EPA Issues Updated, Achievable Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Natural Gas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
EPA - Washington, D.C., April 18, 2012

EPA Issues Updated, Achievable Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Natural Gas

Half of fractured wells already deploy technologies in line with final standards, which slash harmful emissions while reducing cost of compliance

WASHINGTON – In response to a court deadline, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized standards to reduce harmful air pollution associated with oil and natural gas production. The updated standards, required by the Clean Air Act, were informed by the important feedback from a range of stakeholders including the public, public health groups, states and industry. As a result, the final standards reduce implementation costs while also ensuring they are achievable and can be met by relying on proven, cost-effective technologies as well as processes already in use at approximately half of the fractured natural gas wells in the United States. These technologies will not only reduce 95 percent of the harmful emissions from these wells that contribute to smog and lead to health impacts, they will also enable companies to collect additional natural gas that can be sold. Natural gas is a key component of the nation’s clean energy future and the standards released today make sure that we can continue to expand production of this important domestic resource while reducing impacts to public health, and most importantly builds on steps already being taken by industry leaders.

"The president has been clear that he wants to continue to expand production of important domestic resources like natural gas, and today’s standard supports that goal while making sure these fuels are produced without threatening the health of the American people," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "By ensuring the capture of gases that were previously released to pollute our air and threaten our climate, these updated standards will not only protect our health, but also lead to more product for fuel suppliers to bring to market. They're an important step toward tapping future energy supplies without exposing American families and children to dangerous health threats in the air they breathe.”

When natural gas is produced, some of the gas escapes the well and may not be captured by the producing company. These gases can pollute the air and as a result threaten public health. Consistent with states that have already put in place similar requirements, the updated EPA standards released today include the first federal air rules for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured, specifically requiring operators of new fractured natural gas wells to use cost-effective technologies and practices to capture natural gas that might otherwise escape the well, which can subsequently be sold. EPA’s analysis of the final rules shows that they are highly cost-effective, relying on widely available technologies and practices already deployed at approximately half of all fractured wells, and consistent with steps industry is already taking in many cases to capture additional natural gas for sale, offsetting the cost of compliance. Together these rules will result in $11 to $19 million in savings for industry each year. In addition to cutting pollution at the wellhead, EPA’s final standards also address emissions from storage tanks and other equipment.

Also in line with the executive order released by the president last week on natural gas development, the rule released today received important interagency feedback and provides industry flexibilities. Based on new data provided during the public comment period, the final rule establishes a phase-in period that will ensure emissions reduction technology is broadly available. During the first phase, until January 2015, owners and operators must either flare their emissions or use emissions reduction technology called “green completions,” technologies that are already widely deployed at wells. In 2015, all new fractured wells will be required to use green completions. The final rule does not require new federal permits. Instead, it sets clear standards and uses enhanced reporting to strengthen transparency and accountability, and ensure compliance, while establishing a consistent set of national standards to safeguard public health and the environment.

An estimated 13,000 new and existing natural gas wells are fractured or re-fractured each year. As those wells are being prepared for production, they emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contribute to smog formation, and air toxics, including benzene and hexane, which can cause cancer and other serious health effects. In addition, the rule is expected to yield a significant environmental co-benefit by reducing methane, the primary constituent of natural gas. Methane, when released directly to the atmosphere, is a potent greenhouse gas—more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

During the nearly 100-day public comment period, the agency received more than 150,000 comments on the proposed rules from the public, industry, environmental groups and states. The agency also held three public hearings. The updated standards were informed by the important feedback received through the public comment period, reducing implementation cost and ensuring the achievable standard can be met by relying on proven, cost-effective technologies and processes already in use.

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html


Environmental Groups Praise EPA’s First-Ever Clean Air Protections for Fracking

Joint statement by Sierra Club * Earthjustice * Clean Air Task Force * Environment America * Earthworks * Clean Water Action - April 18, 2012
Agency Takes Important First Step to Protect Air Quality and Public Health

Washington, D.C., April 18—Today environmental groups praised the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) vital updates to nationwide air quality protections to include oil and natural gas production. This is the first federal safeguard aimed at curbing air pollution from hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking.’

