Document rpXY6V2kV3m21pN2Q4Qw1MkK0

The Importance of Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy Background Murray Energy Corp. (Murray) sued EPA for failing to comply with section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),1which requires the agency to continuously evaluate potential losses or shifts of employment resulting from administration or enforcement of the CAA. Murray argued that EPA has not evaluated the job losses and job shifts within the coal industry that have resulted from CAA rules. On October 17, 2016, the court granted summary judgment to Murray, and entered a Memorandum Order requiring EPA to provide a plan and schedule for compliance with 321 (a) within two weeks. EPA responded to the court's order on October 21, 2016, stating that the agency would comply with 321(a) only because of the court's order, that the timeframes are too short, and that it will take EPA about two years to develop a methodology to use to comply. The Court's January 11, 2017 Final Order The court issued a Final Order on January 11, 2017 that sharply rebuked the TaognheetnhcceyopuaarntrdtnooortfedtdehretehdEaPtthAEaPttoAsp'aesccOcifeicpcttoaabcnetcireon3o1sfbrtehesecpmoomnisspseiloe"tneevdeisdbteaynbcclieossuhretthd-eobrcydoeCnrteoidnngudreeedasdshl.o"ins2etisl.ity The court demonstrated through legislative history that "Congress unmistakably intended to track and monitor the effects of the Clean Air Act and its iramecgcpuollmeamtpoearnnytyipinnrgogcrteehsgesuel1sa9.t"7io37nFsCoAornAeexamammpeplnoledy,mmtheeennttcsionausortcrdlcaeirtriefstyoitnhigme tHphraootuvse3e2thC1eo(alm)egwmiasilstatetaiedvedReaednpdtoort address concerns about "the extent to which the Clean Air Act or other factors are responsible for plant shutdowns, decisions not to build new plants, and consequent losses of employment opportunities."4 142 U.S.C. 7621 (a). 2 Final Order at 2. 3 Id. at 3. 4H.R. Rep. 95-294, at 316,1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1077,1395. [PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT ] Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00082503-00001 both trCacoknsaindderminogntihtoerptrhaecteicffaelcitms poafctthoefCl3e2a1n(Aa),irthAectcoaunrdt iotsbsimerpvleedmtehnattinEgPA must Trreehgduuuslc,attiEiooPnnAss ionisnebmeomtphplolpoyrymomesepnntetca,tnaidvnedrleyetvrinaolvsuepasettecigttiahvteienlcgyateuhvsraeelauotaeftnisnepgdeacpnilfyaincatcjctoulboaslducirsleolosscuoarrteisonosr.5 reductions which are alleged to have occurred because of CAA requirements.6 develoTpehde acoevuartlunaotitoend ttohoalt ecavlildeedntcheehEacdobneoemniicntDroisdluocceadtiothnaEtaErlPyAWitasrenlifnhgadSystem ("EDEWS"), which the agency used beginning in 1972 to identify at-risk workers, track actual worker dislocations and potential community impacts, and identify root causes.7 Through the EDEWS program, EPA was able to identify threatened, actual, gppanorlaodvngeartrvancmomliodeisednidentngwptsriofoirogekrrdeapramrcdotiausdvaluoaliccclatalitoboiolsneunrtsceo.usprTotrhraoevicluimpdrreteoangiflitrmnsaa.me8nncItwisnaalatsaht ise1ns5itfse5itrnaspdntlecatdeenntwtsoyhaebinacrdrhisn,twghtheoienudtlEoidsDlppolEcraaeWytviaeoSnnnytof 32,899 workers resulting from environmental requirements.9 2fr0o1m0, SaIen2n0ar1et1osrproVenqistuieeerst,ot afrreroeqmquueteshtsest fHfrrooommusetshixOe SvSeeernnsaaitgtoehrtsECninvoim2r0om0n9imt,teetwen,toaaHnnodotuhPseuerbm2li0ce1mW1broeerrqksusienst Committee in 2013, and a request from the House Science Committee in November 2013, EPA consistently argued that it interpreted 321 (a) not to require any analysis wapoaurltdfrboemofth"elimstaitneddaurdtilRitye.g"u10latory Impact Analysis (RIAs), and any further analysis After finding that the record shows that RIAs do not satisfy the objectives of 321 (a) because they seek essentially different information, the court next found that EPA's Science Advisory Board already reviewed EPA guidelines for estimating plant colfotshueregsuaidnedlienmesptlhoaytmdeenatltimwpitahctths,ebseutefsfteactetsd.1t1hat EPA inexplicably deleted sections 5 Final Order at 9. 6 Id. I Id. 8 Id. at 11. 9 Id. 10Id. atll-15. II Id. at 19-20. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA [PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT ] Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00082503-00002 The court next stated that "EPA cannot redefine statutes to avoid complying wdoitihngthwemha.t iTshoerdreerceodrdbyint3h2i1s (caa)s."e12demonstrates hostility on the part of the EPA to The court ordered EPA to (a) prepare and submit to the Court a 321(a) evaluation of the coal industry and other entities affected by the rules and regulations affecting the coal mining and power generating industries as eroixfspkpelodafintctiolcoulsosulsyrueraesosrpoolorssslsoibsolsefoeafmnedpmlbopyylomnyoemnlatetnbetercotanhuacsenomoJufmlruyeng1iu,tli2ae0tsi1oa7nn,sd,(b(f)ca)mideievlniatteliusfy,at(efda)tchielevitaiiemluspaatatects coal mines and coal-fired power plants that have closed reduced employment since January 2009, and evaluate whether CAA requirements caused the impacts, and (e) identify impacts on subpopulations such as minority groups.13 measurEePtoAciosmfuprltyhewriothrde3r2e1d(at)oisnhtohwe bfuytuDree.cember 31, 2017 that it has adopted EPA's Appeal of the Order Court oOfnAFpepberaulsa.ryT3h,e20ag1e7n, cEyPrAeqaupepsteeadletdhathtethceoauprtp'esaolsrdceorutrot tsheet aFnoeuxrtphedCitiercduit schedule for the case. EPA seeks an expedited schedule based on its assertion that the order imposes a "significant" burden. EPA specifically cites the difficulty in obtaining the data for a 321 (a) analysis and complying with OMB's information cscohlleedcutiloenprreoqpuoisreedmebnytsEPanAd, IMnfuorrramyaEtinoenrgQyuwaloituyldAchtavbey Jtoulyfile1,i2ts01b7ri.efUwnidtherththee Fourth Circuit by March 31, 2017. On February 8, the Fourth Circuit consolidated EPA's appeal of the January 11, 2017 order with the Obama administration's earlier appeal of the October 21, 2016 order. The Court also consolidated an appeal by three West Virginia leanwvsiuroitn.mTehnetaelngvriroounpms eonftathlegrdoisutprisctarceokunrto'swdnenasiatlhoefMthoenirVreaqllueeysCt tloeainntAerivr eCnoealiintitohne. 12Id. at 21. 13 Id. at 26-27. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA [PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT ] Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00082503-00003 The Importance of the M urray Energy Decision were haInvin19g7m7,aCjoornegcroenssomwiacs ecflfeeacrltys oconnkceeyrnineddutshtaritems a(sjoterele,nmviirnoinngm,eanuttaolsr,eegnuelragtiyo,ns etc.). Section 321 of the Clean Air Act, and equivalent sections of other statutes, were incorporated into environmental statutes to help manage the balance between economic growth and environmental protection. By getting essentially real-time data pounbplircoswpoeucltdivgeeatncdrirtiectarlosinpfeocrtmivaetieomnpalbooyumtetnhteedffeescirtsedosftrreingguelantcioynasn, dCtoimngirnegsso af nmdatjhoer new requirements. Major new requirements for a specific industry could be phased in and/or sequenced with contemporaneous mles to avoid overwhelming that industry. Workers in an industry likely to be hard hit by environmental rules could get early wtraadrneionfgfsoafndtiicffiipcautletdtiamseasraehseualtd.ofAnnedwEePnvAirwonomulednhtaalvreesatrbiecttitoenrss.ense of economic When EPA refused to comply with 321, and took the stance that an employment analysis has `limited utility," Congress and the public lost the TophpeoMrtuunirtrya"ytoEnmearkgey"dmecidis-icoonurrseestcoorersretchteioonpsp"otrotutnhietye-ntvoirhoanvme eEnPtaAl raecgcuoluatnotryfoerftfhoert. localized employment consequences of EPA's wide-scale regulation of the economy. Because the employment consequences are so critical in coal communities and other struggling areas of the country, it is critical that the district court's decision stands. Recommended Action EPA and the Department ofJustice (DOJ) have the option to cease the appeal of the Murray Energy case and withdraw. This would mean that EPA will be required to comply with the district court'sJanuary 11, 2017 order. As discussed above there are important policy reasons to withdraw the appeal and take steps to complete a 321(a) evaluation in accordance with the district court's order. As the district court has noted, Congress unambiguously directed EPA to conduct 321(a) studies on a continuous basis. EPA has never complied with the statutory mandate. This type of information, which Congress believed was esunfvfiircoiennmtleynitmalpsotrattauntetstosuinchcluasdethseimCilleaarnemWpaltoeyrmAecnt,t14eivsamluoatrieonvarleuqaubilreemtheanntsevineroatsher 14 33 U.S.C. 1367(e). [PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT ] Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00082503-00004 tEhPeAnenwowademstianbislitsrhaetisona sctornosnigdeprrsepceodliecnytcohfancgoensduact tEinPgAt.hisIteivsaclruitaitciaolnlyainmdpsoigrtnaanlitntghat that job losses and job displacements are taken seriously in this new administration. appealEoPfAMsuhrorualydEinnsetrrguyctCDorOpJ. to take immediate v. M cCarthy. action to withdraw its Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA [PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT ] Tiers 8&9 ED 002061 00082503-00005