“ By using the word “any,” Congress demonstrated its intent to provide EPA expansive authority, not to limit the agency’s jurisdiction to only certain kinds of air pollutants. See Dept. of HUD v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 131 (2002) (“the word ‘any’ has an expansive meaning, that is, ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind’”) (internal quotation omitted) . As noted above (supra at 6) , section 302 (g) of the Act defines “air pollutant” comprehensively, and each of the four pollutants associated with climate change and emitted by motor vehicles is plainly covered by this definition. ”

“ Thus section 202 creates two very different steps in the process of setting standards for air pollution from motor vehicles. The first step is almost pristine in its simplicity: the Administrator is required to regulate when, “in his judgment,” motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7521 (a) (1) . The second step – setting technologically and economically feasible standards once endangerment is found – involves an assessment and balancing of an assortment of other factors. ”

“ An administrative agency simply cannot rest its decisions on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) . Section 202 (a) (1) entrusts to the Administrator’s “judgment” the threshold question of whether endangerment is occurring. But, as Judge Tatel observed, the statute provides the Administrator “no discretion either to base that judgment on reasons unrelated to this standard or to withhold judgment for such reasons.” ”

“ All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being, whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with other air pollutants. ”

“ In 1976, the D.C. Circuit interpreted the “endangers” language as permitting “regulatory action to prevent harm, even if the regulator is less than certain that harm is otherwise inevitable.” Ethyl Corp. ”

“ I. IN UPHOLDING EPA’S DECISION BASED ON FACTORS NOT MENTIONED IN THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION, THE LEAD OPINION BELOW DRAMATICALLY DEPARTED FROM THIS COURT’S PRECEDENTS This Court has made plain that the judicial role in statutory interpretation begins, and often ends, with the statute’s language. ”