"But EPA also said that it believes the district court lacks jurisdiction and that the agency has already considered its regulations' employment impact," Reilly writes. The case was brought by Robert E. Murray, CEO and owner of Murray Energy Corp., the largest independent coal producer in the U.S., an outspoken foe of the regulation. Murray released a statement in response to EPA, saying is is "abundantly clear" the agency has no intention to comply with the ruling.
In his ruling last month, District Judge John Preston Bailey "cited a section of the federal Clean Air Act which states that the EPA 'shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement' of the law, including 'where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement'," Ken Ward Jr. wrote for the Charleston Gazette-Mail. "Bailey noted that Congress required such evaluations 'to provide information which could lead the EPA or Congress to amend . . . prior EPA actions'."