Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 17

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

court  declined  to  enter  a  stay  of  the  rule,  the  challengers 
sought the same relief from this Court.  We granted a stay,
preventing  the  rule  from  taking  effect.    West  Virginia  v. 
EPA,  577  U. S.  1126  (2016).    The  Court  of  Appeals  later 
heard argument on the merits en banc.  But before it could 
issue a decision, there was a change in Presidential admin-
istrations.  The new administration requested that the liti-
gation be held in abeyance so that EPA could reconsider the
Clean Power Plan.  The D. C. Circuit obliged, and later dis-
missed the petitions for review as moot. 

EPA  eventually  repealed  the  rule  in  2019,  concluding
that the Clean Power Plan had been “in excess of its statu-
tory authority” under Section 111(d).  84 Fed. Reg. 32523 
(2019).  Specifically, the Agency concluded that generation
shifting  should  not  have  been  considered  as  part  of  the
BSER.  The Agency interpreted Section 111 as “limit[ing] 
the BSER to those systems that can be put into operation 
at  a  building,  structure,  facility,  or  installation,”  such  as
“add-on  controls”  and  “inherently  lower-emitting  pro-
cesses/practices/designs.”  Id., at 32524.  It then explained
that the Clean Power Plan, rather than setting the stand-
ard “based on the application of equipment and practices at 
the level of an individual facility,” had instead based it on 
“a shift in the energy generation mix at the grid level,” id., 
at 32523—not the sort of measure that has “a potential for 
application to an individual source.”  Id., at 32524. 

The Agency determined that “the interpretative question 
raised” by the Clean Power Plan—“i.e., whether a ‘system 
of  emission  reduction’  can  consist  of  generation-shifting
measures”—fell  under  the  “major  question  doctrine.”  Id., 
at 32529.  Under that doctrine, EPA explained, courts “ex-
pect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an 
agency  decisions  of  vast  economic  and  political  signifi-
cance.”  Ibid. (quoting Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 
573 U. S. 302, 324 (2014) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted)).  The Agency concluded that the Clean Power Plan was