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They argued the EPA relied on outdated data and should be required by the court to make the rule even more strict.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
Ultime news
Disclaimer: le entità di XM Group forniscono servizi di sola esecuzione e accesso al nostro servizio di trading online, che permette all'individuo di visualizzare e/o utilizzare i contenuti disponibili sul sito o attraverso di esso; non ha il proposito di modificare o espandere le proprie funzioni, né le modifica o espande. L'accesso e l'utilizzo sono sempre soggetti a: (i) Termini e condizioni; (ii) Avvertenza sui rischi e (iii) Disclaimer completo. Tali contenuti sono perciò forniti a scopo puramente informativo. Nello specifico, ti preghiamo di considerare che i contenuti del nostro servizio di trading online non rappresentano un sollecito né un'offerta ad operare sui mercati finanziari. Il trading su qualsiasi mercato finanziario comporta un notevole livello di rischio per il tuo capitale.
Tutto il materiale pubblicato sul nostro servizio di trading online è unicamente a scopo educativo e informativo, e non contiene (e non dovrebbe essere considerato come contenente) consigli e raccomandazioni di carattere finanziario, di trading o fiscale, né informazioni riguardanti i nostri prezzi di trading, offerte o solleciti riguardanti transazioni che possano coinvolgere strumenti finanziari, oppure promozioni finanziarie da te non richieste.
Tutti i contenuti di terze parti, oltre ai contenuti offerti da XM, siano essi opinioni, news, ricerca, analisi, prezzi, altre informazioni o link a siti di terzi presenti su questo sito, sono forniti "così com'è", e vanno considerati come commenti generali sui mercati; per questo motivo, non possono essere visti come consigli di investimento. Dato che tutti i contenuti sono intesi come ricerche di investimento, devi considerare e accettare che non sono stati preparati né creati seguendo i requisiti normativi pensati per promuovere l'indipendenza delle ricerche di investimento; per questo motivo, questi contenuti devono essere considerati come comunicazioni di marketing in base alle leggi e normative vigenti. Assicurati di avere letto e compreso pienamente la nostra Notifica sulla ricerca di investimento non indipendente e la nostra Informativa sul rischio riguardante le informazioni sopra citate; tali documenti sono consultabili qui.
