- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- In re Murray Energy Corp.
Collection
In re Murray Energy Corp.
Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA ↗
14-1151D.C. Cir.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/23/2014
Motion To Dismiss
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
Petition for judicial review filed.
After EPA published its <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/18/2014-13726/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating">proposal</a> 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 <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/las-brisas-energy-center-llc-v-epa/">rejected</a> 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.
West Virginia v. EPA ↗
14-1146D.C. Cir.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
09/02/2014
Motion To Intervene
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
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 <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/18/2014-13726/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating">proposal</a> 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).
In re Murray Energy Corp. ↗
14-1112D.C. Cir.13 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
09/30/2015
Decision
Order issued denying panel rehearing.
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.
08/13/2015
Petition
Emergency renewed petition for extraordinary writ filed by intervenor Peabody Energy Corp.
–