Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 76

20 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

25–26.  But that is wrong. 

Start with what this Court has said before on the subject,
reflecting  Congress’s  view  of  the  matter.    About  a  decade 
ago, we recognized that Congress had “delegated to EPA” in
Section  111  “the  decision  whether  and  how  to  regulate 
carbon-dioxide  emissions  from  powerplants.”    American 
Elec. Power, 564 U. S., at 426.  To stress the key word (be-
cause the majority seems to miss it, see ante, at 26–27): not 
merely “whether” but also “how.”  In making that delega-
tion, we explained, Congress knew well what it was doing. 
Regulating  power  plant  emissions  is  a  complex  undertak-
ing.  To do it right requires “informed assessment of com-
peting interests”: “Along with the environmental benefit po-
tentially  achievable,  our  Nation’s  energy  needs  and  the
possibility  of  economic  disruption  must  weigh  in  the  bal-
ance.”  564 U. S., at 427; see §7411(a)(1) (instructing EPA 
to  consider  “energy  requirements,”  “cost,”  and  other  fac-
tors).  Congress specifically “entrust[ed] such complex bal-
ancing  to  EPA,”  because  that  “expert  agency”  has  the 
needed “scientific, economic, and technological resources” to
carry it out.  564 U. S., at 427–428.  So the balancing—in-
cluding  of  the  Nation’s  “energy  requirements”—that  the
majority  says  EPA  has  no  “comparative  expertise”  in? 
§7411(a)(1); ante, at 25.  We explained 11 short years ago,
citing Congress, that it was smack in the middle of EPA’s 
wheelhouse. 

And  we  were  right.    Consider  the  Clean  Power  Plan’s 
component parts—let’s call them the what, who, and how—
to see the rule’s normalcy.  The “what” is the subject matter 
of the Plan: carbon dioxide emissions.  This Court has al-
ready found that those emissions fall within EPA’s domain. 
We said then: “[T]here is nothing counterintuitive to the no-
tion that EPA can curtail the emission of substances that 
are putting the global climate out of kilter.”  Massachusetts, 
549 U. S., at 531.  This is not the Attorney General regulat-
ing  medical  care,  or  even  the  CDC  regulating  landlord-