Should Texas Be Included in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule?

This policy brief analyzes the controversy over the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in Texas. It refutes claims by Texas officials and Luminant Generation Co. that the rule would jeopardize the electric grid or cause excessive job losses, arguing that many plants already possess the necessary control technology. The document asserts that Texas's inclusion in the SO2 program was justified by emission data and that the rule would significantly improve public health within the state.

• Texas officials and Luminant Generation Co. challenged the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), claiming it would cause job losses and threaten the reliability of the electric grid. Specifically, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) estimated a capacity reduction of 1,200-6,000 megawatts (MW), and Luminant announced plans to close a lignite coal mine and idle two coal-fired units, which would result in approximately 500 job losses.
• The document disputes claims that the CSAPR was unexpectedly imposed on Texas. It notes that the 2010 proposed rule explicitly asked for comments on including Texas in the sulfur dioxide (SO2) program because projected emissions would exceed the 0.15µ.m3 threshold for annual PM 2.5. Additionally, Texas had already been included in the SO2 and annual NOx programs under the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
• The EPA's decision to include Texas in the SO2 program was based on modeling that predicted Texas's contribution to air quality degradation in Madison County, IL, would exceed the threshold in 2012. While petitioners argued that 2010 data showed the area was in attainment, the document asserts that 2010 was an unrepresentative year because emissions from Texas coal units without scrubbers were lower than their 2003-2008 average. For example, Luminant's two Monticello units emitted 39,032 tons of SO2 in 2010, compared to a cumulative average of 56,673 tons per year from 2003 through 2008.
• Compliance with the CSAPR is presented as feasible through several means. Thirty of the 48 Texas electric generating coal units had already installed control equipment by 2011 and could comply by simply activating their scrubbers. Other options include purchasing offsets or switching from high-sulfur lignite coal to sub-bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
• The document clarifies that the compliance deadline was not January 2012, as implied by some critics. Texas emitters had until March 2013 to fully comply, with the end of 2012 serving as the deadline to install equipment or change operations.
• EPA estimates suggest that compliance with stricter pollution limits would provide significant public health benefits within Texas, including the reduction of 13,000-34,000 premature deaths annually, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million missed work days.

APA

Johnson, M., & Cross, J.-M. (2013). Should Texas Be Included in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule? Environmental and Energy Study Institute. https://www.eesi.org/files/IssueBrief_Texas_CSAPR_Updated_120913.pdf

Chicago

Johnson, Matthew, and John-Michael Cross. Should Texas Be Included in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule? Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 2013. https://www.eesi.org/files/IssueBrief_Texas_CSAPR_Updated_120913.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Johnson |first1=Matthew |last2=Cross |first2=John-Michael |title=Should Texas Be Included in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule? |publisher=Environmental and Energy Study Institute |date=December 2013 |url=https://www.eesi.org/files/IssueBrief_Texas_CSAPR_Updated_120913.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{johnson2013should, author = {Johnson, Matthew and Cross, John-Michael}, title = {{Should Texas Be Included in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule?}}, institution = {Environmental and Energy Study Institute}, year = {2013}, month = dec, url = {https://www.eesi.org/files/IssueBrief_Texas_CSAPR_Updated_120913.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }