Coal Sector Secures Standing In Suit Seeking EPA 'Jobs' Review Of Air Rules

摘要

Coal companies have secured legal standing for their suit claiming EPA has a Clean Air Act mandate to review the impact of its air rules on employment, opening the door for a federal district judge to rule on the merits of the sector's claim that the agency unlawfully delayed the review and that it must assess combined impacts from all rules. In a recent order in the suit Murray Energy, et al. v. EPA, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia Judge John Preston Bailey rejects the agency's argument that Murray and other coal companies have not been harmed by the absence of a jobs analysis. The judge found in part that if EPA were to conduct such an evaluation, it could compel changes to air rules that impose costs on the coal sector, thereby potentially affecting jobs impacts. Relevant documents are available on lnsideEPA.com. See page 2 for details. (Doc. ID: 180414) "Congress' purpose in enacting the requirement for the evaluations was to provide information which could lead the EPA or Congress to amend the prior EPA actions.... the results of the inquiry may have the effect of convincing the EPA, Congress, and/or the American public to relax or alter EPA's prior decisions," writes Bailey of language in section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act that says the agency "shall" conduct a jobs review of its air rules.