Murray Energy v. EPA

Case Updates

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Court denied the petitions for review and the petition for a writ of prohibition because the proposed rule of concern is not final. The Court only claims authority to review the legality of final agency rules, not proposals.

In the coalition brief, the Chamber asked the District of Columbia Circuit Court to evaluate the EPA’s authority, in a proposed rule to substantially regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power generators. The proposed rule’s annual compliance costs will reach at least $7.3 billion by 2030. The brief argues that CAA §111(d)(1), precludes EPA from directing States to “establish standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant … which is…emitted from a source category … regulated under section 7412 [i.e., CAA §112].” Because the Mercury Rule regulates power plants under §112, EPA may not adopt the proposed rule.The brief points out that that owners and operators of power plants are already heavily governed by multiple EPA regulations imposing costs of billions of dollars per year on the industry. The proposed rule’s annual compliance costs will reach at least $7.3 billion by 2030, dramatically increase electricity’s costs for the industry, while mandating obligations making electric service less reliable.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed the brief jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Iron and Steel Institute, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and Metals Service Center Institute.

Peter D. Keisler, Roger R. Martella, C. Frederick Beckner III, and Paul J. Ray of Sidley Austin, LLP represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.