At the end of June the US Supreme Court issued a stay in a case called Ohio v. EPA that blocks the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from enforcing the Good Neighbor Rule, also known as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. The Good Neighbor Rule addresss transport of ozone precursors across state lines, which affects air quality in neighboring states.
Ozone precursors are the ingredients that go into the air pollutant ozone. Ozone is good when it is high in the atmosphere because it protects us from ultraviolet radiation, but it is harmful to humans and plants at the surface. It is also the main ingredient in smog. Surface ozone is regulated by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and cities who don’t comply can face penalties. In some cases, the reason a state is in noncompliance is because of ozone precursors coming from other states. The Good Neighbor Rule requires that states whose emissions of ozone precursors affect the air quality in neighboring states must reduce their emissions.
Emissions of ozone precursors from oil and gas operations in the Texas Permian Basin is a major contributor to air quality issues in eastern New Mexico. Texas is one of twenty-three states that is subject to the Good Neighbor Rule.
The Good Neighbor Rule is a recognition that a safe, healthy environment requires every state doing its part to improve air quality for everyone.
Requiring states to reduce emissions of ozone precursors, whether it’s the Good Neighbor Rule or the NAAQS, has benefits for the climate too. Climate-harming pollutants like carbon dioxide and methane are also associated with oil and gas operations, so reducing emissions of one effluent means reductions for others.
Like ozone precursors, carbon dioxide and methane emissions also cause environmental harm well beyond the states where they are emitted. Emission of climate-harming pollutants in Texas affects the entire global climate. Regulation of carbon emissions, including methane, and air quality regulations go hand in hand.
Texas doesn’t want the EPA to regulate methane any more than it wants the EPA to regulate emission of ozone precursors. Texas is part of a lawsuit filed by multiple states against the EPA to block implementation of the EPA’s new methane rules. The DC Circuit Court earlier this month denied the stay, meaning the rules can go into effect while the lawsuit is being heard.
The common thread in both of these lawsuits is that officials claim federal regulation of the oil and gas industry through air quality standards threatens the stability of our electrical generation systems. This same logic drives the legislature’s emphasis on adding fossil fuel fired generation capacity as the primary means of stabilizing the grid. Given the length of time the cities of Houston and Dallas have been in non-attainment with the NAAQS, and the fact that state has seen multiple widespread power outages over a similar timeframe, it would appear that there is not a link between air quality regulations and electrical generation.
In contrast there is a definite link between mining, drilling, and burning fossil fuels and both poor air quality and climate change. The good news is that it is possible to address not only air quality, not only climate change, but also electrical reliability all at the same time.
Transitioning our electrical generation system to rely increasingly on renewables is one piece of the puzzle. Dr. Josh Rhodes of UT’s Webber Energy Group recently shared that the share of solar energy and wind energy continue to grow while the share of the state’s electrical generation held by coal-fired generation continues to shrink. For the first half of 2024, renewable energy supplied 47% of state energy needs for the first half of 2024.
In the right policy environment, Texas could leverage this progress and be a nationwide leader in renewable energy all the while cleaning up our air, stopping the export of ozone precursors to New Mexico, building a more reliable grid, and lowering costs for electricity customers. It’s past time for Texas to set aside their long and counterproductive rivalry with the US EPA.