mr. keisler, five minutes? >> you asked what this would involve in that kind of situation and i think your honor gave a perhaps absurd hypothetical about light bulbs. u should know that the permitting authority does address light bulbs in the cafeteria. it says that permitting authorities likely do not fleed to look at whether more efficient light bulbs should be used in a facility but -- because it likely would not have sufficient payoff. but the fact that thear take -- talking about it brings into sharp relief the fact that when talking about this permitting propose -- process is potential invasive in every ats pec of a local plant's operation and that's what is so different between this and the nsps program which functions by -- >> we went to the examples in the brief. the 144 permits that have already been given. people who have managed to come into compliance under that. >> oh, it's certainly not our submission that every single one of these determinations is going to be unreasonable or outrageous or reach

mr. keisler, five minutes? >> you asked what this would involve in that kind of situation and i think your honor gave a perhaps absurd hypothetical about light bulbs. you should know that the permitting authority does address light bulbs in the cafeteria. it says that permitting authorities likely do not need to look at whether more efficient light bulbs should be used in a facility because it likely would not have sufficient payoff. but the fact that they are talking about it brings into sharp relief the fact that when talking about this permitting propose -- process is potential invasive in every ats pec of a local plant's operation and that's what is so different between this and the nsps program which functions by -- >> we went to the examples in the brief. the 144 permits that have already been given. people who have managed to come into compliance under that. >> oh, it's certainly not our submission that every single one of these determinations is going to be unreasonable or outrageous or reach into the c

mr. keisler was discussing are called standards of performance. so it's specifically picking up the section 74-11 standard. then if one turns to the definition of best available control technology under the p.s.d. program which you can find at 34 a of our appendix to the brief, you will notice that congress specifically linked the operation of the 74-11 standards and the best available control standards under the p.s.d. program. what it says is that once congress has set aunder section 74-11, a nationwide standard, that becomes a floor for the evaluation of best available control. >> are you reading subsection three a, b, and c, are you reading those in the alternative? i read that all three have to be complied with. >> yes, they all three have to be complied with. >> then that does president help you. you are right back where we started, we have the tonnage per year requirement. >> well, i'll be happy to get to that but if i could just finish off this point about the connection between the operation of the two because i think it's of critical imp

mr. keisler? >> may it please the court. the situation here is unprecedented in two respects.one, the epa agreed that -- if it's interpretation is adopted, then applying other issues to the same statutes would according to their terms , result in a program that would have been unrecognizable to the congress that enacted it. contrary to congress's and 10, intent the agency calls a , absurd. epa to the conclusion -- took the conclusion as a basis for re-writing other parts of the statute. the agency wrongly believes it fixes the problem. this is not a one-time act of statutory rewriting. is problematic as that alone would be. the agency has said it intends to adjust and readjust the thresholds based on its ongoing assessment of the costs and benefits. >> may i ask about your interpretation of the phrase -- air pollutant. there are a lot of different interpretations that have gone on. here is some choices. -- here are some choices. i want to ask you to pick what you are arguing for. your original position was that any pollutant meant -- that was your original position. any pollut

mr. keisler? >> made these the court -- may it please the court. the situation here is unprecedented in two respects. one, the epa agreed that -- according to their terms result in a program that would have been unrecognizable to the congress that enacted it. country to congress's and 10, the agency calls a absurd. epa to the conclusion -- took the conclusion as a basis for re-writing other parts of the statute. the agency wrongly believes it fixes the problem. this is not a one-time act of statutory rewriting. the agency has said it intends to adjust and readjust the thresholds based on its ongoing assessment of the costs and benefits. >> may i ask about your interpretation of the phrase -- there are a lot of different interpretations that have gone on. here is some choices. i want to ask you to pick what you are arguing for. your original position was that any pollutant meant -- that was your original position. judge kavanaugh's position is it means any max pollutant. -- any naaqs pollutant. there's another position that says it is really any reg