Investor Presentaiton
11
long as EPA satisfies the minimal directive to "take
account" of cost, nonair health and environmental impacts,
and energy requirements. JA.108. It rejected EPA's view
that the statute includes more substantive constraints,
JA.106-08, and all but instructed the agency to wield the
full swath of powers it concluded Congress had bestowed,
JA.137.
The majority further concluded that Section 111 does
not offend what it labeled the "so-called 'major questions
doctrine." JA.135. Applying a self-created standard, the
majority asked only whether "it [was] implausible in light
of the statute and subject matter in question that
Congress authorized such unusual agency action."
JA.135-36. It concluded it was not, emphasizing that
Congress gave EPA power to regulate generally power
plants' greenhouse gas emissions. JA.188-93.
Similarly, the court rejected the idea that federalism
concerns triggered a separate clear-statement
requirement. Many States argued that the CPP infringed
their primary authority over electricity generation and
intrastate energy needs. The majority, however, declared
that "[i]nterstate air pollution is not an area of traditional
state regulation." JA.154-61. So long as EPA exercises
its power in the name of pollution mitigation, the majority
saw nothing wrong with mandating measures with
serious, direct consequences for States' electricity-
generation fleets. JA.154-61.
7. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge
Walker would have held that EPA "was required to repeal
[the CPP] and wrong to replace it" under Section 111.
JA.217. Although he based that conclusion on a separateView entire presentation