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They argued the EPA relied on outdated data and should be required by the court to make the rule even more strict.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
Dernières actualités
Avertissement : Les entités de XM Group proposent à notre plateforme de trading en ligne un service d'exécution uniquement, autorisant une personne à consulter et/ou à utiliser le contenu disponible sur ou via le site internet, qui n'a pas pour but de modifier ou d'élargir cette situation. De tels accès et utilisation sont toujours soumis aux : (i) Conditions générales ; (ii) Avertissements sur les risques et (iii) Avertissement complet. Un tel contenu n'est par conséquent fourni que pour information générale. En particulier, sachez que les contenus de notre plateforme de trading en ligne ne sont ni une sollicitation ni une offre de participation à toute transaction sur les marchés financiers. Le trading sur les marchés financiers implique un niveau significatif de risques pour votre capital.
Tout le matériel publié dans notre Centre de trading en ligne est destiné à des fins de formation / d'information uniquement et ne contient pas – et ne doit pas être considéré comme contenant – des conseils et recommandations en matière de finance, de fiscalité des investissements ou de trading, ou un enregistrement de nos prix de trading ou une offre, une sollicitation, une transaction à propos de tout instrument financier ou bien des promotions financières non sollicitées à votre égard.
Tout contenu tiers, de même que le contenu préparé par XM, tels que les opinions, actualités, études, analyses, prix, autres informations ou liens vers des sites tiers contenus sur ce site internet sont fournis "tels quels", comme commentaires généraux sur le marché et ne constituent pas des conseils en investissement. Dans la mesure où tout contenu est considéré comme de la recherche en investissement, vous devez noter et accepter que le contenu n'a pas été conçu ni préparé conformément aux exigences légales visant à promouvoir l'indépendance de la recherche en investissement et, en tant que tel, il serait considéré comme une communication marketing selon les lois et réglementations applicables. Veuillez vous assurer que vous avez lu et compris notre Avis sur la recherche en investissement non indépendante et notre avertissement sur les risques concernant les informations susdites, qui peuvent consultés ici.
