Whether the promulgation of the groundwater-cleanup rule mooted the case; MCL 324.20120a(5); Exceptions to mootness; Exhaustion of administrative remedies; MCL 24.264; Futility; Hendee v Putnam Twp; Standing; Lansing Sch Educ Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Educ; Subject-matter jurisdiction; MCL 600.6419; Michigan Farm Bureau v EGLE; Administrative Procedures Act (APA) regulatory impact statement (RIS); MCL 24.245(3)(l); Agency failure to follow process; Michigan Charitable Gaming Ass’n v State; Department of Environment, Great Lakes, & Energy (EGLE); Regulatory impact statement (RIS)

Holding that the controversy was not moot, that exhaustion was excused by futility, and that standing and subject-matter jurisdiction remained intact, the court again affirmed the Court of Claims’ grant of summary disposition for plaintiff-3M Company (3M) against defendant-EGLE. 3M contended “EGLE’s RIS for the drinking-water rule was insufficient because it did not account for how changes to the drinking-water rule would affect 3M’s groundwater-cleanup costs, as the groundwater-cleanup rule incorporated the standards of the drinking-water rule.” The court previously affirmed the trial court’s holding that the EGLE violated § 45 of the APA, which requires agencies to prepare a RIS “that includes an estimate of how much compliance with the proposed rules will cost ‘businesses and other groups[.]’” The Supreme Court vacated that opinion, and remanded for the court to consider four specified issues. On remand, the court held the case was not moot because the drinking-water standards still control groundwater criteria by statute. “We conclude that the promulgation of the groundwater-cleanup rule did not moot this case,” and, as the agency itself recognized, the PFAS groundwater criteria “‘are effective and legally enforceable by operation of law.’” It also held that exhaustion under MCL 24.264 was excused as futile where the dispute was a purely legal validity challenge and EGLE’s position was fixed. “3M did not have a duty to exhaust its remedies prior to bringing this declaratory judgment action, as it would have been futile to do so.” Further, courts are the determiner of an APA rule’s legal validity, and a trial “‘court is not bound by, and owes no deference to, an agency’s interpretation of a statute.’” As to standing, the court reiterated that “a legal cause of action exists to challenge a rule as invalid,” and concluded that “3M’s failure to comply with MCL 24.264 did not affect its standing.” Finally, addressing subject-matter jurisdiction, the court noted the Supreme Court said last year in Michigan Farm Bureau that “‘[t]here is no dispute [ ] that MCL 24.264 delineates a class of cases over which the Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction.’” The court clarified that whether “any given challenger complied with the exhaustion part of MCL 24.264 . . . concerns the [trial] court’s power to decide the particular case before it, not [its] power to decide a declaratory-judgment action against a state department in general.”