Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2022

West Virginia v. EPA

597 U.S. 697

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case established the modern major questions doctrine: EPA could not use Section 111(d)’s broad reference to the “best system of emission reduction” to impose generation-shifting emissions caps that would reshape the national electricity market without clear congressional authorization.

Background

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to establish performance standards for categories of stationary sources that significantly contribute to harmful air pollution. For existing sources, including existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants, Section 111(d) requires EPA to issue emissions guidelines that States implement through their own enforceable plans. The emissions limits must reflect the degree of reduction achievable through the “best system of emission reduction” that EPA determines has been adequately demonstrated, considering cost, health and environmental effects, and energy requirements.

In 2015, EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from existing power plants. EPA identified three “building blocks” as the best system of emission reduction: heat-rate improvements at coal plants; shifting generation from coal to natural gas; and shifting generation from coal and gas to renewable sources. The latter two building blocks required generation shifting across the electricity grid. A plant could comply by reducing its own output, investing in cleaner generation, or participating in emissions trading. EPA projected that the rule would substantially reduce coal’s share of national electricity generation and would impose major economic consequences.

The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan before it took effect. In 2019, EPA repealed the Plan, reasoning that Section 111(d) limited the best system of emission reduction to measures that could be applied at an individual facility. EPA replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which relied on source-specific heat-rate improvements. The D.C. Circuit held that EPA had wrongly concluded that generation shifting could not qualify as a system of emission reduction. It vacated both the repeal of the Clean Power Plan and the replacement rule. After a change in administrations, EPA stated that it would not enforce the Clean Power Plan while developing a new rule, but it continued to defend the legal availability of generation shifting. The Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the case remained justiciable after EPA stated that it would not enforce the Clean Power Plan and would undertake new rulemaking.

Holding

Yes. The case was not moot, and the State petitioners had standing to seek review of the D.C. Circuit’s judgment.

Reasoning

The State petitioners suffered an injury traceable to the D.C. Circuit’s judgment because that judgment vacated the Affordable Clean Energy rule and EPA’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan. In doing so, the judgment purported to restore a rule requiring States to impose more stringent regulation of power-plant emissions within their borders. A ruling reversing the D.C. Circuit would redress that injury.

EPA’s post-judgment statements raised a mootness question, not a standing question. The Government therefore bore the heavy burden of showing that a once-live controversy had become moot, particularly because the asserted basis for mootness was EPA’s voluntary decision not to enforce the Plan for the time being.

Voluntary cessation does not moot a dispute unless it is absolutely clear that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably recur. EPA did not disclaim authority to use generation shifting in a future Section 111(d) rule; to the contrary, it defended that authority. The lower court’s stay of its mandate also did not eliminate the controversy, because such stays are common while appellate review is pursued.

Issue #2

Whether Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act authorized EPA’s Clean Power Plan to set emissions limits based on generation shifting across the electricity sector.

Holding

No. Section 111(d) did not clearly authorize EPA to require generation shifting through emissions caps designed to transform the Nation’s electricity-generation mix.

Reasoning

The Court treated EPA’s assertion of authority as a major questions case. The Clean Power Plan claimed a previously unexercised power to restructure a fundamental sector of the economy by substantially shifting electricity production from coal to natural gas and renewable sources. Where an agency asserts authority of vast economic and political significance, it must identify clear congressional authorization rather than rely on a merely plausible reading of broad statutory language.

Several features made EPA’s claimed authority extraordinary. Section 111(d) was a rarely used gap-filling provision, and EPA had historically used Section 111 to set standards based on measures that improved the pollution performance of the regulated source itself. The Clean Power Plan instead selected a system aimed at improving the power grid as a whole, requiring plants to reduce generation, subsidize cleaner competitors, or purchase credits to meet stringent emissions caps.

The Plan’s economic and policy consequences reinforced the need for a clear delegation. EPA’s approach effectively gave the Agency authority to decide how much electricity the Nation should obtain from coal, natural gas, wind, and solar, while balancing cost, grid reliability, and energy supply. EPA itself had acknowledged that system-wide issues of transmission, distribution, and storage involved expertise beyond its traditional regulatory work.

The Court also found it significant that the Clean Power Plan resembled a nationwide carbon cap-and-trade program that Congress had repeatedly considered but declined to enact. That ongoing legislative debate made it less plausible that Congress had silently given EPA authority to adopt substantially the same policy through an obscure provision of the Clean Air Act.

The phrase “best system of emission reduction” was not the clear authorization required for this extraordinary assertion of power. In isolation, the word “system” could include many arrangements capable of reducing emissions, including generation shifting. But a broad, context-free term could not bear the weight of authorizing a transformative nationwide restructuring of electricity generation.