The EPA’s New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) will benefit the health of Americans and our environment in many ways. The updated standards will result in major reductions in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), toxic benzene and methane, a highly potent contributor to climate disruption. These pollutants are known to cause asthma attacks, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, cancer and even premature death.

The measure will also benefit the gas industry –EPA projects that capturing more methane and other gasses to send to market will save an estimated $30 million annually.

Today’s announcement by the EPA is a major step forward. However, the two-year delay in reducing pollution from wellheads is an unnecessary setback because industry can meet those standards now. The environmental community is committed to working with EPA to strengthen the public health and air quality safeguards to protect families who live near existing fracking sites.

The EPA proposed the updated safeguards in July 2011. Since the proposal, environmental groups submitted more than 156,000 comments and turned out hundreds of supporters of strong standards to hearings in Pittsburgh, PA, Denver, CO, and Arlington, TX.

In response to EPA’s announcement, environmental leaders released the following statements:

“EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is taking an important first step in closing loopholes for the natural gas industry and addressing dangerous air quality levels in and near frack-fields across the country,” said Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. “The natural gas industry dumps massive amounts of air pollutants into our air every day, sickening families and children. An industry that touts its ability to efficiently drill thousands of wells thousands of feet into the earth is crying wolf when it claims it can’t build enough tanks to capture wellhead pollution. It’s time we clean up the natural gas industry’s dirty and reckless practices.”

“From Colorado to Pennsylvania, the gas industry is making a killing from drilling, and at the very least they should cut dirty and dangerous air pollution that threatens our families’ health,” said John Rumpler, senior attorney for Environment America. “EPA’s action today is a breath of fresh air for every man, woman, and child living in the shadow of the gas drilling boom.”

“Left to its own devices, the oil and gas industry has turned the clear skies over Wyoming as smoggy as the car-choked highways of Los Angeles. For decades, industry had a free pollution pass. Thanks to a court victory, that changes today,” said Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen. “There is more work to be done to protect Americans living near oil and gas fields from cancer and other unacceptable health threats, but this rule from EPA is an important first step.”

“The stories of families hurt by gas drilling’s air pollution were essential to the adoption of these new public health safeguards,” said Bruce Baizel, senior attorney for Earthworks. “Hopefully this much-needed first step will soon be expanded to better protect the families that illustrated the need for the new rules in the first place.”

"These important rules start to cut down on air pollution that harms people living near wells, creates smog, and warms the climate," said David McCabe, senior scientist with Clean Air Task Force. "They are a solid start, but we need to keep working to reduce pollution from the gas industry all the way from the well to the customer. People who live near compressors and equipment already in use need to see their air cleaned up as well. Unfortunately these rules won't do that."

“Our members in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Colorado have suffered because state regulators haven’t acted to control oil and gas operations, so these standards are a win-win-win,” said Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action National Campaigns Director. “They protect people from air pollution, help curb climate change and save the industry money. People expect the federal government to use their authority to protect their health, their drinking water and the air they breathe and this is a good first step.”

http://www.earthworksaction.org/media/detail/environmental_groups_praise_epas_first_ever_clean_air_protections_for_frack

Energy needs to provide industry leadership in Barnett Shale

By MITCHELL SCHNURMAN - Fort Worth Star Telegram - July 14, 2010

Devon Energy Corp. works the Barnett Shale the right way. It's the biggest natural gas producer in the region and at the same time has become an industry leader on the environment.

With several initiatives, Devon, based in Oklahoma City, has cut greenhouse gases, limited emissions and recycled more than 400 million gallons of water used in "fracking" wells. Over the past decade, it has won numerous awards for its efforts, which boosted the bottom line as well as the environment.

On older wells, Devon is replacing one part -- a valve about the size of a pinkie finger -- that costs $300 and lets the company capture more gas and rack up carbon credits. One valve cuts methane emissions by 90 percent, which is the equivalent of taking 16 cars off the road.

