Current:Home > NewsFederal appeals court upholds $14.25 million fine against Exxon for pollution in Texas -GlobalInvest
Federal appeals court upholds $14.25 million fine against Exxon for pollution in Texas
View
Date:2025-04-24 18:21:39
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! (616)
Related
- SFO's new sensory room helps neurodivergent travelers fight flying jitters
- Rhode Island transit chief resigns after he’s accused in a hit-and-run at a McDonald’s drive-thru
- Arizona Republicans block attempt to repeal abortion ban
- Ex-NBA player scores victory with Kentucky bill to expand coverage for stuttering treatment
- Bodycam footage shows high
- Judge dismisses lawsuits filed against rapper Drake over deadly Astroworld concert
- AP WAS THERE: OJ Simpson’s slow-speed chase
- Where are they now? Key players in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson
- The Super Bowl could end in a 'three
- School grants, student pronouns and library books among the big bills of Idaho legislative session
Ranking
- A South Texas lawmaker’s 15
- Before murder charges tarnished his legacy, O.J. Simpson was one of the NFL’s greatest running backs
- Snail slime for skincare has blown up on TikTok — and dermatologists actually approve
- Kathy Hilton's Update on Granddaughter London's Sweet New Milestones Will Have You Sliving
- Juan Soto to be introduced by Mets at Citi Field after striking record $765 million, 15
- Man accused of lighting fire outside Bernie Sanders’ office had past brushes with the law
- OJ Simpson's Bronco chase riveted America. The memory is haunting, even after his death.
- O.J. Simpson was the biggest story of the 1990s. His trial changed the way TV covers news
Recommendation
Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Triathlon
Kourtney Kardashian Reveals Why She Pounded Her Breast Milk
Thirteen men plead not guilty for role in Brooklyn synagogue tunnel scuffle
Doctors say Wisconsin woman who at 12 nearly killed girl should be let go from psychiatric hospital
$73.5M beach replenishment project starts in January at Jersey Shore
O.J. Simpson dies of prostate cancer at 76, his family announces
Fiery debate over proposed shield law leads to rare censure in Maine House
Sen. Bob Menendez and his wife will have separate bribery trials, judge rules