Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

9 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

tions in even the most optimistic case.”  Comments of Indi-
ana Municipal Power Agency 9 (June 20, 2022).  That is a 
challenge to EPA’s endorsement of a particular emissions-
control technology; it says nothing about the FIP’s depend-
ence on a particular number of States.  See also, e.g., Com-
ments of Lower Colorado River Authority 21–22 (June 21, 
2022).  Similarly, another commenter argued that pulp and 
paper mills should not be included because the “maximum 
estimated  improvement”  in  ozone  levels  from  controlling 
their emissions would be “too small to even measure.”  Com-
ments of Wisconsin Paper Council 2 (June 21, 2022).2  An 
argument  that  the  maximum  benefits  from  regulating  an 
industry are too small is not an argument that those bene-
fits would become too small if fewer States were covered.3 
  The  closest  comment  that  the  Court  can  find—which  it 
quotes repeatedly—is one sentence that obliquely refers to 
some “new assessment and modeling of contribution” that 
EPA might need to perform.  Comments of Air Stewardship 
Coalition 13–14 (June 21, 2022).  The Court dresses up this 

—————— 

2 The Court claims that in distinguishing comments about particular 
industries from comments that question whether the plan depends on a 
number of States, I “fai[l] to acknowledge” that the FIP treats States as 
the “sum of their emissions-producing facilities.”  Ante, at 16, n. 12.  But 
in reality, it is the Court that ignores how the FIP works.  The FIP de-
termines  emissions  limits  for  particular  sources  based  on  their  indus-
tries; the total NOx emissions limit for each State is simply the sum of 
the limits the plan imposes on each of the State’s sources.  See, e.g., 88 
Fed. Reg. 36678, 36762; Part II–B, infra.  So comments critiquing a par-
ticular  industry-specific  emissions  limit  or  technology  assumption  say 
nothing about the FIP’s dependence on a certain number of States. 

3 Nor did the Air Stewardship Coalition’s comment about the “knee in 
the curve” raise concerns about which States are included.  See ante, at 
7, n. 4.  Rather, this comment questioned EPA’s proposed average cost-
effectiveness threshold of $7,500 per ton for non-power-plant sources; it 
argued that EPA should use different thresholds for different industries.  
Comments of Air Stewardship Coalition 27 (June 21, 2022) (Air Steward-
ship Comments).  It did not link its concern about cost thresholds to the 
States covered by the plan.