Murray Energy Corp. v. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency

–

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a West Virginia federal district court had erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to consider the coal company Murray Energy Corporation’s and its affiliates’ lawsuit that sought to compel EPA to conduct evaluations of the Clean Air Act’s employment effects. The district court ruled that EPA was required to conduct such evaluations in October 2016 and set an expedited schedule for EPA’s compliance. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the provision at issue—Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act—did not “impose on the EPA a specific and discrete duty amenable to” judicial review under Section 304(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act. (Section 321(a) provides that EPA Administrator “shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the [Clean Air Act] including where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement.”) The Fourth Circuit said Section 321(a) imposed “a broad, open-ended statutory mandate” and that EPA was left with “considerable discretion” in managing this mandate, including getting to decide “how to collect a broad set of employment impact data, how to judge and examine this extensive data, and how to manage these tasks on an ongoing basis”—a process that a court “is ill-equipped to supervise.” The Fourth Circuit also distinguished Section 321(a)’s mandate from other Clean Air Act provisions that offered “discrete directives accompanied by specific guidance on matters of content, procedure, and timing.” The Fourth Circuit also dismissed as moot an environmental group’s appeal of the district court’s denial of its motion to intervene.

EPA submitted its reply brief in the appeal on April 14. Environmental groups that unsuccessfully sought to intervene on EPA’s behalf filed a final brief on April 17 seeking reversal of the denial of their request. Oral argument is to take place on May 9.

–

A nonprofit group called the Cause of Action Institute also filed an amicus brief, arguing that EPA’s failure to conduct the employment studies required by the Clean Air Act as well as a similar studies called for by the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, revealed “systemic problems with the EPA” and reflected “a lack of concern regarding the employment effects of its activities.”

Sixteen states, led by West Virginia, filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals urging it to uphold the decision by a West Virginia federal court requiring EPA to prepare a study of the Clean Air Act’s effects on employment. The district court concluded, in an action brought by coal companies, that EPA had a nondiscretionary obligation to conduct such a study. The states argued that the study would provide necessary and useful information about the impacts of Clean Air Act regulations, including the Clean Power Plan and carbon standards for new power plants, that the states could use to devise economic policies and for budgeting.

–

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and would-be intervenor environmental groups filed their principal briefs in their Fourth Circuit appeals of a West Virginia district court’s orders requiring EPA to evaluate the impact of Clean Air Act implementation and enforcement on employment, including in the coal industry. The court also had denied the environmental groups’ motion to intervene as moot because the court had not granted the nationwide injunction on new air regulations that the plaintiffs sought and that the environmental groups wished to oppose. The district court ruled that EPA had failed to conduct such evaluations and had therefore violated Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. In its principal brief, EPA argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Section 321(a) did not impose a non-discretionary duty. EPA also argued that the coal company Murray Energy Corporation and its co-plaintiffs’ (Murray Energy) failed to establish Article III standing and that the court erred in finding that a collection of documents prepared by EPA “in the normal course of business” had not complied with Section 321(a). EPA also contended that the district court exceeded its remedial power by issuing a “detailed injunction” that imposed obligations on EPA that had no basis in the statute. Oral argument in the Fourth Circuit was tentatively calendared for the May 9–11, 2017 argument session.