Following the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) introduction of its clean air plan proposal on June 2nd of this year, 12 coal producing states instituted suit against the agency. Although coal is the primary domestic source driving dangerous emissions, coal mining is a main source of income for the citizens of the states bringing the suit. The states involved in the suit include:
-
- Alabama
- Indiana
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Nebraska
-
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
The states’ action follows an initial suit filed six weeks earlier by the Murray Energy Corporation, the Nation’s largest privately held coal mining company. In arguing their case, the states cite a 2011 ruling by US Supreme Court restricting the EPA from issuing regulations affecting power plants under a portion of the Clean Air Act (111d). On the other hand, proponents of the EPA’s plan argue that barring the agency from monitoring power plants would conflict with Congress’s objectives reflected in an amendment to the 1990 Clean Air Act in which the EPA was granted the authority to proactively regulate substances.
According to Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia’s Attorney General, the EPA’s proposed rule would prove catastrophic for his state’s economy. These sentiments were echoed in a statement by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who is also challenging the EPA’s proposed plan. “It’s obviously something that needed to be litigated, and it needed to be litigated now to address this tension that exists,” said Pruitt.
Although presently uninvolved in the litigation, Pennsylvania stands to suffer significant financial ramifications resulting from the EPA’s proposed plan. According to several local government spokesmen, manufacturers in the state depend on coal-based power plants facilitate affordable electricity used in the production of transportation fuels, steel, and cement, all thriving industries in the keystone state.
While the moral choice should be a clear and obvious one, attempting to maintain economic stability while addressing our responsibility to promote the health of our citizens today and tomorrow promises to meet with opposition for a considerable length of time. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to postpone taking the steps required to save our planet and ensure a safer, cleaner and greener world of our children and the generations that follow.
