(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. 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 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals