Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Federal appeals court upholds $14.25 million fine against Exxon for pollution in Texas

News Feed
Thursday, December 12, 2024

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. 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. 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 most important Texas news,sent weekday mornings. “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.” Exxon did not immediately reply to a request for comment. 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.” Disclosure: Exxon Mobil Corporation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

A 2021 ruling found the oil giant committed more than 16,000 violations of the Clean Air Act at its Baytown refinery and plant.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.


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.

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.

Logo for The Brief newsletter.

The most important Texas news,
sent weekday mornings.

“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.”

Exxon did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

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.”

Disclosure: Exxon Mobil Corporation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Black Sea Oil Spill Widens, Russian Authorities Say

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Emergency workers toiling to clean up an oil spill in the Black Sea have detected seven new slicks, a Russian official told the...

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Emergency workers toiling to clean up an oil spill in the Black Sea have detected seven new slicks, a Russian official told the TASS state news agency on Friday, as authorities struggle to mitigate the effects of the nearly month-old disaster.Approximately 2,400 metric tons of oil products have spilled into the sea since Dec. 15, when two ageing tankers were hit by a storm in the Kerch Strait.President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that the clean-up efforts so far have been insufficient to deal with the scale of the situation, which he called "one of the most serious environmental challenges we have faced in years".Andrei Pavlyuchenko, an emergency ministry official in Russian-annexed Crimea, said on Friday that workers had identified seven more cases of pollution along beaches in four districts in Crimea, as well as on Tuzla Island, a narrow spit of land underneath the Crimean Bridge linking southern Russia to the Black Sea peninsula.Pavlyuchenko told TASS the new contaminated area was about 9 miles (14 km) long, and that 10 vessels and two aircraft were involved in monitoring the coast.Since the spill, thousands of emergency workers and volunteers have been working to clear tons of contaminated sand and earth on either side of the Kerch Strait. Environmental groups have reported deaths of dolphins, porpoises and sea birds.One tanker, the 136-metre Volgoneft 212, split in half and sank, killing one crew member. Russian authorities said on Friday they had detected a new leakage from the stern of the other vessel, the 132-metre Volgoneft-239, which ran aground during the storm."Monitoring groups found that oil products have started to come out of the vessel," the operational headquarters of Russia's Krasnodar region, across the strait from Crimea, wrote on Telegram.Russia's transport ministry said the new slick from the Volgoneft-239 was about 30,000 square feet (2,800 square metres) in size, roughly equivalent to 10 tennis courts.It said specialists were working to remove the waste and were monitoring for new leakages around the clock.(Writing by Lucy Papachristou; Editing by Mark Trevelyan and Sharon Singleton)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

In Los Angeles, People Snap up Air Filters and Wear Masks Against Smoke Pollution

People are taking precautions as multiple wildfires cause poor air quality across a wide swath of Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES (AP) — With levels of sooty air pollution far too high across swaths of the Los Angeles area, Dana Benton is sleeping with a mask on, even with her air purifier running. “My car was just covered in ash, and it’s just disgusting to think that we could be inhaling that,” the Chinatown resident said, through an N95 mask outside a Sprouts grocery store in the Mid-City neighborhood. That's not where she lives. Like thousands of residents, she's left home to get away from the smoke. Now she and her cat are staying with her parents.It’s not like a campfire, she said, “even though it smells like one.” The 30-year-old worries about plastic, asbestos and other toxins released from homes and businesses as wildfires rage through several Los Angeles neighborhoods; her eyes and throat have been burning even though she keeps her windows closed, air filter running on high and mostly has been staying indoors. “All those microparticles are going into our lungs," she said. "It’s really very concerning ... I can’t even think about the long-term repercussions, health wise, for everybody from all of this.”She's not wrong. Small particles can provoke a range of health problems, including breathing and heart issues. Across Southern California, people are taking precautions as the air quality index — a measure that includes fine particles — reached hazardous levels for some neighborhoods, including Pasadena. Air purifiers in Home Depots around Central Los Angeles are sold out. Dr. Puneet Gupta, assistant medical director for the Los Angeles County Fire Department, said emergency room doctors tell him people with breathing problems are coming in by ambulance, driving themselves and with family.Conditions are changing constantly with shifts in wind and wind speed. But it’s important to take precautions like masking and mostly staying indoors even after the fires are out, because air quality can be poor “for quite some time,” Gupta said.Ash was falling from an orange sky as Celia Fagel walked her dog, Lou, for a potty break around their central Los Angeles neighborhood. She wore a black face mask, hoping to protect herself, she said. “It’s better to be safe than sorry,” said Fagel, 34, Thursday morning.She also worries about the toxins she's inhaling and about Lou, who doesn’t get to mask up “and has no idea what’s going on.”Air quality was generally worst Wednesday and Thursday from Pasadena to the port of Los Angeles because the winds fanning the flames were blowing toward the south and southwest, said Scott Epstein, air quality assessment manager for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.The typical fire often begins in the mountain foothills and smoke can flow above valleys and populated areas, rather than hovering near the surface, Epstein said. “But since these fires are down in the valleys, in the urban areas, the smoke stays low to the ground and can have some pretty serious impacts,” he said.Warm, dry winds remain in the forecast. Guillermina Gonzalez, 61, wore two masks Thursday to walk her dog and is encouraging her family to stay inside.“All of this is really bad ... really dangerous,” she said, speaking in Spanish. She said she's heartbroken by the scope of devastation and for the people who have lost homes. “There are a lot of people who are going to need our help," she said, choking back tears. “I tell everyone that if we can help we should, because we are all human beings.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Labour’s agriculture plans will increase chicken waste in rivers, say campaigners

