The tides of environmental regulation ebbed once again as the U.S. Supreme Court put a halt to the EPA's smog control plan that targeted ozone pollution drifting across state borders, a hiatus that Texas has staunchly supported. The court's decision, split at a narrow 5-4 margin, pauses the "good neighbor" rule, a mandate crafted to compel Texas and 22 other states to slash emissions from industrial sources that contribute to the smog problem in adjoining states, according to The Texas Tribute.
In a 2023 lawsuit the authenticity of the federal rule was called into question by Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, along with several industry groups claiming it would be both costly and ineffective, leading to the Supreme Court's questioning of the EPA's plan viability in the absence of the cohesive participation of all states, especially since the regulation is now suspended in Texas and 11 other states; ground-level ozone, which makes breathing arduous, exacerbating conditions like asthma and chronic bronchitis, remains a pressing health problem, according to EPA findings. The Clean Air Act, which underpins the EPA's authority, makes it obligatory for states to craft and submit implementation strategies that align with federal air quality specifications, though when Texas alongside 20 fellow states submitted plans deemed insufficient by the EPA, it triggered another round of lawsuits and revisions, culminating in the recent judicial pause.
Explaining the situation further, Victor Flatt, an environmental law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told The Texas Tribune that the Supreme Court's stay could ripple into the dynamics of ongoing legal battles, such as Texas', in lower courts, while emphasizing the Clean Air Act's requirements for states to adhere to strict air quality standards that encompass six pollutants, among them ozone. Climate change, propelling higher average temperatures, has notably exacerbated the smog situation in Texas, with cities like Houston and Dallas marking a rise in ozone action days, periods when ozone concentration reaches unhealthy levels especially for vulnerable populations.
Critics of the Supreme Court's ruling express concern that industry may now feel less compelled to follow the federal regulation until the hold is lifted, with Sambhav Sankar, Earthjustice's senior vice president for programs, accusing the Court of essentially second-guessing EPA policies which in turn hampers regulatory agency capabilities, while others worry that, in the absence of pollution reductions, respiratory issues will surge, "The pollution problem doesn't disappear regardless of the stay," stated Megan Herzog, an attorney representing the non-profit Environmental Defense Fund, "With the pause, the upwind states are temporarily off the hook for their pollution traveling across state borders, but the downwinds are going to have to do more," Herzog added, amplifying the sentiment that vulnerable populations stand to suffer more as a result.
