Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor Oct 2017

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 …


Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition V. Fola Coal Company, Llc, Emily A. Slike Apr 2017

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition V. Fola Coal Company, Llc, Emily A. Slike

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Disregarding CWA regulations, WVDEP allowed for a state coal mining company, Fola, to discharge pollutants into the Stillhouse Branch without regard for water quality violations. Fola claimed that because it held a WV/NPDES permit, it was shielded from any liability so long as the company followed the permit’s provisions, even if its discharge violated CWA water quality standards.


Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno Feb 2017

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.


Helping Hand Tools V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Emily A. Slike Jan 2017

Helping Hand Tools V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Emily A. Slike

Public Land & Resources Law Review

When the EPA decided to treat biomass fuel sources differently within the BACT analysis, the Ninth Circuit continued Chevron’s legacy and granted the agency deference. The Bioenergy BACT may develop as science continues to evolve, but because the EPA took a “hard look” during a thorough permit review, the court held that agency issuance of new BACT guidelines was reasonable.