Steve Reed says planning rules ‘have got in the way’ of farmers and apologises for ‘shock’ of inheritance tax changeUK politics live – latest updatesLabour’s proposal to loosen planning regulations for farmers will deluge rivers with chicken faeces, environmental campaigners have warned.The environment secretary, Steve Reed, promised farmers on Thursday they would be able to build larger chicken sheds, but experts have said this would create “megafarms” and contribute to river pollution. Continue reading...

Labour’s proposal to loosen planning regulations for farmers will deluge rivers with chicken faeces, environmental campaigners have warned.The environment secretary, Steve Reed, on Thursday promised farmers they would be able to build larger chicken sheds, but experts have said this would create “megafarms” and contribute to river pollution.Speaking at the annual Oxford Farming Conference, Reed was attempting to rebuild confidence with farmers after widespread anger over changes to inheritance tax and cuts to subsidies. A small protest formed outside the Examination Schools in Oxford where he was speaking and tractor horns partially drowned out his speech.Reed said: “Planning rules have got in the way for too long. We will speed up the system so you can grow and diversify your farm business, such as chicken producers who need a larger shed to increase the amount of food they produce.”Craig Bennett, the chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, said the plans will result in more chicken waste in the UK’s rivers. He said: “The last thing we need in parts of the country like the River Wye is yet more chicken sheds to result in yet more chicken shit going into our rivers, causing yet more pollution. While all of us want to make it easier for farmers to make a decent living out of producing good quality food, we don’t need yet more of a particular form of polluting farming.”Chicken production has boomed in England in recent years, and has been blamed for the ecological death of rivers including the River Wye. This is because the large sheds full of chickens produce a huge amount of faecal waste, which is spread on the land and leaks into rivers when it rains. This causes problems for wildlife as the excess nutrients from chicken waste cause the growth of algae and vegetation, which chokes out other life in the rivers.The Guardian recently revealed more than 51 million chickens are being industrially farmed in the river valleys of the Severn and Wye – the equivalent of 79 chickens for every person in the region.David Walsh, the head of public affairs at WWF-UK, said: “Intensive poultry production, such as with megafarms, are one of the leading causes of river pollution from the Wye to Norfolk. Simplifying planning rules without increasing the resources of environmental regulators would be a recipe for disaster. More intensively reared, low-quality meat fed on imported soy would be at odds with our global environmental commitments to cut emissions and end the UK’s contribution to deforestation overseas.”Anthony Field, the head of Compassion in World Farming UK, said: “This is an extremely worrying announcement. Rather than relaxing planning rules, the government should be tightening them up, to stop the spread of industrial farming.”Reed also apologised for the handling of inheritance tax changes brought in at the budget which mean many farmers will be taxed on their assets after death for the first time in decades. The changes caused huge protests, including one in Westminster featuring at least 10,000 farmers.He said: “We were shocked by the size of the financial black hole [left by the previous government] and I’m sorry some of the actions we had to take shocked you in return.” But, he added, “the tax policy was announced in the budget and it stands”.Reed said farmers do not make enough money from their food – figures show many are making a 0.5% return on their assets and that the average farmer’s income is around £30,000 a year. Reed said: “Right now too many farmers do not make enough money for the food they produce. We will act on supply chain fairness so food producers and growers are not forced to accept unfair contracts.”The National Farmers’ Union president, Tom Bradshaw, said these proposals do not go anywhere near far enough and farmer confidence in the government has been lost.He said: “I think [the government] needs to rapidly recognise that this situation could spiral and that they really should sit down around the table. So the chancellor is who we need to speak to, and so far, she’s refused to engage.”Bradshaw added that Reed “has to regain the confidence of farmers” and said that if the government did not spend the nature friendly farming budget to make up for the subsidy cuts, “we’ll be asking serious questions about whether we have confidence in Defra as a department”.

Thailand bans imports of plastic waste to curb toxic pollution

Campaigners welcome move but say success depends on enforcement and global agreement on a treatyThailand has banned plastic waste imports over concerns about toxic pollution, as experts warn that failure to agree a global treaty to cut plastic waste will harm human health.A law banning imports of plastic waste came into force this month in Thailand, after years of campaigning by activists. Thailand is one of several south-east Asian countries that has historically been paid to receive plastic waste from developed nations. The country became a leading destination for exports of plastic waste from Europe, the US, the UK and Japan in 2018 after China, the world’s biggest market for household waste, imposed a ban. Continue reading...