No one doubts that Devon is a big believer in such initiatives. But last month, Devon wrote the state comptroller to oppose a bill that would require the valve replacements.

Devon also opposed a proposal for "green" well completions, even though it uses the technique on the vast majority of its Barnett Shale wells -- and the process generated $38 million in extra revenue in 2007.

Devon also shot down a call for vapor recovery units for storage tanks and the prospect of replacing combustion engines with electric motors.

The big hang-up? Devon wants the changes to be voluntary , not mandatory.

"There are spots where the technology works and spots where it doesn't," says Darren Smith, a manager of Devon's environmental, health and safety department. "Mandate these activities, and there can be a real business disruption."

In its letter, Devon said the mandates on emissions would ultimately hurt capital investment. It warned of fewer wells and jobs, lower taxes for cities, smaller royalties for residents and the risk that gas companies would shift operations.

Reciting that litany of unintended consequences is a business reflex whenever government proposes more regulation. But it's dismaying that Devon is falling back on that playbook, because right now, the industry needs leaders that will set the bar high -- not just for their companies but for every player.

After the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, everybody knows that you can't rely on voluntary compliance for anything. Before that, we had the meltdown on Wall Street, the mortgage lending debacle, the never-ending buildup of housing inventory. All drove home a message that no less an economic authority than Alan Greenspan later articulated: Companies will sacrifice a lot, even their future, for a quick buck.

Closer to home, in the Barnett Shale, there have been reasons to lose faith, too -- or at least to insist that any trust be verified. Several communities, led by the small town of Dish, have said residents are suffering ill effects from the gas business.

Yet state regulators consistently say all is well. This year, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality lost much of its credibility when it told the Fort Worth City Council that the air was safe -- and failed to disclose that it later learned that three air samples scored high for benzene, a cancer-causing agent.

Follow-up tests showed that contaminant levels fell, but the commission never shared the complete information with city or state leaders. The test results came to light because of an internal complaint and fraud investigation, which was revealed by Forrest Wilder at the Texas Observer.

The disclosure enraged state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who had met with the commission's top officials repeatedly and never heard a hint about a discrepancy. Now she may introduce a bill to make it a crime for public officials to withhold information that affects public health.

Fort Worth and Dish are pursuing their own air quality tests because residents don't have confidence in the state's results. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is also wading in. Wilder reported that environmentalists had pleaded with the EPA to intervene in Texas issues because the state agency was far too cozy with industry.

The clash between the state and the feds was on display last week when the EPA held a huge public meeting in Fort Worth to hear residents' stories about gas drilling. An EPA study is focusing on water issues in fracking, but the EPA's Dallas office is also looking into air quality.

The day before, Gov. Rick Perry pre-empted the EPA event by launching a Texas initiative on energy. He's pulling together university programs and experts to study the Gulf, gas drilling and more. Perry wants industry to underwrite the program, unbothered by the conflict that creates.

How low is the trust factor in the Barnett Shale? It says a lot when separate government entities -- the environmental commission, the EPA and individual cities -- are spending taxpayer money on the same thing.

In this setting, gas companies can't hew to the "voluntary, not mandatory" line, not if they hope to win public support. Devon may have the money and wherewithal to adopt eco-friendly policies, but others don't.

The solution is not to let companies off the hook. Force them to figure out ways to meet higher standards.

"What Devon does is not the norm in the industry," says Ramon Alvarez, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund in Austin. "That's why regulations are worth having -- to bring the whole industry along."

By design, Devon avoided drilling in Pennsylvania, New York and Colorado, where opposition emerged with a vengeance. That was a savvy business move, but the controversy has come home now.

So why not champion the solutions?

Mitchell Schnurman's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. 817-390-7821

Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

Residents press for tougher air-pollution rules at state agency's meeting in Arlington

By RANDY LEE LOFTIS - The Dallas Morning News - June 25, 2010

ARLINGTON – People who gathered Thursday night at Arlington City Hall were mad about smog, and they were even madder about the state agency in charge of fighting smog.

