Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Environmental Law (2)
- Earth Sciences (1)
- Environmental Health and Protection (1)
- Environmental Sciences (1)
- Geology (1)
-
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Land Use Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Legal Studies (1)
- Mineral Physics (1)
- Natural Resource Economics (1)
- Natural Resources Law (1)
- Oil, Gas, and Energy (1)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (1)
- Physical Sciences and Mathematics (1)
- Social Welfare Law (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Energy and Utilities Law
Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor
Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because of public concern that enforcement of the Clean Air Act would have adverse effects on employment. Section 321(a) tasks the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with a continuous duty to evaluate the potential employment impact of the administration and enforcement of the Clean Air Act. In Murray Energy Corporation v. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on whether the federal court’s authority to review and enforce non-discretionary Clean Air Act duties extended to the EPA’s Section 321(a) duty to continuously …
Eme Homer City Generation, L.P. V. E.P.A.: Restraining The Federal Government's Leadership Role In Stopping Interstate Air Pollution, Matt Jones
Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology
No abstract provided.
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Holding that the widespread effects of environmental regulation on the coal industry constituted sufficient importance, the Northern District of West Virginia ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct analysis on employment loss and plant reduction resulting from regulatory effects. In admonishing the EPA’s inaction, the court ruled that the Agency had a non-discretionary duty to evaluate employment and plant reduction. Furthermore, the court held that the EPA’s attempt to put forth general reports in place of required evaluations was an invalid attempt to circumvent its statutory duty.