Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

WEST VIRGINIA ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 20–1530.  Argued February 28, 2022—Decided June 30, 2022* 

In 2015, the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the 
Clean  Power  Plan  rule,  which  addressed  carbon  dioxide  emissions 
from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants.  For authority, 
the  Agency  cited  Section  111  of  the  Clean  Air  Act,  which,  although
known as the New Source Performance Standards program, also au-
thorizes  regulation  of  certain  pollutants  from  existing  sources  under 
Section 111(d).  42 U. S. C. §7411(d).  Prior to the Clean Power Plan, 
EPA had used Section 111(d) only a handful of times since its enact-
ment in 1970.  Under that provision, although the States set the actual
enforceable  rules  governing  existing  sources  (such  as  power  plants),
EPA determines the emissions limit with which they will have to com-
ply.  The Agency derives that limit by determining the “best system of
emission reduction . . . that has been adequately demonstrated,” or the 
BSER, for the kind of existing source at issue.  §7411(a)(1).  The limit 
then reflects the amount of pollution reduction “achievable through the 
application of” that system.  Ibid. 

In the Clean Power Plan, EPA determined that the BSER for exist-
ing  coal  and  natural  gas  plants  included  three  types  of  measures, 
which the Agency called “building blocks.”  80 Fed. Reg. 64667.  The 
first  building  block  was  “heat  rate  improvements”  at  coal-fired 
plants—essentially practices such plants could undertake to burn coal 

—————— 

* Together with No. 20–1531, North American Coal Corp. v. Environ-
mental  Protection  Agency  et al.,  No.  20–1778,  Westmoreland  Mining 
Holdings  LLC  v.  Environmental  Protection  Agency  et al.,  and  No.  20– 
1780,  North  Dakota  v.  Environmental  Protection  Agency  et al.,  also  on 
certiorari to the same court.