3 ms·

(cribbing an argument from the dissent) The statute as a whole clearly delineates between when it means to limit authority to technological systems of control.

(cribbing an argument from the dissent) The statute as a whole clearly delineates between when it means to limit authority to technological systems of control. Elsewhere in different provisions, Congress declined to give the EPA broad authority as it does in 111, using phrasing like "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology." "best available retrofit technology" "best available control technology" "maximum achievable control technology" Congress clearly was conscious of the difference between technological systems and more general ones, and it declined to limit the EPA's authority here to technological systems.

rayiner 4y ago
The Clean Air Act had a bunch of terms referring to different technological levels. “Reasonably Available Control Technology” applies in certain cases, “Best Available Control Technology,” a more stringent standard, applies in other cases. It’s fair to read the term “system of emissions reduction” in section 111 as being broader and more general than that and encompassing those specific things. But the fact that those other things are all emissions control technologies strongly suggests that “system of emissions reduction” is referring to a some kind of emissions control technology, not a wholesale change in the operation of the industry. If a statute addressed SVN, git, Mercurial, and CVS, and then had a catch all referring to “system for version control,” how would you read the meaning of the latter term? Look at it this way. Wouldn’t it be odd for Congress to go to all the trouble of enumerating all these levels of emissions control technologies that apply in different situations (new sources versus old sources) and then have this catch-all provision that gives the EPA sweeping powers far beyond unrelated to emissions control technologies?

rayiner 4y ago

The Clean Air Act had a bunch of terms referring to different technological levels. “Reasonably Available Control Technology” applies in certain cases, “Best Available Control Technology,” a more stringent standard, applies in other cases. It’s fair to read the term “system of emissions reduction” in section 111 as being broader and more general than that and encompassing those specific things. But the fact that those other things are all emissions control technologies strongly suggests that “system of emissions reduction” is referring to a some kind of emissions control technology, not a wholesale change in the operation of the industry. If a statute addressed SVN, git, Mercurial, and CVS, and then had a catch all referring to “system for version control,” how would you read the meaning of the latter term? Look at it this way. Wouldn’t it be odd for Congress to go to all the trouble of enumerating all these levels of emissions control technologies that apply in different situations (new sources versus old sources) and then have this catch-all provision that gives the EPA sweeping powers far beyond unrelated to emissions control technologies?