At a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality meeting about the latest round of strategies for cleaning up the air in North Texas, about 200 people cheered and applauded calls for tougher pollution rules.

They jeered – and coughed in unison, holding up paper masks that looked like gas masks – when state officials couldn't answer their questions.

For Susan Cooper of Richardson, it was her second attempt to press for stronger state action. She said she told a commission hearing in 2007 that she was mad about poor air quality.

"Today I am even angrier," she said. "Our air quality is even worse."

She said she was tired of picking up visitors at the airport who ask after landing, "What is that ugly brown stuff?"

The state agency must come up with a new smog plan because the region didn't meet a federal deadline this spring – far from the first time that's happened. The federal limit the region is still striving to meet dates from 1997.

North Texas is even further from meeting the much-tougher limits imposed since then.

Faith Chatham of DFW Concerned Citizens praised the commission's staff for becoming more responsive to public concerns. The problem, she said, is a lack of political support from their superiors.

"There are days when I can't open my windows because it makes me sick," she said.

She wanted environmental inspections exempted from repeated state budget cuts and a halt to new gas drilling.

Jim Schermbeck of Downwinders at Risk showed the commission's own slides that indicate how pollution from Ellis County cement plants spreads across the region. From 1997 to 2007, he said, 70 percent of ozone violations occurred in the area where the cement kilns' plumes go.

He blasted the state agency for choosing which time period to use for computer modeling of possible solutions without asking the public for advice.

"You have to see the flaw in the process when you've already made the most important decisions without any input from D-FW officials or the public," Schermbeck said.

Gina Cole of Arlington demanded jail for pollution violators and a crackdown on emissions from gas drilling in Tarrant County.

When Susana M. Hildebrand, the commission's chief engineer, answered, "I'm telling you that we are looking at those monitors," the audience responded with more coughs.

Read more in the Dallas Morning News

State regulators fail to disclose benzene in Fort Worth air

By CHRIS HAWES - WFAA - May 26, 2010
FORT WORTH — State environmental officials said they never found evidence of elevated levels of the cancer-causing chemical benzene during a December air study in Fort Worth.

But News 8 has proof that they did, and the mayor of a Denton County town is now calling for a federal probe of state pollution regulators.

Last January, John Sadlier, deputy director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, appeared before the Fort Worth City Council with what sounded like good news: Eight air samples analyzed in Fort Worth found no traces of benzene, the toxin that — over time — can lead to leukemia.

"Benzene is non-detect on all the slides," Sadlier said during the January presentation.

But what he didn't tell Council members was that the analysis equipment that TCEQ used in the field wasn't sensitive enough to detect lower levels of benzene — the levels that TCEQ's own scientists say can lead to cancer if sustained over a period of years.

That revelation was included in an internal TCEQ report obtained by News 8 on Wednesday.

"Every citizen should be outraged, in particular the citizens of Fort Worth, because we've been duped and lied to," said Esther McElfish of the North Central Texas Communities Alliance.

A few days after Sadlier spoke to the Fort Worth Council, TCEQ's lab tested the samples with equipment that could detect the levels they were looking for. Scientists found four of the eight samples taken indicated benzene above what the commission considers safe when considering long-term health effects.

But Sadlier and TCEQ decided not to tell the public. Why?

"I don't even know how to respond to that," Sadlier told News 8 in a telephone interview. "I don't think there's any need to. These values are so small."
Sadlier maintained that he didn't know the analysis equipment used in the field was incapable of detecting the lower levels when he talked to the city. He also said he told a Fort Worth staffer about the discrepancy last week.

Sadlier did not, however, inform State Sen. Wendy Davis, who has been active in natural gas issues.

"This agency that has been charged with ensuring the health of our community has broken our trust, in terms of assuring us that they're going to look out for our safety versus looking out for their own reputations and their own concerns about the fact that they failed to do the job that they should have been doing," Davis said

.

Sadlier said follow-up testing at the sites in question detected very low levels of benzene when they returned.

