Swamp Stomp
Volume 17, Issue 9
A West Virginia federal judge has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate coal industry job losses. Attorneys for the agency argue that the order imposes “substantive obligations” and has “no basis in the statute” in a filing on February 21, 2017.
“In an opening brief, the Justice Department asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the order and instruct the lower court to either dismiss the case or rule in favor of the agency” (Reilly).
The order was “outside the bounds of the court’s authority,” Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys told the appeals court. At a minimum, they said, the 4th Circuit should issue a new “straightforward” injunction that tracks with the Clean Air Act.
“At issue is last month’s decision by U.S. District Court Judge John Preston Bailey for the Northern District of West Virginia to require EPA to submit by July 1 an evaluation of how its Clean Air Act regulations affect coal jobs, mine closures and power plant shutdowns” (Reilly).
Bailey sided with Murray Energy Corporation, who filed a lawsuit in 2014 against the EPA. The lawsuit argues that the EPA failed to comply with a section of the Clean Air Act that requires the continued economic evaluations of its regulations. Bailey issued the July 1st deadline after determining that the EPA’s initial plan to comply with the provision was insufficient.
While most of the action regarding the lawsuit was handled under Obama’s administration, Trump’s Department of Justice has moved to appeal the ruling.
In its opening statement, the government raised both procedural and substantive arguments against Murray’s claims in the lawsuit. It should be noted that Murray CEO Robert Murray is a major Trump supporter.
The DOJ argued that the district court did not have the jurisdiction to hear Murray’s claims because the Clean Air Act did not impose an enforceable mandatory duty on the EPA to evaluate job losses.
The government is also arguing that Murray lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because the firm couldn’t point to specific harms caused by the EPA’s alleged failure to do the economic evaluations.
“Murray alleges that the coal industry as a whole is economically distressed, but the company did not provide any ‘specific facts’ showing that it specifically has been harmed,” EPA’s brief said.
The brief also argues that even if it crosses the procedural thresholds, the 4th Circuit should still reverse the order because the EPA already did the required evaluations.
The agency pointed to 64 documents that it says analyzed the economic impacts of its actions — even if those evaluations weren’t specifically done to comply with the Clean Air Act section at issue.
“Individually and collectively,” the brief says, “EPA’s documents evaluate the ‘potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement’ of the CAA.”
Judge Bailey’s order goes “far beyond” the Clean Air Act by requiring evaluations not just on economic shifts but on how coal “families” and “communities” may be at risk, the brief said.
Murray’s response is due on March 31.
“EPA has for years now sought to shirk its obligation to evaluate the loss and shifts in employment from its actions under the Clean Air Act,” Murray said in an earlier court filing.
Source: Reilly, Amanda. “EPA Fights Order Requiring Study of Job Losses.” Greenwire. E&E News, 22 Feb. 2017. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.