WASHINGTON — A U.S. federal appeals court has rejected the Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to withdraw stricter federal limits on soot pollution from coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources, leaving in place a 2024 rule adopted during former President Joe Biden’s administration. The ruling, issued on Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, denied the EPA’s request to vacate the regulation after the agency, under President Donald Trump, argued it had exceeded its authority and failed to adequately consider compliance costs.
The decision preserves a nationwide annual limit for fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, of 9 micrograms per cubic meter of air, replacing the previous standard of 12 micrograms. The regulation is intended to reduce soot pollution from coal-fired power plants, factories, vehicles and other sources, and has been the subject of legal challenges from Republican-led states and industry groups as well as support from environmental organizations and public health advocates.
In its opinion, the three-judge panel concluded that the EPA’s arguments for setting aside its own rule were not persuasive. Writing for the court, Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg stated that, after initially defending the regulation, the agency sought to vacate it by arguing it had exceeded its statutory authority and acted unreasonably by failing to consider costs, but the court found those arguments “lack merit.”
The EPA had asked the court last year to invalidate the Biden-era standard, contending that the agency had not properly weighed economic impacts when tightening the soot limit. According to court filings, the agency also argued the regulation exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act. The appeals court rejected those claims, leaving the existing standard in force.
The Biden administration previously said the tighter PM2.5 standard could prevent about 4,500 premature deaths annually, along with hundreds of thousands of asthma symptoms and thousands of hospital visits. Environmental groups welcomed the ruling, while the EPA said it was reviewing the court’s decision. California Attorney General Rob Bonta also praised the outcome, saying the regulation was grounded in science and public health protections.
Business organizations and Republican-led states that challenged the regulation have argued it would increase costs for manufacturers, utilities and consumers and could complicate industrial development, according to court filings. Environmental advocates disputed those claims and maintained that the health benefits justified the stricter standard.
The rule remains in effect following the appeals court’s decision. The EPA said it is reviewing the ruling, and no further official action had been announced as of Saturday.
