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

Environmental Agency Denies Petition to Designate Big Hole River as Impaired by Nutrient Pollution

Montana’s environmental regulator has denied a petition to designate the Big Hole River as impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus

Montana’s environmental regulator has denied a petition to designate the Big Hole River as impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus, throwing a wrench in environmentalists’ efforts to put the blue-ribbon fishery on a “pollution diet.”Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation contend that excess nutrients are creating regular summertime algal blooms that can stretch for more than a mile, robbing fish and the macroinvertebrate bugs they eat of the oxygen they need to thrive. The groups argue in the petition they sent to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality last month that an impairment designation would direct the agency to identify and work to reduce the river’s pollution sources in an effort to rebalance the river’s aquatic ecosystem.On April 14, about a month after receiving the 32-page petition, DEQ wrote that it “cannot grant” the group’s petition. The agency’s letter doesn’t quibble with the groups’ findings, which were detailed in a five-year data collection effort. Instead, the agency suggested that legislation passed in 2021 has tied its hands. “As a result of Senate Bill 358, passed during the 2021 Legislative Session … DEQ is unable to base nutrient assessment upon the numeric nutrient criteria,” the letter, signed by DEQ Director Sonja Nowakowski, reads. In an April 23 conversation with Montana Free Press, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Executive Director Guy Alsentzer criticized the agency’s decision, arguing that it did not use the best available science and applied “illogical and disingenuous” reasoning in its denial. “EPA already took action and struck down Senate Bill 358 from the 2021 session,” Alsentzer said, referencing federal regulators’ oversight of state laws and rules governing water quality. “Numeric criteria are applicable.”A spokesperson for the EPA confirmed Alsentzer’s assertion, writing in an April 24 email to MTFP that numeric nutrient standards for nitrogen and phosphorus the agency approved a decade ago “remain in effect for Clean Water Act purposes” and will remain so “unless or until the EPA approves the removal of the currently applicable numeric nutrient criteria and approves revised water quality standards.”A DEQ spokesperson did not directly answer MTFP’s questions about what water quality standards DEQ is using to assess Montana waterways and determine whether permittees are complying with state and federal regulations.The agency wrote in an email that no permitted pollution sources under its regulatory oversight are discharging into the Big Hole, suggesting that its enforcement role is limited. The agency also wrote that an impairment designation is not required to implement water quality improvement projects such as creating riparian buffers, improving forest roads, or creating shaded areas. “Watershed partners may begin actively working on nonpoint source pollution reduction projects at any time,” DEQ spokesperson Madison McGeffers wrote to MTFP. “There is nothing standing in the way of starting work on these types of projects to improve water quality. In fact, the Big Hole River Watershed Committee is actively implementing its Watershed Restoration Plan with funds and support from DEQ Nonpoint Source & Wetland Section’s 319 program.”Alsentzer countered that a science-based cleanup plan and greater accountability will benefit the Big Hole regardless of whether nutrients are flowing into the river from a pipe or entering via more diffuse and harder-to-regulate channels.“You can’t get to that if you don’t recognize that you’ve got a problem we need to solve,” he said, adding that an impairment designation “unlocks pass-through funding to the tune of millions of dollars.”Addressing manmade threats to the Big Hole should be a priority for DEQ, given local communities’ economic reliance on a healthy river, he added.“It’s just a real tragic state of affairs when you have a blue-ribbon trout fishery in a very rural county that’s essentially having its livelihood flushed down the drain because we can’t get our agencies to actually implement baseline river protections (and) use science-based standards,” Alsentzer said. “When people try to do the work for the agency and help them, they’re getting told to go pound sand. I think that’s wrong.”Two years ago, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologists recorded historically low numbers of brown trout along some stretches of the Big Hole. Anglers and conservationists floated a number of possible contributing factors, ranging from pathogens and drought conditions to angling pressure and unmitigated pollution. Save Wild Trout, a nonprofit formed in 2023 to understand which factors merit further investigation, described the 2023 southwestern Montana fishery “collapse” as a “canary in the coal mine moment.”In response to the 2023 population slump, Gov. Greg Gianforte announced the launch of a multiyear research effort on Jefferson Basin rivers that FWP is coordinating with Montana State University. Narrative Standards For ‘Undesirable Aquatic Life’ DEQ’s letter to Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation leaves open the possibility of a future impairment designation based on narrative water quality standards. After mentioning the 2021 legislation, Nowakowski wrote that the agency reviewed the submitted data “along with other readily available data, in consideration of the state’s established narrative criteria.”The letter goes on to outline the additional material petitioners would need to submit for the agency to evaluate an impairment designation using narrative criteria, which establish that surface waters must be “free from substances” that “create conditions which produce undesirable aquatic life.”In an April 22 letter, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation addressed the petition denial in two parts. First, the groups argued that numeric nutrient standards apply. Second, they resubmitted material — photos, emails, a macroinvertebrate report, and “Aquatic Plant Visual Assessment Forms” — to support an impairment designation under the looser narrative standards. “We encourage DEQ to do the right thing, use all available science to determine the Big Hole River impaired for nutrients, and commit to working with petitioners and other (stakeholders) in addressing the pollution sources undermining this world-class waterway and harming the diverse uses it supports,” the letter says. Alsentzer noted that he has set up a meeting with the EPA to discuss DEQ’s treatment of the petition and its description of applicable water quality standards.The dispute over numeric nutrient standards comes shortly after the Legislature passed another bill seeking to repeal them. Any day now, Gianforte is expected to sign House Bill 664, which bears a striking similarity to 2021’s Senate Bill 358. HB 664 has garnered support from Nowakowski, who described it as a “time travel” bill that will return the state to “individual, site-by-site” regulations in lieu of more broadly applicable numeric standards. This story was originally published by Montana Free Press and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Supreme Court justices consider reviving industry bid to ax California clean car rule

