Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 49.0

12 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

Williamson, 529 U. S., at 144.  It seems that fact has frus-
trated the Executive Branch and led it to attempt its own
regulatory solution in the CPP.  See 985 F. 3d, at 998, n. 20 
(President  stating  that  “ ‘if  Congress  won’t  act  soon  .  .  .  I 
will’ ”);  cf.  United  States  Telecom  Assn.  v.  FCC,  855  F. 3d 
381, 423–424 (CADC 2017) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting from
denial of rehearing en banc) (noting a “President’s interven-
tion [may] underscor[e] the enormous significance” of a reg-
ulation).

Other  suggestive  factors  are  present  too.    “The  electric 
power  sector  is  among  the  largest  in  the  U. S.  economy,
with links to every other sector.”  N. Richardson, Keeping
Big  Cases  From  Making  Bad  Law:  The  Resurgent  “Major
Questions” Doctrine, 49 Conn. L. Rev. 355, 388 (2016).  The 
Executive Branch has acknowledged that its proposed rule
would force an “aggressive transformation” of the electricity
sector through “transition to zero-carbon renewable energy 
sources.”  White House Fact Sheet, App. in American Lung 
Assn.  v.  EPA,  No.  19–1140  (CADC),  pp.  2076–2077.    The 
Executive  Branch  has  also  predicted  its  rule  would  force 
dozens of power plants to close and eliminate thousands of 
jobs by 2025.  See EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Clean Power Plan Final Rule 3–27, 3–30, 3–33, 6–25 (Oct.
23, 2015).  And industry analysts have estimated the CPP 
would cause consumers’ electricity costs to rise by over $200 
billion.   See  National  Mining  Assn.,  EPA’s  Clean  Power
Plan: An Economic Impact Analysis 2, 4 (2015).  Finally, the 
CPP unquestionably has an impact on federalism, as “the 
regulation  of  utilities  is  one  of  the  most  important  of  the 
functions traditionally associated with the police power of
the States.”  Arkansas Elec. Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas 
Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 461 U. S. 375, 377 (1983).  None of this 
is to say the policy the agency seeks to pursue is unwise or 
should  not  be  pursued.  It  is  only  to  say  that  the  agency
seeks to resolve for itself the sort of question normally re-
served for Congress.  As a result, we look for clear evidence