Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

Syllabus 

vacated  the  ACE  rule  and  its  embedded  repeal  of  the  Clean  Power 
Plan,  and  accordingly  purports  to  bring  the  Clean  Power  Plan  back
into legal effect.  There is little question that the petitioner States are 
injured,  since  the  rule  requires  them  to  more  stringently  regulate 
power plant emissions within their borders.  The Government counters 
that EPA’s current posture has mooted the prior dispute.  The distinc-
tion  between  mootness  and  standing  matters,  however,  because  the 
Government  bears  the  burden  to  establish  that  a  once-live  case  has 
become moot.  The Government’s argument in this case boils down to
its representation that EPA does not intend to enforce the Clean Power
Plan prior to promulgating a new Section 111(d) rule.  But “voluntary 
cessation does not moot a case” unless it is “absolutely clear that the 
allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” 
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 
551 U. S. 701, 719.  Here, the Government “nowhere suggests that if
this  litigation is  resolved  in its  favor  it  will  not”  reimpose  emissions
limits predicated on generation shifting.  Ibid.  Pp. 14–16.

2. Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting 
approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.  Pp. 16–31.

(a) In  devising  emissions  limits  for  power  plants,  EPA  “deter-
mines” the BSER that—taking into account cost, health, and other fac-
tors—it finds “has been adequately demonstrated,” and then quanti-
fies “the degree of emission limitation achievable” if that best system 
were  applied  to  the  covered  source.  §7411(a)(1).  The  issue  here  is 
whether restructuring  the Nation’s overall  mix  of  electricity  genera-
tion,  to  transition  from  38%  to  27%  coal  by  2030,  can  be  the  BSER 
within the meaning of Section 111.  

Precedent teaches that there are “extraordinary cases” in which the 
“history  and  the  breadth  of  the  authority  that  [the  agency]  has  as-
serted,” and the “economic and political significance” of that assertion,
provide a “reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant 
to confer such authority.  FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 
529 U. S. 120, 159–160.  See, e.g., Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Servs., 594 U. S. ___, ___; Utility Air Reg-
ulatory  Group  v.  EPA,  573  U. S.  302,  324;  Gonzales  v.  Oregon,  546 
U. S. 243, 267; National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, 
595 U. S. ___, ___.  Under this body of law, known as the major ques-
tions doctrine, given both separation of powers principles and a prac-
tical  understanding  of  legislative  intent,  the  agency  must  point  to 
“clear congressional authorization” for the authority it claims.  Utility 
Air, 573 U. S., at 324.  Pp. 16–20.

(b) This  is  a  major  questions  case.    EPA  claimed  to  discover  an