Other Clean Air Act provisions did not supply the missing clarity. Congress expressly authorized cap-and-trade mechanisms in the Acid Rain and NAAQS programs, generally as means of complying with emissions limits established by Congress or tied to ambient-air standards. Section 111 instead required EPA itself to derive the emissions cap from the best demonstrated system, and it did not clearly authorize EPA to set that cap by determining the desired nationwide amount of generation shifting.

The Court did not decide that Section 111 permits only measures physically applied at an individual source. Its holding was narrower: the specific generation-shifting system used in the Clean Power Plan exceeded the authority Congress granted in Section 111(d).

Concurrences

Justice Gorsuch

Reasoning

Justice Gorsuch joined the Court’s opinion and wrote separately to explain the constitutional foundations of the major questions doctrine. In his view, the doctrine is a clear-statement rule that protects the separation of powers by ensuring that Congress, rather than administrative agencies, makes major policy decisions unless Congress clearly assigns an agency that responsibility.

Article I vests legislative power in Congress. Justice Gorsuch emphasized that the Constitution’s demanding legislative process promotes democratic accountability, broad consensus, stability, protection for minorities, and respect for state authority. Allowing agencies to infer sweeping policymaking power from ambiguous statutory language would permit unelected officials to make laws with inadequate democratic authorization.

He compared the major questions doctrine to other familiar clear-statement rules, including rules protecting against retroactive liability and protecting state sovereign immunity. In each setting, courts presume Congress does not intend to press against important constitutional values without speaking clearly. The major questions doctrine similarly guards against agencies exploiting ambiguity, gaps, or doubtful expressions to assume consequential powers Congress likely did not grant.

Justice Gorsuch identified several indicators that a major question is present: an agency action of great political significance; substantial economic effects; intrusion into an area traditionally regulated by States; congressional consideration and rejection of comparable legislation; reliance on an old or ancillary statutory provision; a departure from the agency’s longstanding interpretation; and a mismatch between the action and the agency’s expertise. In his view, the Clean Power Plan exhibited all of these features.

Applying those considerations, he concluded that EPA sought authority to force coal- and gas-fired plants to curtail or cease operations, thereby reshaping a major national industry and affecting traditional state authority over utility regulation. Section 111(d), a little-used provision lacking a clear statement about restructuring the national energy supply, did not authorize that result.

Dissents

Justice Kagan

Reasoning

Justice Kagan argued that the Court unnecessarily decided the scope of a defunct rule when EPA had announced that it would not enforce the Clean Power Plan and would instead develop a new regulation. Although she acknowledged the case might not be technically moot, she maintained that the Court should not have used discretionary review to issue what functioned as an advisory opinion constraining future climate regulations before a new rule even existed.

On the merits, she read Section 111(d) as granting EPA broad authority to select the “best system of emission reduction” for existing power plants, subject to statutory constraints concerning adequate demonstration, cost, environmental and health effects, and energy requirements. The ordinary meaning of “system,” she explained, readily includes an integrated set of measures, including cap-and-trade and other generation-shifting mechanisms, that work together to reduce emissions.

The Clean Air Act’s structure supported EPA’s interpretation. Other provisions expressly limit EPA to technological controls or source-specific equipment, but Section 111(d) does not. Congress’s decision not to impose those limits, particularly after amendments that removed technological language from Section 111, showed that EPA could choose non-technological methods when they were the best means of controlling pollution from existing sources.

Justice Kagan rejected the majority’s major questions analysis as a departure from ordinary statutory interpretation. In her view, the Court’s earlier cases asked whether an agency had acted outside its expertise or in a manner incompatible with the statute’s overall design. They did not establish a free-standing rule requiring an additional, unusually specific congressional authorization whenever an agency addresses an important issue.

EPA’s regulation of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel power plants fit directly within the Agency’s expertise and statutory mission. The Court had previously recognized that Section 111 delegates to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants. Assessing pollution controls, costs, energy needs, and grid reliability was precisely the kind of technical and policy judgment Congress assigned to EPA.

She also challenged the claim that generation shifting was unprecedented or uniquely consequential. EPA, States, and the power industry had long used cap-and-trade, averaging, and generation-shifting tools to reduce pollution. Moreover, traditional technology-based controls can also alter the electricity mix and even force plant closures if they impose high costs. The Clean Power Plan itself proved relatively modest because market-driven shifts had already achieved its emissions target without the rule taking effect.

Finally, Justice Kagan argued that broad delegations are a necessary and longstanding feature of federal governance. Congress often gives agencies flexible authority because agencies possess expertise and can adapt regulatory programs to new scientific knowledge and changing conditions. By narrowing EPA’s authority despite Section 111’s broad text, the Court substituted its own judgments about climate policy and administrative governance for Congress’s choice.