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They argued the EPA relied on outdated data and should be required by the court to make the rule even more strict.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 notícias
Isenção de Responsabilidade: As entidades do XM Group proporcionam serviço de apenas-execução e acesso à nossa plataforma online de negociação, permitindo a visualização e/ou uso do conteúdo disponível no website ou através deste, o que não se destina a alterar ou a expandir o supracitado. Tal acesso e uso estão sempre sujeitos a: (i) Termos e Condições; (ii) Avisos de Risco; e (iii) Termos de Responsabilidade. Este, é desta forma, fornecido como informação generalizada. Particularmente, por favor esteja ciente que os conteúdos da nossa plataforma online de negociação não constituem solicitação ou oferta para iniciar qualquer transação nos mercados financeiros. Negociar em qualquer mercado financeiro envolve um nível de risco significativo de perda do capital.
Todo o material publicado na nossa plataforma de negociação online tem apenas objetivos educacionais/informativos e não contém — e não deve ser considerado conter — conselhos e recomendações financeiras, de negociação ou fiscalidade de investimentos, registo de preços de negociação, oferta e solicitação de transação em qualquer instrumento financeiro ou promoção financeira não solicitada direcionadas a si.
Qual conteúdo obtido por uma terceira parte, assim como o conteúdo preparado pela XM, tais como, opiniões, pesquisa, análises, preços, outra informação ou links para websites de terceiras partes contidos neste website são prestados "no estado em que se encontram", como um comentário de mercado generalizado e não constitui conselho de investimento. Na medida em que qualquer conteúdo é construído como pesquisa de investimento, deve considerar e aceitar que este não tem como objetivo e nem foi preparado de acordo com os requisitos legais concebidos para promover a independência da pesquisa de investimento, desta forma, deve ser considerado material de marketing sob as leis e regulações relevantes. Por favor, certifique-se que leu e compreendeu a nossa Notificação sobre Pesquisa de Investimento não-independente e o Aviso de Risco, relativos à informação supracitada, os quais podem ser acedidos aqui.
