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They argued the EPA relied on outdated data and should be required by the court to make the rule even more strict.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
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
