Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 32

26 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

political significance to an agency in so cryptic a fashion.”). 
The  basic  and  consequential  tradeoffs  involved  in  such  a
choice are ones that Congress would likely have intended 
for itself.  See W. Eskridge, Interpreting Law: A Primer on
How  To  Read  Statutes  and  the  Constitution  288  (2016) 
(“Even  if  Congress  has  delegated  an  agency  general  rule-
making  or  adjudicatory  power,  judges  presume  that  Con-
gress does not delegate its authority to settle or amend ma-
jor  social  and  economic  policy  decisions.”).    Congress
certainly has not conferred a like authority upon EPA any-
where else in the Clean Air Act.  The last place one would
expect to find it is in the previously little-used backwater of 
Section 111(d).

The  dissent  contends  that  there  is  nothing  surprising
about EPA dictating the optimal mix of energy sources na-
tionwide, since that sort of mandate will reduce air pollu-
tion  from  power  plants,  which  is EPA’s  bread  and  butter. 
Post, at 20–22.  But that does not follow.  Forbidding evic-
tions may slow the spread of disease, but the CDC’s order-
ing such a measure certainly “raise[s] an eyebrow.”  Post, at 
18.  We would not expect the Department of Homeland Se-
curity to make trade or foreign policy even though doing so
could decrease illegal immigration.  And no one would con-
sider generation shifting a “tool” in OSHA’s “toolbox,” post, 
at 21, even though reducing generation at coal plants would 
reduce workplace illness and injury from coal dust.

The  dissent  also  cites  our  decision  in  American  Elec. 
Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U. S. 410 (2011).  Post, at 20. 
The  question  there,  however,  was  whether  Congress 
wanted district court judges to decide, under unwritten fed-
eral  nuisance  law,  “whether  and  how  to  regulate  carbon- 
dioxide emissions from powerplants.”  564 U. S., at 426.  We 
answered no, given the existence of Section 111(d).  But we 
said  nothing  about  the  ways  in  which  Congress  intended 
EPA to exercise its power under that provision.  And it is 
doubtful we had in mind that it would claim the authority