10 J. Animal & Envtl. L. 84 (2018-2019)
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

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?