EPA Trumps the Coal Industry in Fourth Circuit Case Asking EPA to Balance Costs
![handle is hein.journals/jael10 and id is 90 raw text is:
EPA TRUMPS COAL
EPA TRUMPS THE COAL INDUSTRY IN
FOURTH CIRCUIT CASE ASKING EPA TO
BALANCE COSTS
Logan Wood*
I. Introduction
A common mantra of the 2016 Trump Campaign, as depicted in rally signs,
Trump Digs Coal, illustrates his repeated promise to save the United States coal
industry after years of bankruptcies and dwindlingjob prospects for coal miners.'
2
However, ironically, the Trump Administration, in Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA,
defended the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) actions, or lack thereof,
in evaluating the costs associated with enforcement of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
on the coal industry. Specifically, the impact enforcement has on jobs within the
industry.
In Murray, leaders of the coal industry brought suit against the EPA
claiming that the EPA: (1) failed to comply with its statutory duty to conduct
continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment3 when enforcing
its regulations and (2) was enforcing the CAA in a way that places immense
pressure on the electric generating sector- and other industries that traditionally
burn coal- to reduce their consumption of coal.4 The United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia ordered the EPA to write a report on the
jobs impact of coal industry regulations, rejecting its argument that it had
discretions to decide when evaluations were needed.5 The Fourth Circuit,
however, reversed and remanded the District Court's decision stating, [t]he agency
gets to decide how to collect a broad set of employment impact data, how to judge
and examine this extensive data, and how to manage these tasks on an ongoing
basis.6 The coal industry asked the Supreme Court of the United States to take up
Logan Wood is a current J.D. candidate at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law.
She is the Student Bar Association President and wishes to specialize her law practice in trial
advocacy.
1Justin Worland, Why Trump's Promise to Save the Coal Industry Does More Damage Than Good,
TIME (Aug. 12, 2016), http://time.com/4447586/trump-coal-industry-energy/.
2 Murray Energy Corp., v. Adm 'r ofEPA, 861 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 2017).
3 42 U.S.C. § 7621(a) (2018).
Mark Latham, Victor E. Schwartz & Christopher E. Appel, Is EPA Ignoring Clean Air Act
Mandate To Analyze Impact OfRegulation On Jobs?, 29 LEGAL BACKGROUNDER 15, 3 (2014).
Jonathan Stempel, EPA Wins U.S. Court Reversal Over Coal Jobs Study, REUTERS (June 29,
2017 1:23 PM) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-murray -energy -ea-decision/epa-wins-u-s-court-
reversal-over-coal-jobs-study-idUSKBN19K21F.
6 id.
84
JAEL, Vol. 10, No. I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/jael10&div=9&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
EPA Trumps the Coal Industry in Fourth Circuit Case Asking EPA to Balance Costs
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most