West Virginia v. EPA

Supreme Court of the United States · 2022 · Administrative Law

Reporter Citation Pending

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawmajor questions doctrineClean Air ActSection 111(d)EPAbest system of emission reductionBSERgeneration shifting

Facts

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine the "best system of emission reduction" for certain existing sources and then set emissions limits reflecting the degree of reduction achievable through applying that system. In the 2015 Clean Power Plan, EPA determined that the BSER for existing coal-fired power plants included not only plant-level heat-rate improvements, but also generation shifting from coal to natural gas and renewables. EPA translated that approach into emissions limits so strict that no existing coal plant could meet them without reducing its own generation, investing in cleaner generation, or purchasing allowances or credits. The D.C. Circuit later vacated EPA's repeal of that rule, and petitioners argued that Section 111(d) did not authorize EPA to adopt such generation-shifting caps.

Issue

Whether Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act authorized EPA to determine that the "best system of emission reduction" for existing power plants was a generation-shifting approach that would effectively force a nationwide shift in electricity production from coal to natural gas and renewables. Also, whether the case remained justiciable despite EPA's representation that it did not currently intend to enforce the Clean Power Plan.

Rule

In extraordinary cases involving assertions of agency power of great economic and political significance, courts hesitate before concluding Congress conferred such authority and require the agency to point to clear congressional authorization. A vague statutory term like "system" in Section 111(d) is not enough to authorize EPA to impose emissions caps based on generation shifting that would substantially restructure the Nation's electricity market.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Federal Transit Safety Board relies on a statute authorizing it to require the 'best system of accident reduction' for urban bus fleets. Using that phrase, the Board orders every city transit authority in the country to cut diesel-bus service by 40% within eight years and replace the lost service with electric rail contracts or private shuttle credits, citing nationwide safety and emissions gains.

If challenged, which is the strongest argument against the Board's rule?

Explanation. In an extraordinary case where an agency asserts power of great economic and political significance, the court requires clear congressional authorization. A broad word like 'system' is too indeterminate to support a claimed power to restructure an industry nationwide. The problem is not merely breadth of language, but the agency's attempt to locate a transformative authority in vague text. (Derived from West Virginia v. EPA (n.d.).)