As first reported in the Spring 2015 issue of The Climate Report, in March 2014, Murray Energy Corp. ("Murray Energy") and 11 of its subsidiaries sued EPA in the Northern District of West Virginia federal court, alleging that EPA ignored its obligation to consider the consequences of Clean Air Act ("CAA") regulations on job losses and displacements in the coal industry. Murray Energy Corporation et al. v. Administrator of EPA, No. 5:14-cv-00039. In its complaint, Murray Energy proclaimed EPA's administration and enforcement of the CAA as a "War on Coal" that was "causing coal mines to close, costing hard-working Americans their jobs, and shifting employment away from areas rich in coal resources to areas with energy resources preferred by [EPA]." Murray Energy argued that EPA failed to comply with Section 321(a) of the CAA, which requires the EPA Administrator to "conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the provision of [the CAA] and applicable implementation plans, including where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement."
On May 2, 2016, EPA filed a motion for summary judgment, urging the court to immediately conclude the case and avoid trial, which was scheduled to begin on July 19, 2016, but was postponed by the court until a date to be later determined by the court. EPA moved for summary judgment on three alternative bases: (i) Section 321(a) does not set forth a nondiscretionary duty enforceable through the CAA citizen-suit provision; (ii) Murray Energy did not meet its burden at the summary-judgment stage to establish facts demonstrating standing; and (iii) EPA conducted the evaluations required in Section 321(a). EPA argued that the record in the case was sufficiently robust for summary adjudication, noting the "millions of dollars of public funds to review and produce hundreds of thousands of documents over the course of tens of thousands of hours," that there had been "a dozen depositions," and that discovery had "consumed nearly eleven months." In its supporting memorandum, EPA further contended that Murray Energy's theory of economic injury was "based on the vague notion of a 'reduced market for coal' that is undefined and lacks any parameters."
On August 19, 2016, Murray Energy filed its opposition to EPA's motion, arguing that: (i) EPA's main argument—that Section 321(a) is discretionary—had been rejected twice previously in the suit, and EPA offered nothing new on summary judgment; (ii) the court had already found three separate grounds for Murray Energy's standing, and EPA raised no legitimate dispute with the court's reasoning; and (iii) EPA offered no "cogent explanation" on how it was complying with Section 321(a).
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the State of West Virginia (in conjunction with 12 other states) filed amicus curiae briefs in support of Murray Energy on August 24 and September 7, 2016, respectively. EPA filed its reply brief on September 9, 2016. The court has not yet set a date for oral argument.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
