Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray and his coalition of the willing had their lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thrown out because the regulations challenged in the lawsuit had not been finalized or implemented yet. There was no injury to form the basis of a legal complaint.
Murray's coalition is attempting to file their challenge again, however, by asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider the decision to throw the lawsuit out.
Just over a month after the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out a previous lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is leading the charge for another hearing; this time by the full, 17-judge D.C. Court of Appeals, rather than the three-judge panel that heard it in June.
The three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit because the rule, which aims to reduce emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, isn’t finalized yet.
Unless the EPA's clean power regulations are finalized and coded into law before the full Court of Appeals hears the case again (if it hears the case), it seems very unlikely to me the court would reverse the decision.
For their part, the new coalition of complainants are arguing that the possible existence of regulations is the injury.
“The EPA is unlawfully coercing Oklahoma and other states into complying with the Clean Power Plan before the rule is even finalized,” said Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt in a statement Friday. “Waiting until the rule is finalized before a court can rule on its lawfulness will force states like Oklahoma into making policy decisions on power generation and distribution that will be irreversible.”
That seems like a stretch.
If neither the court or the states know what the exact language of the regulations will be, how can they claim they're being forced to comply with the unwritten language?