Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

Power Plan had exceeded the Agency’s statutory authority under Sec-
tion 111(d), which it interpreted to “limit[ ] the BSER to those systems
that can be put into operation at a building, structure, facility, or in-
stallation.”  84 Fed. Reg. 32524.  EPA explained that the Clean Power 
Plan,  rather  than  setting  the  standard  “based  on  the  application  of
equipment and practices at the level of an individual facility,” had in-
stead  based  it  on  “a  shift  in  the  energy  generation  mix  at  the  grid 
level,”  id.,  at  32523.    The  Agency  determined  that  the  interpretive
question raised by the Clean Power Plan fell under the major questions 
doctrine.  Under that doctrine, it determined, a clear statement is nec-
essary for a court to conclude that Congress intended to delegate au-
thority “of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the econ-
omy.”  Id., at 32529.  It found none.  The Agency replaced the Clean 
Power  Plan  by  promulgating  a  different  Section  111(d)  regulation, 
known as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.  Id., at 32532. In 
that rule, EPA determined that the BSER would be akin to building 
block  one  of  the  Clean  Power  Plan:  a  combination  of  equipment  up-
grades  and  operating  practices  that  would  improve  facilities’  heat 
rates.  Id., at 32522, 32537. 

A number of States and private parties filed petitions for review in 
the  D. C.  Circuit,  challenging  EPA’s  repeal  of  the  Clean  Power  Plan 
and its enactment of the replacement ACE rule.  The Court of Appeals
consolidated the cases and held that EPA’s “repeal of the Clean Power 
Plan  rested  critically  on  a  mistaken  reading  of  the  Clean  Air  Act”—
namely, that generation shifting cannot be a “system of emission re-
duction” under Section 111.  985 F. 3d 914, 995.  The court vacated the 
Agency’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan and remanded to the Agency 
for further consideration.  It also vacated and remanded the ACE rule 
for  the  same  reason.  The  court’s  decision  was  followed  by  another 
change in Presidential administrations, and EPA moved the court to 
partially stay its mandate as to the Clean Power Plan while the Agency 
considered whether to promulgate a new Section 111(d) rule.  No party
opposed the motion, and the Court of Appeals agreed to stay its vaca-
tur of the Agency’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan. 

Held: 

1. This case remains justiciable notwithstanding the Government’s
contention  that  no  petitioner  has  Article  III  standing,  given  EPA’s 
stated  intention not  to  enforce  the  Clean Power  Plan  and  to  instead 
engage  in  new  rulemaking.    In  considering  standing  to  appeal,  the 
question  is  whether  the  appellant  has  experienced  an  injury  “fairly 
traceable to the judgment below.”  Food Marketing Institute v. Argus 
Leader Media, 588 U. S. ___, ___.  If so, and a “favorable ruling” from
the  appellate  court  “would  redress  [that]  injury,”  then  the  appellant
has  a  cognizable  Article  III  stake.    Ibid.    Here,  the  judgment  below