Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 18

12 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

such a decision, for a number of reasons.  Its “generation-
shifting scheme was projected to have billions of dollars of 
impact.”  84 Fed. Reg. 32529.  “[N]o section 111 rule of the 
scores issued ha[d] ever been based on generation shifting.” 
Ibid.  And that novel reading of the statute would empower 
EPA “to order the wholesale restructuring of any industrial 
sector” based only on its discretionary assessment of “such
factors as ‘cost’ and ‘feasibility.’ ”  Ibid. 

EPA argued that under the major questions doctrine, a
clear  statement  was  necessary  to  conclude  that  Congress
intended to delegate authority “of this breadth to regulate
a fundamental sector of the economy.”  Ibid.  It found none. 
“Indeed,” it concluded, given the text and structure of the 
statute, “Congress has directly spoken to this precise ques-
tion and precluded” the use of measures such as generation 
shifting.  Ibid. 

In the same rulemaking, the Agency replaced the Clean 
Power Plan by promulgating a different Section 111(d) reg-
ulation, known as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. 
Id., at 32532.  Based on its view of what measures may per-
missibly make up the BSER, EPA determined that the best
system  would  be  akin  to  building  block  one  of  the  Clean 
Power Plan: a combination of equipment upgrades and op-
erating practices that would improve facilities’ heat rates. 
Id., at 32522, 32537.  The ACE Rule determined that the 
application of its BSER measures would result in only small
reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.  Id., at 32561. 

D 

A number of States and private parties immediately filed 
petitions for review in the D. C. Circuit, challenging EPA’s 
repeal of the Clean Power Plan and its enactment of the re-
placement ACE Rule.  Other States and private entities—
including  petitioners  here  West  Virginia,  North  Dakota,
Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC, and The North Amer-
ican Coal Corporation (NACC)—intervened to defend both