Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

27 

Opinion of the Court 

to require a large shift from coal to natural gas, wind, and 
solar.  After all, EPA had never regulated in that manner,
despite  having  issued  many  prior  rules  governing  power 
plants  under  Section  111.  See,  e.g.,  71  Fed.  Reg.  9866 
(2006); 70 Fed. Reg. 28616; 44 Fed. Reg. 33580; 36 Fed. Reg.
24875 (1973).4 

Finally, we cannot ignore that the regulatory writ EPA
newly uncovered conveniently enabled it to enact a program
that, long after the dangers posed by greenhouse gas emis-
sions “had become well known, Congress considered and re-
jected” multiple times.  Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 
144; see also Alabama Assn., 594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 
2); Bunte Brothers, 312 U. S., at 352 (lack of authority not 
previously exercised “reinforced by [agency’s] unsuccessful 
attempt  . . .  to  secure  from  Congress  an  express  grant  of 
[the  challenged]  authority”).    At  bottom,  the  Clean  Power 
Plan essentially adopted a cap-and-trade scheme, or set of 
state cap-and-trade schemes, for carbon.  See 80 Fed. Reg.
64734  (“Emissions  trading  is  . . .  an  integral  part  of  our
BSER analysis.”).  Congress, however, has consistently re-
jected proposals to amend the Clean Air Act to create such 
a program.  See, e.g., American Clean Energy and Security 

—————— 

4 According to the dissent, “EPA is always controlling the mix of energy 
sources” under Section 111 because all of the Agency’s rules impose some 
costs  on  regulated  plants,  and  therefore  (all  else  equal)  cause  those 
plants to lose some share of the electricity market.  Post, at 22.  But there 
is an obvious difference between (1) issuing a rule that may end up caus-
ing an incidental loss of coal’s market share, and (2) simply announcing
what the market share of coal, natural gas, wind, and solar must be, and 
then requiring plants to reduce operations or subsidize their competitors 
to get there.  No one has ever thought that the Clean Power Plan was 
just business as usual.  See American Lung Assn. v. EPA, 985 F. 3d 914, 
1000 (CADC 2021) (Walker, J., dissenting) (“Leaders of the environmen-
tal movement considered the rule ‘groundbreaking,’ called its announce-
ment ‘historic,’ and labeled it a ‘critically important catalyst.’ ” (footnotes
omitted)).