TWO LEGAL QUESTIONS

It certainly does not sound like the exempting of the D&S from State control is going to settle the controversy, and I wonder if it will protect the D&S or merely raise the threat to a higher level.
If I am reading this correctly, Margie Perkins seems bemused that anyone would worry about the D&S being subjected to the Clean Air Act because the railroad is already in compliance, so there would be nothing to impose by the enforcement provisions of the act. Yet she says that the State has the hammer when it comes to enforcement of emission issues regarding the D&S. I’m not sure why a regulator would need a hammer if there were no violations to enforce. And while she says that the Clean Air Act applying to the D&S would be moot because they already are in compliance, she laments the loss of the act’s provision for residents to bring lawsuits if they feel that the act is being violated.
QUESTION: If the D&S were subjected to the Clean Air Act, and if a resident were to file a lawsuit against the D&S under the act, who pays for the legal expense done on behalf of the resident’s suit? Would the resident need to pay for bringing the suit or would the government pay under the terms of the Clean Air Act? I’m guessing it is the latter.
ANOTHER QUESTION: In light of the fact that the D&S will be shielded from a resident bringing a suit under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, I would like to know if it will still be possible for a private citizen or special interest group to bring a lawsuit under the premise that the smoke has damaged them, regardless of the emission laws or provisions of the Clean Air Act. I’m guessing the answer is yes.
RK