The City of Fort Worth now plans to conduct its own testing, and Calvin Tillman, mayor of the tiny Denton County community of DISH, is calling for an investigation of TCEQ by the Department o
Read more and see video on WFAA.Com

Limits on Emissions Have Wide Support

By Steven Mufson and Jennifer Agiesta - Washington Post Staff Writers - Thursday, June 25, 2009
Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.
But fewer Americans -- 52 percent -- support a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions similar to the one the House may vote on as early as tomorrow. That is slightly less support than cap and trade enjoyed in a late July 2008 poll. Forty-two percent of those surveyed this month oppose such a program.

The Washington Post-ABC News survey showed that support slipped slightly when people were asked whether they would be willing to pay higher prices in general or higher electricity bills in exchange for significant decreases in greenhouse gases. Although 62 percent of those surveyed said they would support regulation even if it raised the price of purchases and 56 percent would back cap and trade if it resulted in a $10 increase in utility costs, 44 percent said they would back a cap-and-trade system if it boosted monthly electricity bills by $25.

"I think there hasn't been enough regulation," said Janet Opkyke, 60, a freelance book editor in northern Michigan. "Way back when deregulation started, I thought it was the wrong thing to do. I thought it was a license for greed. And I'm glad to see it swinging the other way." She added, "I think greenhouse gases are very harmful, and we have to do something about it."

Cap and trade is a signature issue for President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership, and it is the centerpiece of the 1,201-page climate bill co-sponsored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hopes to bring the measure to the House floor for a vote tomorrow -- before a week-long recess for the Fourth of July holiday -- but a dispute with Republicans over annual spending bills could delay that plan.

Pelosi called the bill "a wonderful collaboration," and most environmental groups and a large number of companies endorsed it yesterday, despite last-minute concessions made to win the support of farm-state lawmakers led by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.).

"These changes will not help the cause of making real reductions in greenhouse gases," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "And even some strong supporters of the Waxman-Markey legislation are now holding their noses, as if on the perimeter of a hog farm."

Nonetheless, American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said yesterday in a statement that despite the changes, the group still opposes the "seriously flawed" climate legislation.

A cap-and-trade system sets a limit on the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases, then issues or auctions emission allowances that can be bought or sold by individuals, funds and companies. Over time, the cap is lowered to reduce the nation's emissions. Making emitters pay for carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, would provide incentives for developing renewable energy sources and new technologies to limit emissions from coal plants.

Debate over the cap-and-trade approach has focused on the cost to the average American. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that cap and trade would cost the average U.S. household $175 a year in 2020, but House Republicans have pushed the message that the legislation would cost many times that and drive millions of jobs offshore.

That message has failed to sway liberal and moderate Republicans, 60 percent of whom back a cap-and-trade program, but it appeals to the party's conservative base.

Tiffany Collins, 31, a part-time children's activity director at a church and a mother of four in Riverside, Calif., said she does not think greenhouse gases are causing climate change. She said she read a report on the Internet saying climate change was linked to changes in the sun's activity. But in any case, she does not support government intervention. "

I'm opposed to the government overregulating just about everything. It costs us money, and they don't do a very good job of it," she said.

One argument used by foes of climate legislation is that the United States should not take action unmatched by China and India, among the world's fastest-growing economies and sources of greenhouse gases. But the Post-ABC poll showed that six in 10 Americans favor U.S. action, even if other countries do less to confront climate change.

One of the sharpest dividing lines in attitudes toward climate legislation was age, with younger adults more receptive to cap and trade and federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Nearly two-thirds of those younger than 30 said they support cap and trade, and eight in 10 support federal limits on emissions. Among seniors, about four in 10 said they back a cap-and-trade proposal, and half favor federal intervention on emissions.

