Murray Energy Corp. v. 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.

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.