Source: https://cei.org/blog/defending-clean-power-plan-supreme-court-epadoj-misrepresent-clean-air-act-lame-editing-tricks
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:20:54+00:00

Document:
Lawyers for the EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are trying to pull a fast one on the Supreme Court. Through creative formatting, they are misrepresenting the text of the Clean Air Act such that it omits a major constraint on federal power.
At issue is Clean Air Act §7411(d)(1), which is a regulatory program to control emissions from existing stationary sources. Section §7411(d)(1) allegedly authorizes Obama’s marquee climate policy (known as the Clean Power Plan). Below, I’ve reposted the text of the provision in full.
§7411(d)(1) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar to that provided by section 7410 of this title under which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan which (A) establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant (i) for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published under section 7408(a) of this title or emitted from a source category which is regulated under section 7412 of this title but (ii) to which a standard of performance under this section would apply if such existing source were a new source, and (B) provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance.
(B) provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance.
EPA can’t issue §7411(d) regulations for sources subject to §7412.
According to opponents of the rule, EPA’s Clean Power Plan is precluded by the third disqualifying factor, because in February of 2012, the agency subjected the power plant sector to §7412 regulations. And if existing power plants are subject to §7412 regulations, then (pursuant to the third §7411(d)(1)(A)(i) disqualifying factor) they are prohibited from being regulated under §7411(d).
Two weeks ago, challengers of the rule took this argument before the Supreme Court, as part of an effort to have the Clean Power Plan paused while it is litigated.
Last week, EPA & Justice Department counsel responded to this argument, and their reasoning is a monument to disingenuousness. Indeed, they employed editing tricks in a lame effort to misrepresent the text of the Clean Air Act to the Supreme Court.
Section 7411(d)(1)(A) empowers EPA to prescribe regulations with respect to any air pollutant “ for which air quality criteria have not been issued * * * under [the NAAQS program] or  which is not included on a list published under [S]ection 7408(a) of this [T]itle or emitted from a source category which is regulated under [S]ection 7412 of this [T]itle.” 42 U.S.C. 7411(d)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Under a literal interpretation, Congress’s use of the word “or” to separate  and  in the preceding quotation means that Section 7411(d)(1)(A) identifies two independent bases on which EPA may regulate air pollutants for existing sources.
Do you see what the agency did there? Through egregious use of “emphasis added,” the EPA/DOJ completely recast the language of §7411(d)(1)(A), such that it reads out the substantive limits on the agency’s power.
For opponents of the rule, the crucial language is §7411(d)(1)(A)(i), which acts to limit EPA’s authority. However, in EPA/DOJ’s rendering of the law, government lawyers format this provision out of the statute!
First, they omit §7411(d)(1)(A)(ii) and §7411(d)(1)(B), and thereby remove referents that demonstrate §7411(d)(1)(A)(i) to be a single provision. More to the point, the EPA/DOJ artificially bifurcate §7411(d)(1)(A)(i), such that it become two subsections (i.e., “(i)” is transformed into “” and “”). Under EPA/DOJ’s telling, this wacky formatting has the effect of creating “two independent bases on which EPA may regulate air pollutants for existing sources.” So a limiting subsection becomes two empowering provisions.
Simply put, EPA/DOJ is using wacky formatting to try to trick the Supreme Court into thinking §7411(d)(1)(A)(i) means the opposite of what it actually means. It is my hope that the Court calls out the government for these shenanigans.

References: §7411
 §7411

§7411
 §7411
 §7412
 §7412
 §7412
 §7411
 §7411
 §7411
 §7411
 §7411
 §7411
 §7411
 §7411
 §7411