West Virginia v. EPA: Majorly Questioning Administrative Agency Action & Authority

Halina R. Bereday

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) could not promulgate the Clean Power Plan (“CPP”), which was authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), and allowed fossil-fuel fired plants to limit carbon dioxide emissions through generation-shifting, a process that allows fossil-fuel fired power plants to meet emission limits by “shifting” to lower-carbon-emitting plants. In failing to interpret the language of Section 111(d), the Court ignored a key principle of administrative law and instead held that the CPP exceeded the EPA’s statutory authority under the Major Questions Doctrine (“MQD”). The MQD, a relatively new canon developed by the conservative super-majority of the Supreme Court, mandates that in “extraordinary cases” of “economic and political significance,” Congress must speak clearly to authorize agency action. The Court’s holding was incorrect because the MQD should not have been applied as generation-shifting was not a major economic issue. Further, subsequent legislation, and state encumbrances. Finally, the Court failed to consider the repercussions of its decision, including a deterioration of democratic principles and an increased burden on administrative agencies, Congress, and the judiciary.