Sensitivity to increased prices is highest among those in households with incomes under $50,000. Nearly all of the drop-off in support for cap and trade or other greenhouse gas regulation comes among people who live in such households. Those in higher-income households were relatively unfazed by the increased costs.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone June 18 to 21 among a national random sample of 1,001 adults; results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.
Read more in the Washington Post

Jim Foster: New initiative will help the county clear the air - A new initiative will get some of the county's heaviest polluters off the road

VBy Jim Foster - Dallas News - \Wednesday, January 9, 2008
VIEWPOINTS:

Why is your neighbor's smoking vehicle the county's business? Because pollution affects the quality of life of our residents and we have the opportunity and responsibility to do something about it.

We all understand that vehicle emissions are responsible for the majority of our air pollution problems. However, recent statistics show that over 300,000 of the 1.6 million vehicle inspections in Dallas County during 2006 were fraudulent, fictitious or improperly done. An estimated 10 percent of the vehicles on the road spew out almost 50 percent of the pollution. The air that we breathe cannot improve if we continue to allow thousands of high polluting vehicles to clog our air.In hopes of tackling the number of high polluting vehicles on our streets, Dallas County has taken the lead in forming an unprecedented coalition of sheriff's deputies, constables, district attorneys and the Texas Department of Public Safety to target and prosecute the inspectors who perform fraudulent emissions inspections. The county's action is not only in support of the State Implementation Plan to bring us within federal air quality standards, but also to make the air that we breathe healthier.

There is no precedent for a countywide effort to tackle fraudulent emissions inspections. However, all indications point toward the huge impact the program will have on our air. The North Central Texas Council of Governments estimates that we reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by .0253 tons per year for every vehicle that we bring into emissions compliance. If this program can directly or indirectly impact just 25,000 vehicles, a fraction of the vehicles not in compliance, we can reduce NOx by over 600 tons per year.

Fraudulent inspections are a detriment to us all. If these illegal operators are shut down, it will force failing vehicles to be repaired or get off the roads, providing cleaner air for everyone.

Many have concerns that elderly citizens or low-income residents unable to afford costly emissions repairs will be targeted in this program. That is not our goal. Participating deputies will be educated about the many resources available to drivers in need of financial assistance, including the state's Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance Program, which offers up to $600 to repair a vehicle.

The impact of polluting vehicles goes far beyond the few involuntarily coughs forced from our mouths while riding behind a smoking vehicle. The impact can, and often does, last for ages.

More children are being diagnosed for asthma at a younger age. Our hospitals are treating more patients for respiratory ailments, with Parkland Hospital providing the bulk of the care. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics has cited a study conducted in Atlanta showing that children's emergency room visits for asthma increased by 37 percent after six prolonged days of high ozone levels.

Remarkably, the public hospital where the study was conducted is located in a county with half the population of Dallas County. The more proactive we are about cleaning the air, the less our children and our aged will have to suffer.

As the "clean air emissions initiative" develops, we will see untold benefits from not having the highest pollution-emitting vehicles illegally operating on our roads. As a regional, state and national model for government coalitions, the Dallas County Clean Air Emissions Advisory Board will work toward a safer, stronger, less polluted county.

And, that is Dallas County's business.
Read more in the Dallas News

SB 12: TCEQ considers prohibition against truck idling and Funds SOLAR Residential Low-income Housing Grant Pilot Project

TCEQ - Aug. 10, 2007
Items Approved for Consideration for Rule Proposal :

2007-041-114-EN

SB 12: Idling of Motor Vehicles
The rulemaking will extend prohibitions that were set to expire on September 1, 2007, until September 1, 2009. Additionally, the rulemaking will prohibit idling within 1,000 feet of a hospital, residential areas, and if an electrification facility that provides external heat and air conditioning hook ups is within two miles of where a vehicle may be idling.
Source: TCEQ

Comment by Faith Chatham:
How much sweeter it would be if this rule which was already in effect were PUBLICIZED so that the public understands that it is illegal to leave a vehicle idling near a residence, hospital or power plant! The text of the bill sounds more like it pertains only to trucks than to automobiles.

When I looked up the bill I discovered much more than mere vehicle idling.

