Coal River Energy, LLC v. Sally Jewell
751 F.3d 659
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act imposes per-ton reclamation fees on coal produced in the U.S.; regulations set fee liability at the time of initial bona fide sale, transfer, or use (30 C.F.R. § 870.12).
- Measuring at sale reduces impurity-related overcounting that would occur if measured immediately after extraction.
- Coal River Energy, a coal operator formed after the regulation, sued the Secretary of the Interior in D.C. district court, arguing the sale-based collection violates the Export Clause when applied to exported coal.
- The government and earlier Federal Circuit decision (Consolidation Coal Co. v. United States) treated the fee as a tax on extraction, collected at sale to avoid the constitutional problem. Coal River sought a D.C. Circuit ruling conflicting with the Federal Circuit.
- The Reclamation Act provides a 60-day limitations period for challenges to regulations (30 U.S.C. § 1276); Coal River argued its claim was an "after-arising" challenge and thus not time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1276's 60-day deadline bar Coal River's challenge? | Coal River: § 1276's deadline is limited to initial challengers; "after-arising" claims by entities formed later are not time-barred. | Interior: § 1276 applies to all challenges; the 60-day limit should govern "after-arising" claim timing (measured from first imposition). | The 60-day limitation applies; Coal River's suit was untimely. |
| Is Coal River's challenge facial or as-applied (affecting § 1276's applicability)? | Coal River: its claim is as-applied (only impacts exported coal sales), so § 1276 shouldn't govern. | Interior: the suit challenges the regulation as written and therefore falls within § 1276. | The court treated the challenge as within § 1276 regardless of the facial/as-applied distinction. |
| Does the availability of other fora (Court of Federal Claims/Federal Circuit) make § 1276 inapplicable or inadequate? | Coal River: Court of Federal Claims is inadequate (cannot grant declaratory relief); thus § 1276 should not preclude this suit. | Interior: Court of Federal Claims can provide adequate relief (damages and retroactive relief); availability, not favorable outcome, matters. | The alternative forum is adequate; exclusive-review arguments fail. |
| Can equitable tolling save Coal River's claim? | Coal River: equitable tolling should apply because it formed after promulgation and first faced the fee later. | Interior: Coal River provided no grounds justifying equitable tolling; § 1276 applies. | Equitable tolling not shown; the 60-day period was not tolled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drummond Coal Co. v. Hodel, 796 F.2d 503 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (interpreting "coal produced" and upholding sale-based measurement under Chevron).
- Consolidation Coal Co. v. United States, 528 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (construed the fee as a tax on extraction and rejected export-applicability challenge).
- Elgin v. Dep't of Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012) (test for whether Congress intended exclusive review scheme).
- Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors, 195 F.3d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (statute does not preclude substantive defenses when regulation is applied).