Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 80.0

24 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

industry  overwhelmingly  supports  EPA  in  this  case.    See 
Brief  for  Power  Company  Respondents  2–3.  In  the  regu-
lated  parties’  view,  the  rule  aimed  to  achieve  what  most 
power companies also want: substantial reductions in car-
bon dioxide emissions accomplished in a cost-effective way 
while maintaining a reliable electricity market.  See id., at 
26–27, 38, 41–42. 

The  majority  thus  pivots  to  the  massive  consequences 
generation shifting could produce—but that claim fares just 
as poorly.  On EPA’s view of its own authority, the majority
worries, some future rule might “forc[e] coal plants to ‘shift’ 
away virtually all of their generation—i.e., to cease making 
power altogether.”  Ante, at 24.  But looking at the text of
Section 111(d) might here come in handy.  For the statute 
imposes,  as  already  shown,  a  set  of  constraints—particu-
larly  involving  costs  and  energy  needs—that  would  pre-
clude so extreme a regulation.  See Brief for United States 
41–42 (conceding the point); supra, at 7.  And if the majority
thinks those constraints do not really constrain, then it has
a much bigger problem.  For “traditional” technological con-
trols, of the kind the majority approves, can have equally
dramatic effects.  Ante, at 23.  Take, for example, the “fuel-
switching” regulation the majority mentions.  Ibid.  Such a 
rule does just what you might think: It requires a plant to
burn  a  different  kind  of  fuel—say,  natural  gas  instead  of 
coal.  So it too can significantly “restructur[e] the Nation’s 
overall mix of electricity generation.”  Ante, at 16.  Or take 
an even more technological-sounding approach: the use of
carbon-capture  equipment.    Order  the  installation  of  that 
equipment,  the  Trump  administration  concluded,  and  the
“exorbitant” costs “would almost certainly force the closure”
of all affected “coal-fired power plants.”  84 Fed. Reg. 32548. 
—————— 
$32–$54  billion  in  benefits  by  2030);  see  also  EPA,  Regulatory  Impact
Analysis  for  the  Clean  Power  Plan  Final Rule  6–35  (2015)  (estimating
that by 2030 jobs gained from the Plan would be some two or three times
greater than jobs lost).