SB 12: Relating to programs for the enhancement of air quality, including energy efficiency standards in state purchasing and energy consumption; providing penalties
Author: Averitt Co-Authors: Ellis & Hinojosa.
Enrolled and Signed by Governor 6/8/2007 effective immediately except for Article 5 which is effective Sept. 1, 2007

The Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas of the State of Texas do not currently meet air quality standards for ozone, and the largest contributor to the formation of ozone in these two regions are mobile resources, such as personal automobiles and diesel engines found in construction equipment. Because federal law precludes state regulation of emissions from these sources, the State of Texas has developed the Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) and the Low-Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program (LIRAP), aimed at reducing these emissions. TERP is primarily designed to affect diesel engines, while LIRAP is intended to lessen emissions from personal automobiles. Currently, Texas does not meet the new federal air quality standards effective in 2010.

C.S.S.B. 12 increases the scope of both the TERP and the LIRAP programs to reduce emissions from mobile sources, increases the number of individuals eligible for grants under LIRAP, and increases the amount of the grant for purchase of a new vehicle. C.S.S.B. 12 seeks to reduce statewide emissions from electrical generation units by providing for the updating of building energy codes, encouraging the purchase of efficient appliances, and providing efficiency standards for school districts, institutions of higher education, state agencies, and governmental entities in counties.

It is the committee's opinion that rulemaking authority is expressly granted to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in SECTIONS 1.04, 1.05, 1.06, 1.12, and 1.14 of this bill and to the State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) in SECTIONS 3.01 and 3.06

C.S.S.B. 12 amends the Health and Safety Code to set forth definitions for "hybrid motor vehicle" and "qualifying new motor vehicle". The bill removes the limitation on the vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program that applies it only to gasoline-powered vehicles, making vehicles that are not gasoline-powered subject to the vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program. The bill also subjects to the vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program, vehicles that are newer than model year 1980 rather than those that are less than 25 years old.

The bill prohibits more than 10 percent of funds provided to counties for LIRAP to be spent on administration of the program. The bill prohibits more than 10 percent of LIRAP fees collected in a county that is subject to an early action compact and has a LIRAP program from being used to pay for administration of the program.

The bill provides that if a vehicle is to be retired under LIRAP, the replacement vehicle must be a qualifying motor vehicle. The bill authorizes TCEQ, by rule, to provide monetary or other assistance under LIRAP for the replacement of a vehicle that meets criteria set forth in the bill. The bill sets forth the maximum amounts that may be provided toward the purchase of a qualified replacement vehicle based on the vehicle type and model year. The bill authorizes this money to be used as a down payment for purchase of a replacement vehicle. The bill specifies that a vehicle owner's income cannot exceed 300 percent of the federal poverty level to be eligible for vehicle replacement under LIRAP. The bill requires a participating county to provide an electronic means for distributing LIRAP repair and replacement funds and requires these funds to be transferred to a participating dealer within five business days. The bill sets forth provisions relating to documentation that will be issued to a person eligible to purchase a replacement vehicle. The bill sets forth provisions relating to the dismantling and scrapping of a retired vehicle. The bill provides that an automobile dealer that is participating in vehicle emissions programs must be located in this state. The bill specifies that participation in these programs is voluntary.

The bill authorizes the appropriation of money for LIRAP local initiative projects only for programs administered in accordance with the Uniform Grants and Contract Management Act. The bill authorizes a participating county to agree to contract with an appropriate entity to implement a vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program, LIRAP, or LIRAP local initiative project. The bill requires LIRAP local initiative projects to be implemented in consultation with TCEQ and sets forth examples of these local projects. The bill sets forth limits on how these funds may be expended.

The bill adds an amount made available to the consumer under LIRAP for vehicle replacement to the definition of "total consideration" in the Tax Code.

The bill adds violations of provisions of the Texas Clean Air Act relating to vehicle emissions to civil penalties provisions of the Water Code.

The bill repeals Subsection (e), Section 382.0622; Subsections (q) and (r), Section 382.202; and Section 382.217 of the Health and Safety Code.