Thailand has banned plastic waste imports over concerns about toxic pollution, as experts warn that failure to agree a global treaty to cut plastic waste will harm human health.A law banning imports of plastic waste came into force this month in Thailand, after years of campaigning by activists. Thailand is one of several south-east Asian countries that has historically been paid to receive plastic waste from developed nations. The country became a leading destination for exports of plastic waste from Europe, the US, the UK and Japan in 2018 after China, the world’s biggest market for household waste, imposed a ban.Japan is one of the biggest exporters of waste plastic to Thailand, with about 50m kg exported in 2023.Thai customs officials said more than 1.1m tonnes of plastic scraps were imported between 2018 and 2021.Penchom Sae-Tang, the director of the NGO Ecological Alert and Recovery, said: “The ban on all plastic scrap imports should be seen as a triumph for civil society in preventing hazardous waste entering Thailand.” But she warned vigilant monitoring and robust cooperation with authorities would be vital to make sure the ban was enforced.Imports of plastic were often mismanaged in Thailand, with many factories burning the waste rather than recycling it, leading to damage to human health and the environment.Punyathorn Jeungsmarn, a plastics campaign researcher at the Environmental Justice Foundation, said: “While this is a great step forward for Thailand, there is more work to be done. After the law comes into effect, the Thai government must work to ensure its enforcement and implementation. This means industrial, environmental and customs agencies must cooperate to prevent any illicit imports of plastic waste … the current law does not address the transit of plastic waste, meaning Thailand could be used as a transit state to send waste to our … neighbours. The Thai government must guard against this.”The ban comes into force as discussions continue in an attempt to rescue the global plastic waste treaty. Last year nations failed to agree the final wording of the treaty after talks in Busan. More than 100 countries supported a draft text that included legally binding global reductions in plastic production, which stands at more than 400m tonnes annually, and phasing out certain chemicals and single-use plastic products.But the resistance of oil-producing countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia to cuts in production led negotiators to concede defeat.Prof Steve Fletcher, the director of the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth, said a failure to agree a treaty to end plastic pollution was a threat to human health.“Plastic pollution is now recognised as not only an environmental crisis but also a critical human health crisis. The need for decisive international action to tackle plastic pollution has never been more urgent,” he said.In an article in the British Medical Journal, Fletcher said the unresolved disagreements at the treaty talks over cuts to production hindered progress towards a global agreement to protect human and environmental health.Emerging research shows that there are substantial health risks from microplastic exposure, including increased risk of stroke, hearth attack and death. Some studies suggest microplastics play a role in dementia, the article said.Burning plastic as a method of waste management posed severe health risks, which was compounded by the trade in plastic waste, he said.Dr Cressida Bowyer, the deputy director of the Revolution Plastics Institute, has carried out research into the dangers of open burning of plastic waste. “With 16% of global municipal waste burned openly, rising to 40-65% in low-and middle-income countries, vulnerable populations bear the brunt of this crisis. The toxic fumes from burning plastic are a silent but deadly contributor to global health burdens. Urgent action is needed.”No date has yet been agreed for further discussions on the global treaty to end plastic waste.

Russia-Appointed Officials in Crimea Declare Emergency as Oil Spill Reaches Sevastopol

Russia-appointed officials in Moscow-occupied Crimea have announced a regional emergency after oil was detected on the coast of Sevastopol

Russia-appointed officials in Moscow-occupied Crimea announced a regional emergency on Saturday, as oil was detected on the shores of Sevastopol, the peninsula’s largest city. “Today a regional emergency regime has been declared in Sevastopol,” regional Gov. Mikhail Razvozhaev wrote on Telegram.Oil was found on four beaches in the region and was “promptly eliminated” by local authorities working together with volunteers, Razvozhaev said.“Let me emphasize: there is no mass pollution of the coastline in Sevastopol,” he wrote.Krasnodar regional Gov. Veniamin Kondratyev said Friday that more than 5,000 people were still working to clean up the spill.More than 86,000 tons of contaminated sand and soil have been removed along the region’s shoreline since the original spill, he wrote on Telegram.On Dec. 23, the ministry estimated that up to 200,000 tons in total may have been contaminated with mazut, a heavy, low-quality oil product.Russian President Vladimir Putin has called the oil spill an “ecological disaster.”The Kerch Strait, which separates the Russia-occupied Crimean Peninsula from the Krasnodar region, is an important global shipping route, providing passage from the inland Sea of Azov to the Black Sea.It has also been a key point of conflict between Russia and Ukraine after Moscow annexed the peninsula in 2014. In 2016, Ukraine took Moscow to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, where it accused Russia of trying to seize control of the area illegally. In 2021, Russia closed the strait for several months.Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the head of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's office, described the oil spill last month as a “large-scale environmental disaster” and called for additional sanctions on Russian tankers.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.