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act does not clearly give
EPA authority to upend the power industry. Two
independent canons of construction confirm that the D.C.
Circuit misconstrued that provision.
First, EPA now wields power to decide major
questions implicating hundreds of billions of dollars, tens
of thousands of potentially regulated parties, and years of
Judge Walker thought that Congress had disabled EPA from
regulating under Section 111 pollutants "emitted from a source
category which is regulated under [Section 112]" already-like coal-
fired power plants. JA.232 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)).View entire presentation