Description: Petition for extraordinary writ to enjoin EPA from conducting rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.
-
In re Murray Energy Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/30/2015 Order Download Order issued denying panel rehearing. D.C. Circuit Denied Rehearing of Challenge to Non-Final Clean Power Plan. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions in which states and other parties opposed to the Clean Power Plan sought rehearing of the court’s June 2015 decision dismissing a challenge to the proposed plan on the ground that it was a non-final agency action. The court also denied the alternative relief sought by the petitioners, a stay of the mandate, which the parties argued would allow the court to vacate the June 2015 decision as “academic” after EPA issues the final Clean Power Plan rule. The petitioners said a stay would be consistent with Judge Henderson’s opinion concurring with the June 2015 decision, in which she said she believed the court could exercise jurisdiction but that the arguments were “all but academic,” given that EPA would soon issue its final rule. 09/30/2015 Order Download Order issued denying rehearing en banc. 08/24/2015 Order Download Order issued opening Peabody emergency renewed petition as new case. 08/13/2015 Petition Download Emergency renewed petition for extraordinary writ filed by intervenor Peabody Energy Corp. 07/24/2015 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition filed by states for rehearing or rehearing en banc, or in the alternative, motion for a stay of the mandate. States who unsuccessfully challenged EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. The D.C. Circuit ruled in June 2015 that it did not have jurisdiction to review a non-final agency action. The states said rehearing was necessary to prevent EPA from evading accountability. The states indicated EPA could do so by requiring regulated parties “to make immediate expenditures to comply with an unlawful but not-yet-final rule.” Alternatively, the states asked the court for a stay of the mandate so that the panel could vacate its decision as “academic,” consistent with Judge Henderson’s concurrence in which she said she believed the court could exercise jurisdiction but that the arguments were “all but academic,” given that EPA would soon issue its final rule. The states opined that when EPA does publish the final rule, “the panel could vacate its decision and leave for another time the delineation of this Court’s authority to stop extreme agency misconduct during a rulemaking.” 06/09/2015 Opinion Download Opinion issued dismissing petitions. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the challenge in a decision that also addressed two other petitions. The D.C. Circuit concluded that it did not have authority to review proposed rules. The court rejected the argument that the All Writs Act provided it with authority to “circumvent bedrock finality principles” to review proposed regulations. The court also was not persuaded that EPA’s public statements regarding its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions constituted final agency action, or that the petitioners could challenge a 2011 settlement agreement in which EPA merely agreed to a timeline for determining whether it would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing plants. In a concurring opinion, Judge Henderson wrote that she believed the court had jurisdiction to consider the application for a writ of prohibition under the All Writs Act but that a writ was not appropriate because by the time the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion, “or shortly thereafter,” EPA would have issued a final rule that could be challenged as a final agency action. 12/15/2014 Brief Download Opening brief filed by Murray Energy Corp. 12/02/2014 Motion to Intervene Download Motion filed by environmental groups for leave to intervene in support of respondent. 11/03/2014 Response Download Response filed by EPA to petition for extraordinary writ. 09/29/2014 Motion Download Unopposed motion filed by EPA to extend time to respond to petition. EPA asked for an additional two weeks to respond to the petition for extraordinary writ to allow for Department of Justice and EPA management review of its brief. In its unopposed motion seeking the additional time, EPA noted that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permit the court to deny a petition for a writ of prohibition without requiring an answer and that respondents are not permitted to submit a responsive pleading unless requested to do so by the court. 09/18/2014 Order Download Order issued requiring EPA response to petition for extraordinary writ. The D.C. Circuit ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to respond to the petition for extraordinary writ filed in June by Murray Energy Corporation challenging EPA’s authority to conduct rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. EPA’s response was due on October 20. 06/25/2014 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed. Nine states filed a brief in support of the petition. 06/18/2014 Petition Download Petition for extraordinary writ filed. Murray Energy Corporation (Murray), the largest privately owned coal company in the United States, filed a petition for extraordinary writ in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to enjoin EPA from conducting its rulemaking to create greenhouse gas emission standards for existing power plants. Murray argued that the D.C. Circuit could bar EPA from continuing the rulemaking process because EPA had proposed to take actions beyond its power. Murray contended that because EPA imposed national standards on power plants under a rule issued under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which addresses hazardous air pollutants, it could not mandate state-by-state greenhouse gas emission standards under Section 111(d). -
West Virginia v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/02/2014 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene filed. Eleven other states, Washington, D.C., and New York City filed a motion to intervene in support of EPA, saying that they had an interest in the rulemaking moving forward to address climate change-related harms. 08/04/2014 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. Twelve states filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit asking the court to review a settlement agreement between EPA and other states, governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations in which EPA agreed to propose and finalize a rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. EPA approved the settlement in 2011. The twelve states contended that the agreement was illegal to the extent that it compelled EPA to propose and finalize regulations under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants after EPA finalized regulation of hazardous air pollutants from power plants under Section 112 in 2012. EPA published its proposal to regulate greenhouse gases from existing power plants in the June 18, 2014 edition of the Federal Register. It is the states’ position that regulation of sources under Section 112 bars regulation under Section 111(d). -
Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/23/2014 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed by EPA. EPA filed a motion to dismiss. EPA said there was no subject matter jurisdiction because a proposed rule is not a reviewable action under the Clean Air Act. EPA argued that Murray Energy’s claim that EPA “altogether lacks authority” to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants could not render the proposed rule a “final action” subject to judicial review. 08/15/2014 Petition Download Petition for judicial review filed. After EPA published its proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014, Murray Energy Corp. filed a second petition in the D.C. Circuit challenging the agency’s Clean Power Plan. (Murray Energy also filed a petition for extraordinary writ (see above) in June.) In the second petition, Murray Energy contended that EPA’s proposal was an illegal final action because it violated an express statutory prohibition on regulating sources under both Section 112 and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Attempting to differentiate its petition from a challenge to proposed greenhouse gas new source performance standards for power plants that the D.C. Circuit rejected in 2012, Murray Energy noted that it was not challenging the substance of the Clean Power Plan rule, but whether EPA had any authority to initiate a rulemaking at all.