Federal judge rules EPA must consider job losses resulting from energy regulations

October 25th, 2016 by Dakota Software Staff Industry News

In addition to the high-profile federal court case about the Clean Power Plan, which is ongoing and unlikely to resolve any time soon, the Environmental Protection Agency is dealing with a number of legal actions. One such lawsuit was just completed, although the outcome wasn't what the EPA wanted. The federal environmental regulator was found to have ignored certain requirements in terms of estimating job losses and employment changes related to the Clean Air Act.

Political news source The Hill said the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia found the EPA had a non-discretionary or mandatory duty to track employment changes, including job losses, caused by the implementation of CAA regulations. Judge John Preston Bailey, who presided over the case, made a number of statements in the ruling that highlighted the EPA's failure to follow those rules. He strongly disagreed with the federal agency's stance that conducting such reviews was a discretionary and non-mandatory component of the environmental regulations it has long enforced.

"EPA cannot redefine statutes to avoid complying with them. Nor can EPA render them superfluous or contrary to their original purpose by simply defining them to be," Bailey said, according to the Hill.

Bailey also highlighted areas of the original language of the CAA, which he said Congress had specifically included to provide insight about regulations and improve the processes associated with crafting and enforcing such legislation.

New requirements for the EPA
Going forward, the EPA will have to conduct assessments of job loss associated with environmental regulations that impact the operation of coal-fired and other power plants and of coal miners, according to the Associated Press. The agency had previously carried out this process, but not for many years. That lack of data-gathering and review stretches back to around 1977, based on a comment from Gina McCarthy, chief EPA administrator.

In general terms, the ruling requires the EPA to regularly measure the economic impact of the CAA's measures, including the effects of plant and mine closures. While the EPA believes its processes up to this point were sufficient, Judge Bailey found enough support in the Act's original wording to rule in favor of the plaintiffs. That group includes original plaintiff Murray Energy Corporation and most of the other U.S. companies currently involved in underground coal extraction.

"The court properly rebuked EPA for representing that it sufficed for the agency to merely predict impacts but it was under no duty to later verify the actual outcomes," said Hal Quinn, National Mining Association president and CEO, in a statement, according to the AP.

A somewhat symbolic victory for coal and related industries
While the ruling contained some strongly-worded rebukes of the EPA's long-term interpretation of the CAA, its recognizable effect on the federal regulator and future environmental rules is minor. The Hill said the decision is largely symbolic because there's no direct link between conducting those assessments and larger policy changes. The information gathered may be used by supporters of coal and related industries to point out issues with regulations if the data is made public, but there are no major changes expected to stem from the ruling.

The EPA must now prepare a timetable to share with the court for completing those requirements unless it chooses to appeal. While the agency said it's reviewing the decision, there's no indication whether or not it will return to court. The hypothetical appeal would move to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit if filed, according to The Hill.