Current:Home > reviewsFederal appeals court upholds $14.25 million fine against Exxon for pollution in Texas -Secure Growth Academy
Federal appeals court upholds $14.25 million fine against Exxon for pollution in Texas
View
Date:2025-04-11 17:55:36
A federal court on Wednesday affirmed a federal judge’s 2021 ruling imposing a $14.25 million penalty on Exxon Mobil for thousands of violations of the federal Clean Air Act at the company’s refinery and chemical plant complex in Baytown.
The decision by a majority of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects Exxon’s latest appeal, closing over a decade of litigation since the Sierra Club and Environment Texas sued the company in 2010.
“This ruling affirms a bedrock principle of constitutional law that people who live near pollution-spewing industrial facilities have a personal stake in holding polluters accountable for non-compliance with federal air pollution limits, and therefore have a right to sue to enforce the Clean Air Act as Congress intended,” Josh Kratka, managing attorney at the National Environmental Law Center and a lead lawyer on the case, said in a statement.
From 2005 to 2013, a federal judge found in 2017, Exxon’s refinery and chemical plants in Baytown released 10 million pounds of pollution beyond its state-issued air permits, including carcinogenic and toxic chemicals. U.S. District Judge David Hittner ordered Exxon to pay $19.95 million as punishment for exceeding air pollution limits on 16,386 days.
“We’re disappointed in this decision and considering other legal options,” an Exxon spokesperson said in response to the ruling.
Baytown sits 25 miles outside of Houston, with tens of thousands of people living near Exxon’s facility.
Exxon appealed and asked Hittner to re-examine how the fine was calculated, including by considering how much money the company saved by delaying repairs that would’ve prevented the excess air emissions in the first place. The company also argued that it had presented sufficient evidence to show that emissions were unavoidable.
In 2021, Hittner reduced the fine to $14.25 million — the largest penalty imposed by a court out of a citizen-initiated lawsuit under the Clean Air Act, according to Environment Texas. Exxon appealed again, challenging the plaintiffs’ standing to bring the lawsuit.
While a majority of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Hittner’s 2021 decision on Wednesday, seven members of the 17-judge panel also said they would have upheld the $19.95 million fine.
“The principal issue before the en banc Court is whether Plaintiffs’ members, who live, work, and recreate near Exxon’s facility, have a sufficient ‘personal stake’ in curtailing Exxon’s ongoing and future unlawful emissions of hazardous pollutants,” the judges wrote in a concurring opinion. “We conclude that the district court correctly held that Plaintiffs established standing for each of their claims and did not abuse its discretion in awarding a penalty of $19.95 million against Exxon to deter it from committing future violations.”
The Sierra Club and Environment Texas sued Exxon under a provision in the federal Clean Air Act that allows citizens to sue amid inaction by state and federal environmental regulators. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality rarely penalizes companies for unauthorized air emissions, a Texas Tribune investigation found.
“People in Baytown and Houston expect industry to be good neighbors,” Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas, said in a statement. “But when companies violate the law and put health-threatening pollution into neighborhoods, they need to be held accountable.”
___
This story was originally published by The Texas Tribuneand distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
veryGood! (53949)
Related
- Retirement planning: 3 crucial moves everyone should make before 2025
- Florida Ballot Measure Could Halt Rooftop Solar, but Do Voters Know That?
- Pfizer warns of a looming penicillin supply shortage
- Duck Dynasty's Sadie Robertson Gives Birth, Welcomes Baby No. 2 With Christian Huff
- All That You Wanted to Know About She’s All That
- Obama’s Oil Tax: A Conversation Starter About Climate and Transportation, but a Non-Starter in Congress
- In Corporate March to Clean Energy, Utilities Not Required
- Why do some people get rashes in space? There's a clue in astronaut blood
- Juan Soto praise of Mets' future a tough sight for Yankees, but World Series goal remains
- FDA advisers back updated COVID shots for fall vaccinations
Ranking
- SFO's new sensory room helps neurodivergent travelers fight flying jitters
- Cyberattacks on hospitals 'should be considered a regional disaster,' researchers find
- FDA warns stores to stop selling Elf Bar, the top disposable e-cigarette in the U.S.
- Lawyers fined for filing bogus case law created by ChatGPT
- Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Triathlon
- Lawyers fined for filing bogus case law created by ChatGPT
- Most-Shopped Celeb-Recommended Items This Month: Olivia Culpo, Ashley Graham, Kathy Hilton, and More
- Roll Call: Here's What Bama Rush's Sorority Pledges Are Up to Now
Recommendation
Current, future North Carolina governor’s challenge of power
Hoop dreams of a Senegalese b-baller come true at Special Olympics
The hospital bills didn't find her, but a lawsuit did — plus interest
Years before Titanic sub went missing, OceanGate was warned about catastrophic safety issues
Former longtime South Carolina congressman John Spratt dies at 82
California’s Fast-Track Solar Permits Let the Sun Shine In Faster—and Cheaper
7.5 million Baby Shark bath toys recalled after reports of impalement, lacerations
First in the nation gender-affirming care ban struck down in Arkansas