US court nixes EPA retroactive emissions standards for boilers
By Nate Raymond
Sept 3 (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Tuesday said a new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule went too far by retroactively tightening emissions standards for industrial boilers, siding with industry groups that had challenged the regulation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of U.S. Sugar Corp and groups representing other industrial boiler operators and set aside the EPA's rule to the extent it regulated boilers constructed before August 2020.
The rule was adopted in 2022 by the EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act, which directs the agency to establish emissions standards for new and existing sources of hazardous air pollutants.
The agency through the rule classified some industrial boilers as "new" sources of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act even though they were built before the rule was first proposed in 2020, the three-judge panel said.
As a result, the rule misinterpreted the definition of “new source" under the Clean Air Act, according to the panel, which included U.S. Circuit Judges Robert Wilkins, Gregory Katsas and Justin Walker.
U.S. Sugar in a statement said it was pleased with the ruling. The privately-owned Clewiston, Florida-based agriculture business said it was "proud of our record as good stewards of our air resources."
The EPA in a statement said it was reviewing the decision.
The case marked the latest in decades of litigation over the EPA's attempts to regulate industrial boilers.
The D.C. Circuit in 2016 largely upheld EPA standards crafted during Democratic former President Barack Obama's tenure but concluded the EPA would need to revise 34 of 202 standards, leading to the new standards finalized in 2022.
U.S. Sugar and industry groups including the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Wood Council and the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners sued, arguing the new standards ran afoul of the Clean Air Act.
They had argued that requiring owners of already existing boilers to meet the revised standards would unfairly force them to retrofit them with better technology.
Environmental groups including the Sierra Club had countered that the real unfairness was exposing Americans to toxic metals like mercury and hazardous air pollutants emitted from such boilers.
They argued the EPA relied on outdated data and should be required by the court to make the rule even more strict. But the D.C. Circuit said the EPA's decision to not use more recent data did not violate the Clean Air Act.
"Today's decision will allow yet more toxic pollution to be emitted into communities that are already overburdened by their harmful effects,” said James Pew, the director of Earthjustice's clean air practice.
The case is United States Sugar Corp v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 22-1271.
For U.S. Sugar: Timothy Bishop of Mayer Brown
For Sierra Club: James Pew of Earthjustice
For EPA: Perry Rosen of the U.S. Department of Justice
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
