Twelve counties in Texas have recently been found to exceed federal air quality limits for particulate matter, commonly referred to as soot. Nevertheless, state environmental officials are suggesting that only four of these counties should be mandated to improve their air quality standards, thereby excluding eight others from more rigorous federal pollution regulations.
In their proposal to bypass stricter federal pollution guidelines for eight counties, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) cited either poor air monitoring data or what they termed “exceptional events.” These exceptional events include unusual occurrences that can temporarily degrade air quality, such as wildfires, dust storms, and emissions from neighboring states.
After reviewing air quality measurements from the period of 2021 to 2023, TCEQ proposed that only four counties—Dallas, Harris (which encompasses Houston), Tarrant (Fort Worth), and Bowie (Texarkana)—should be classified as out of compliance with the newly updated federal standards. The eight counties that would not face strict regulations include Travis (Austin), Montgomery (Conroe), Kleberg (Kingsville), Harrison (Marshall), Ellis (Waxahachie), Webb (Laredo), Hidalgo (McAllen), and Cameron (Harlingen and Brownsville).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the allowable particulate matter levels from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter annually last year, marking the first update since 2012 and a significant step in the Biden administration’s environmental strategy. Particulate matter is primarily emitted from diesel vehicles, wildfires, construction dust, coal-fired power facilities, and various industrial processes. Researchers regard it as one of the most harmful forms of air pollution.
The updated standards stem from substantial evidence highlighting the adverse health effects linked to air pollution, particularly particulate matter, which can infiltrate deeply into the lungs, exacerbating pre-existing respiratory problems and increasing the risk of premature death.
TCEQ initially assessed that all twelve counties were surpassing the new limits, but later revised that number to four following a re-evaluation in November. Neil Carman, a former TCEQ investigator now working with the Sierra Club in Texas, expressed surprise at the agency’s classification of so many exceptional event days, stating he expected more counties to be designated as noncompliant.
Among these counties, Harris County displays the highest particulate matter levels in Texas, averaging 12.5 micrograms per cubic meter over the last three years. This is followed by Cameron, Bowie, and Dallas counties. Notably, the TCEQ excluded Cameron County from noncompliance designation, attributing its air quality issues to significant external sources, including transboundary emissions from Mexico. Other counties like Kleberg were exempted owing to seasonal Saharan dust and associated smoke.
The TCEQ justified its decisions on several other counties by referencing exceptional events such as wildfires or declaring insufficient air quality data as the reasoning for exclusion. Noncompliant designations typically result in tighter pollution controls and obligate states to devise plans to remedy the situation, which can be financially burdensome for industries and local governments.
Industry representatives have contended that uncontrollable natural occurrences, including wildfires, are significant contributors to soot production, positing that the new EPA regulations might impede the ability to secure permits for new projects and hinder economic development.
The TCEQ’s recommendations need to be approved by its three commissioners, after which the agency must submit its proposal to the EPA by February 7. The EPA retains the right to reject or amend the state’s proposal and may classify additional counties as non-compliant.
The TCEQ is currently accepting public feedback regarding its proposals until January 21. Some experts and advocates argue that the TCEQ’s frequent employment of “exceptional events” serves to shield counties from harsher regulations, which complicates efforts to achieve improved air quality.
Jennifer Hadayia, executive director of Air Alliance Houston, raised concerns about the lack of accountability, questioning whether it is feasible to entirely separate natural events from industry emissions on specific days, particularly if pollution overlaps.
In response to the criticism, TCEQ spokesperson Richard Richter asserted that their application of these exceptional events aligns with both federal regulations and guidelines. The agency documented several days of particulate matter spikes in Harrison and Travis counties attributed to various exceptional events, including prescribed burns and Saharan dust occurrences.
Daniel Cohan, an associate professor at Rice University, noted that with Donald Trump potentially returning to presidential office, the EPA might be less inclined to contest TCEQ’s evaluations.
After the designations become final, Texas will have two to three years to create a compliance strategy, subject to EPA review. Despite having one of the largest air monitoring networks in the U.S., which contains 215 sites, only 54 are designated for particulate matter monitoring. Advocates stress that numerous regions, particularly those with significant pollution sources, lack adequate air quality assessment.
For instance, Fort Bend County, home to Texas’ largest coal-fired power plant, does not have a monitor for particulate matter and has thus been classified as “unclassifiable” by TCEQ. As a result, companies in that county are not required to implement new restrictions.
Advocates contend that additional monitoring is crucial for safeguarding public health. Without proactive measures, achieving healthy air quality levels seems unfeasible. Williamson County, noted for its mining activities but lacking particulate matter monitors, exemplifies this issue.
In conclusion, while TCEQ argues that its air monitoring locations are determined by regional population and emission sources, criticisms linger over its effectiveness and decision-making practices concerning air quality oversight.