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that could revive a bid by fuel producers to ax California’s clean car standards. The court was not considering the legality of the standards themselves, which ​​require car companies to sell new vehicles in the state that produce less pollution — including by mandating...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that could revive a bid by fuel producers to ax California’s clean car standards. The court was not considering the legality of the standards themselves, which ​​require car companies to sell new vehicles in the state that produce less pollution — including by mandating a significant share of cars sold to be electric or hybrid.  Instead, the Supreme Court was considering whether the fuel industry had the authority to bring the lawsuit at all. A lower court determined that the producers, which include numerous biofuel companies and trade groups representing both them and the makers of gasoline, did not have standing to bring the case. Some of the justices were quiet, so it’s difficult to predict what the ultimate outcome of the case will be. However, others appeared critical of the federal government and California’s arguments that the fuel producers do not have the right to bring a suit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh in particular noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself did not initially try to have the case tossed on that basis.  “Isn't that a tell here? I mean, EPA, as you, of course, know, routinely raises standing objections when there's even — even a hint of a question about it,” Kavanaugh said.  The fuel producers argued that while it was technically the auto industry that was being regulated, the market was being “tilted” against them as well by California’s rule, which was also adopted by other states. The EPA and California have argued that the fuel producers are arguing on the basis of outdated facts and a market that has shifted since the rule was first approved by the EPA in 2013.  The EPA needs to grant approval to California to issue such rules. The approval was revoked by the Trump administration and later reinstated in the Biden administration.  If the justices revive the currently dismissed case, lower courts would then have to decide whether to uphold the California rule — though the underlying case could eventually make its way to the high court as well.  Meanwhile, California has since passed subsequent standards that go even further — banning the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035. That rule was approved by the Biden administration — though Congress may try to repeal it.

EPA fires or reassigns hundreds of staffers

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to fire or reassign more than 450 staffers working on environmental justice issues, it said Tuesday.Why it matters: The large-scale changes could effectively end much of the EPA's work tackling pollution in historically disadvantaged communities.It's part of the Trump administration's effort to vastly shrink the federal workforce. EPA has around 15,000 employees.Driving the news: EPA notified roughly 280 employees that they will be fired in a "reduction in force." Another 175 who perform "statutory functions" will be reassigned.The employees come from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Inclusive Excellence, and EPA regional offices."EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency," a spokesperson said.Between the lines: The firings will likely see challenges from congressional Democrats and the employees themselves.EPA had previously put many environmental justice staffers on administrative leave.Administrator Lee Zeldin, during a Monday news conference, defended the agency's broader efforts to cut environmental justice grant programs, arguing the money is ill-spent."The problem is that, in the name of environmental justice, a dollar will get secured and not get spent on remediating that environmental issue," he said.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to fire or reassign more than 450 staffers working on environmental justice issues, it said Tuesday.Why it matters: The large-scale changes could effectively end much of the EPA's work tackling pollution in historically disadvantaged communities.It's part of the Trump administration's effort to vastly shrink the federal workforce. EPA has around 15,000 employees.Driving the news: EPA notified roughly 280 employees that they will be fired in a "reduction in force." Another 175 who perform "statutory functions" will be reassigned.The employees come from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Inclusive Excellence, and EPA regional offices."EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency," a spokesperson said.Between the lines: The firings will likely see challenges from congressional Democrats and the employees themselves.EPA had previously put many environmental justice staffers on administrative leave.Administrator Lee Zeldin, during a Monday news conference, defended the agency's broader efforts to cut environmental justice grant programs, arguing the money is ill-spent."The problem is that, in the name of environmental justice, a dollar will get secured and not get spent on remediating that environmental issue," he said.

EPA firing 280 staffers who fought pollution in overburdened neighborhoods

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will fire 280 staffers who worked on tackling pollution in overburdened and underserved communities and will reassign another 175. These staffers worked in an area known as “environmental justice,” which helps communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution exposure, especially minority or low-income communities.  The EPA has framed its...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will fire 280 staffers who worked on tackling pollution in overburdened and underserved communities and will reassign another 175. These staffers worked in an area known as “environmental justice,” which helps communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution exposure, especially minority or low-income communities.  The EPA has framed its efforts to cut these programs — including its previous closure of environmental justice offices — as part of a push to end diversity programming in the government. Supporters of the agency's environmental justice work have pointed out that Black communities face particularly high pollution levels and that the programs also help white Americans, especially if they are poor.  “EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency,” an EPA spokesperson said in a written statement.   “Today, EPA notified diversity, equity, and inclusion and environmental justice employees that EPA will be conducting a Reduction in Force,” the spokesperson said. “The agency also notified certain statutory and mission essential employees that they are being reassigned to other offices through the ‘transfer of function’ procedure also outlined in [the Office of Personnel Management’s] Handbook and federal regulations” The firings will be effective July 31, according to E&E News, which first reported that they were occurring. The news comes as the Trump administration has broadly sought to cut the federal workforce. The administration has previously indicated that it planned to cut 65 percent of the EPA’s overall budget. It’s not clear how much of this will be staff, though according to a plan reviewed by Democrat House staff, the EPA is considering the termination of as many as about 1,100 employees from its scientific research arm.  Meanwhile, as part of their reductions in force, other agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs have fired tens of thousands of staffers. The EPA is smaller than these agencies, with a total of more than 15,000 employees as of January.  Nearly 170 environmental justice staffers were previously placed on paid leave while the agency was “in the process of evaluating new structure and organization.”

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.