Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

10 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

From  these  significant  projected  reductions  in  genera-
tion, EPA developed a series of complex equations to “deter-
mine the emission performance rates” that States would be 
required to implement.  80 Fed. Reg. 64815.  The calcula-
tions resulted in numerical emissions ceilings so strict that 
no existing coal plant would have been able to achieve them 
without engaging in one of the three means of shifting gen-
eration  described  above.    Indeed,  the  emissions  limit  the 
Clean Power Plan established for existing power plants was 
actually  stricter  than  the  cap  imposed  by  the  simultane-
ously published standards for new plants.  Compare id., at 
64742, with id., at 64513. 

The point, after all, was to compel the transfer of power
generating capacity from existing sources to wind and solar.
The White House stated that the Clean Power Plan would 
“drive  a[n]  . . .  aggressive  transformation  in  the  domestic 
energy industry.”  White House Fact Sheet, App. in Ameri-
can Lung Assn. v. EPA, No. 19–1140 etc. (CADC), p. 2076. 
EPA’s own modeling concluded that the rule would entail 
billions of dollars in compliance costs (to be paid in the form 
of higher energy prices), require the retirement of dozens of 
coal-fired  plants,  and  eliminate  tens  of  thousands  of  jobs
across  various  sectors.    EPA,  Regulatory  Impact  Analysis 
for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule 3–22, 3–30, 3–33, 6– 
24,  6–25  (2015).    The Energy  Information  Administration
reached similar conclusions, projecting that the rule would
cause  retail  electricity  prices  to  remain  persistently  10% 
higher in many States, and would reduce GDP by at least a 
trillion 2009 dollars by 2040.  Dept. of Energy, Analysis of
the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan 21, 63–64 (May 2015). 

C 

These  projections  were  never  tested,  because  the  Clean 
Power Plan never went into effect.  The same day that EPA 
promulgated  the  rule,  dozens  of  parties  (including  27
States) petitioned for review in the D. C. Circuit.  After that