“iN-THE.OENERAL COURT OP JUSTICE 1s Uk =" PF HSUPERIOR COURT DIVISION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY 15 CVS 000127 WHE OULY OSS. HAWRIVER ASSEMBLY and KEELY, WOOD PURICZ, be = Prainis, i VIKRAM RAO, inhis official capacity as & ‘Member and Chairman of the Mining and nergy Commission; RAY COVINGTON, in his official capacity as a Member ofthe Mining and Energy Commission; IVAN GILMORE, in his official capacity as 2 ‘Member of the Mining and Energy ‘Corunission; MARTIN MATTHEWS, in his official pacity as a Member of the Mining ‘and Energy Commission; GEORGE HOWARD, in his official capacity as a ‘Member ofthe Mining and Energy (Commission; CHARLES TAYLOR, in is official epacity as a Member ofthe Mining and Energy Commission; JAMES WOMACK, in his official capacity as a ‘Member ofthe Mining and Energy ‘Commission; NORTH CAROLINA MINING AND ENERGY COMMISSION; NORTH ‘CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants, ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND ENTRY OF A LIMITED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION “This matter came before the Court on a Motion to Stay Proceedings filed by Defendants the North Carolina Mining and Bnergy Commission (the *MEC"); Vikram Rao, in his official ‘capacity as both a Member and the Chairman of the MEC, as well as Ray Covington, Ivan Gilmore, Martin Matthews, George Howard, Charles Taylor and James Womack in ther offical capacities‘as Members ofthe MBC (cumulatively referred to as “the MEC defendants); the State of North Carolia (the "State"; and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (*DENR’), snd a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Haw River Assembly and ), The undersigned Superior Court Judge heard oral arguments Keely Wood Putiee “Pai com May 1, 2015. Appearing for Pliniffs were John Sutles, Mary Maclean Asbill and Brooks Rainey Pearson ofthe Southem Environmental Law Center. Appearing forthe MEC defendants andthe Stato were Spesial Deputy Attorneys Gener! Melisa, Tripe and Ann W. Mathews Appearing for DENR were Alan D. Moles and William F. Lane of Klptick Townsend and Stockton, LLP, Plaintiffs opposed the Motion o Stay the Proceedings and stated that hey would ‘withdraw thei oposiion to stay ofthe proceedings if preliminary injunction were in place. “The MBC, the MEC defendants andthe Sat did notte position on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. DENR opposed the Motion for Preliminary Injuneton. Aer fly and carelly consideing the Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Proceedings; the Plaintiffs? Motion for Preiminary Injunction; the Midas of Martha Girolami, Keely Wood Puriz, Elaine Chiosso, and Tracy B, Davis; snd the briefs and oral arguments ofthe parties, the Cont has determined that hs tgation shouldbe stayed pening the North Carona Supreme Counts decision in Patrick. MeCrony etal» Philip B Berger e al, Sup. Ci. Case No LIDALS C-MeCrory . Berger or until father oder from the Court, an that ding he pencency ofthe stay of thi litigation, the MEC shouldbe enjoined fom accepting or processing applications for drilling units and from creating any drilling units. This Order does not otherwise ‘enjoin the MEC defendants, the State or DENR from conducting any other lawful activity within ‘the scope of their authority.Finding of Fact 1. On January 5, 2015, Plains iled a Complaint for Declaratory Sudgment inthe sbove-cptioned action, challenging the conttatonality of NC. Gen. Stat. §143B-293.20), which gover appointments othe MEC. 2. OnNovembr 14,2014, pursuant to N.C. Gen Stat. § 150B-21.30(1), the MEC scopted 5A N.C, Admin, Code Subchapter SH, ute of regulations developed forthe purpose ‘of governing natural gas extraction in North Carolina (the “MBC roles"). The General Assembly {granted the MEC the authority to create and modify drilling units pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-391(a)(12), and the MEC’s rules at 15A NCAC OSH 1200, seg. governing establishment of dling units ae based on this authority. Creation of ailing nit bythe MEC is necessary rereqsite o accepting or processing a i and gos wel permit spliaton, or for issuing an cll and gas well permit, See ISA NCAC OSH 1300, e seg. 3. The MBC miles went int effect on March 17,2018, 4. OnMarch 16, 2015, a three-judge panel formed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Sta. § I= 267.1, ruled in favor ofthe plaintiffs in McCrory v. Berger, finding, inter alia, that: “1. The provisions of N.C. Gen, Stat, SNCGS 143B-293.2(a1) providing forthe appointment of members ofthe Noth Carolina il and Gas Commission by the Legislature arin violation of Atle I, Seaton 6 ofthe North Carling Consition* Defendants in tht cate filed sn appes, and the «ase wil be arged before the Nonth Croina Supreme Cout on 30 June, 2015 5. On Apsil 7, 2015, the Defindant filed « Motion to Stay the Proceedings in this as, pending the North Carolina Supreme Court's dessin in MoCrory Berger. 6, On April 14,2015, Plaintiisiled a Motion for Preliminary Injunetion to enjoin implementation ofthe MBC rules and requested an Expedited Hearing,Conclusions 7. This Court has jurisdeton to hear his ease pursuant tots inherent authority and NC, Gen, Stat § 1A, Rule 42 4). 8 All pties ae properly before the Court 9. Asay is appropriate to preserve judi economy and julia esorces, a this case rises the same constttona question hati encompassed by the three judge panes Aecision in McCrory v. Berger, which will be argued before the Supreme Court of North Carolina on June 30, 2015. Issuance ofa preliminary injunction is appropriate. Based on the decision of the three-judge panel in McCrory . Berger, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the metits oftheir cli that epislative appointment of a majority ofthe ‘members ofthe MEC is an unconstitutional violation ofthe separation of powers required by Article I section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution, Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that fmeparable harm may result if an injunction is not ised. 10. An injunetion to prevent the Commission fiom accepting or processing tons for diling units and ftom creating any dilling units is necessary to preserve the pli status quo pending the outcome of this litigation and to avoid inopaable harm to Plaintiffs and ‘others who may rely ypon the MBC rales. 11, Inthe exercise ofits inherent authority and discretion to determine and order appropriate equitable reli, the Cour ths finds that Plantifs are entitled to imited preliminary injunction during the pendeney ofthe stay of this litigation. BASED UPON the parties’ motion, brief, exhibits, arguments of counsel, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, itis hereby ORDERED, ADIUDGED, AND DECREED that:‘A. Defendants’ Motion to Stay is GRANTED pending the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in Patrick L. MeCrory, et al ». Phillip &, Berger, etal, Sup. Ct. Case No, 113A15, or uni further order from the Court; 'B. Plaintiffs" Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, in part, and the MEC is ENJOINED during the pendency ofthe stay ofthis ease from accepting or processing applications for drilling units and from creating any dling wits; C.The MBC defendants are not enjoined from conducting any other Lawful activity the scope of their authority; 1D. DENR and the State are not enjoined by this Order; end, E, The partes may request modification ofthis Order if necessary within a reasonable time following the entry ofthis Order. This the Payot 205 Honorable Donald W. Stephens Senior Resident Superior Court Judge