Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

Syllabus 

more  cleanly.  Id.,  at  64727.  This  sort  of  source-specific,  efficiency-
improving measure was similar in kind to those that EPA had previ-
ously identified as the BSER in other Section 111 rules.  

Building blocks two and three were quite different, as both involved 
what EPA called “generation shifting” at the grid level—i.e., a shift in 
electricity production from higher-emitting to lower-emitting produc-
ers.  Building block two was a shift in generation from existing coal-
fired power plants, which would make less power, to natural-gas-fired 
plants, which would make more.  Ibid.  This would reduce carbon di-
oxide emissions because natural gas plants produce less carbon dioxide 
per unit of electricity generated than coal plants.  Building block three 
worked like building block two, except that the shift was from both coal
and gas plants to renewables, mostly wind and solar.  Id., at 64729, 
64748.  The Agency explained that, to implement the needed shift in
generation to cleaner sources, an operator could reduce the regulated 
plant’s own production of electricity, build or invest in a new or exist-
ing  natural  gas  plant,  wind  farm,  or  solar  installation,  or  purchase 
emission allowances or credits as part of a cap-and-trade regime.  Id., 
at 64731–64732.  Taking any of these steps would implement a sector-
wide shift in electricity production from coal to natural gas and renew-
ables.  Id., at 64731.   

Having  decided  that  the  BSER  was  one  that  would  reduce carbon 
pollution  mostly  by  moving production  to cleaner  sources,  EPA  then 
set  about  determining  “the  degree  of  emission  limitation  achievable 
through the application” of that system.  §7411(a)(1).  The Agency rec-
ognized that, in translating the BSER into an operational emissions
limit, it could choose whether to require anything from a little genera-
tion shifting to a great deal.  It settled on what it regarded as a “rea-
sonable” amount of shift, which it based on modeling how much more
electricity both natural gas and renewable sources could supply with-
out causing undue cost increases or reducing the overall power supply. 
Id.,  at  64797–64811.    The  Agency  ultimately  projected,  for  instance, 
that it would be feasible to have coal provide 27% of national electricity
generation  by  2030,  down  from  38%  in  2014.    From  these  projected 
changes, EPA determined the applicable emissions performance rates,
which were so strict that no existing coal plant would have been able 
to achieve them without engaging in one of the three means of gener-
ation shifting.  The Government projected that the rule would impose
billions in compliance costs, raise retail electricity prices, require the 
retirement of dozens of coal plants, and eliminate tens of thousands of
jobs.   

This Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in 2016, preventing the rule
from taking effect.  It was later repealed after a change in Presidential 
administrations.    Specifically,  in  2019,  EPA  found  that  the  Clean