Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

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

31 

Opinion of the Court 

with such a limitation for the first four decades of the stat-
ute’s  existence.  But  the  only  interpretive  question  before 
us, and the only one we answer, is more narrow: whether
the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA
in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted
to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.  For 
the reasons given, the answer is no.5 

* 

* 

* 

Capping  carbon  dioxide  emissions  at  a  level  that  will 
force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to 
generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis
of the day.”  New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 
(1992).  But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the 
authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in 
Section  111(d).  A  decision  of  such  magnitude  and  conse-
quence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pur-
suant to a clear delegation from that representative body.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Co-
lumbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

5 We find it odd that the dissent accuses us of champing at the bit to 
“constrain EPA’s efforts to address climate change,” post, at 4, yet also 
chides  us  for  “mak[ing]  no  effort”  to  opine—in  what  would  be  plain 
dicta—on “how far [our] opinion constrain[s] EPA,” post, at 12.