An October 2016 federal court decision confirmed that, as a matter of law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a non-discretionary duty to undertake an ongoing evaluation of job losses that may result from implementation or enforcement of the Clean Air Act.   See, Murray Energy Corporation v. Gina McCarthy, No. 5:14-CV-39 (N.D. W.Va. Oct. 16, 2016). (view document here).  EPA was ordered to file, within fourteen days, a plan and schedule for evaluating the effects of its Clean Air Act regulations on the coal industry. The decision may have application beyond the CAA as Congress included similar language in four other major environmental statutes, the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

In granting summary judgment for Murray Energy, the Court relied heavily on the legislative intent underlying CAA, Section 321(a).  Judge Baily determined that Congress directly confronted the issue of potential job loss and other negative effects on regulated industries when it amended the Act in 1977 to require the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with EPA, to conduct a study of potential dislocation of employees due to implementation of the laws administered by EPA and required EPA to “conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shift of employment” potentially caused by EPA’s regulatory activities.  Id. at 39.  The Court dismissed EPA’s repeated claims that the agency does not interpret Section 321(a) to require job impacts analyses and found that documents EPA prepared to comply with other statutory and Executive Order requirements such as Regulatory Impact Analyses and Economic Impact Analyses do not sufficiently evaluate loss and shifts in employment or otherwise meet the requirements of Section 321(a).