The bill requires TCEQ to review its current cutpoint levels for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and determine whether a lower cutpoint standard would best serve the interest of public health and welfare and make necessary adjustment to LIRAP. The bill requires TCEQ to seek to work in partnership with automobile manufacturers and dealers in the state and the steel industry and automobile dismantlers to implement provisions of this bill.

The bill amends the Health & Safety Code to delay the expiration of the TERP program from 2010 to 2013. The bill requires TCEQ in administering TERP to hire staff and consultants needed to implement the TERP program in a timely manner. The bill requires TCEQ to make proposed revisions to TERP grant guidelines available to the public 30 days, rather than 45 days, before the guidelines are adopted. The bill changes the percentage of time or vehicle miles that must be traveled within nonattainment or affected counties from 75 percent to 50 percent. The bill also authorizes TCEQ to allow travel on roads designated by TCEQ that are outside nonattainment or affected counties to count towards this percentage. The bill allows TCEQ to consider a project for a marine vessel that operates within nine miles of a nonattainment area or affected county in addition to existing requirements. The bill increases the maximum cost effectiveness amount for TERP grants from $13,000 per ton of NOx emissions reduced to $15,000 per ton. The bill adds marine vessels to the types of engines eligible for grants for infrastructure projects for auxiliary power units. The bill sets forth provisions related to providing funding for and promoting idle reduction technologies. The bill requires TCEQ to encourage the use of external power units at ports and border crossings. The bill requires TCEQ to set aside funds in the TERP rebate grants program for projects with non-road engines used in construction and ensure that these projects are funded at a level commensurate with their percentage contribution to the nitrogen oxides emissions from mobiles sources. The bill requires TCEQ to implement an internet based application process for these grants and notify potential applicants of changes to the program by email and on the TCEQ website. The bill moves the administration of the TERP fund from the comptroller to TCEQ. Changes to the allocation of TERP funds that were set to take effect in 2008 are repealed and previous provisions are reenacted.

The bill makes an institution of higher education based in Houston eligible to administer the New Technology Research and Development Program (NTRD) and authorizes TCEQ to contract with more than one organization to administer the program. The bill sets forth conditions that a non-profit organization under contract with TCEQ to administer the NTRD program is required to meet and sets forth provisions relating to TCEQ oversight of the NTRD program. The bill sets forth provisions relating to the establishment of a testing facility to evaluate new technology that may result in NOx emissions reductions. The bill removes air quality studies from the list of eligible NTRD projects. The bill provides that the selection of NTRD grant recipients by a nonprofit organization is subject to the TCEQ's review. The bill prohibits a nonprofit organization from making a grant of TERP funds if TCEQ or executive director of TCEQ does not consent to the grant.

The bill amends the Tax Code to extend the expiration for the TERP fees and surcharges from 2010 to 2013.

Changes to the amount of the fee charged on a certificate of title that were set to take effect in 2008 are repealed from the Transportation Code. The bill provides that the portion of these title fees that are sent to the comptroller and then deposited to the credit of the Texas Mobility fund beginning in 2008 will be deposited directly to the credit of the TERP fund beginning in 2010. The bill provides that the TERP surcharge on certain vehicle registrations expires in 2013 rather than 2010. The bill amends the Health & Safety Code to authorize SECO to adopt new editions of international energy conservation code and sets forth a process for doing so. The bill adds institutions of higher education and state agencies to provisions requiring political subdivisions to implement certain energy efficiency programs. The bill provides for reporting on energy efficiency programs to SECO that would indicate no change from previous reports.

The bill amends the Education Code to require school districts to establish a goal to reduce annual electric consumption by five percent each year for six years. The bill amends the Government Code to require the Texas Building and Procurement Commissions (TBPC) to develop a list of equipment and appliances that meet energy efficiency standards and assist state agencies in selecting products from that list. The bill requires TBPC or another state agency to purchase equipment and appliances that meet the federal Energy Star standards.

From the text of the bill:
ARTICLE 4. IDLING OF MOTOR VEHICLES
SECTION 4.01. Subsections (b), (c), and (d), Section 382.0191, Health and Safety Code, are amended to read as follows:
(b) The commission may not prohibit or limit the idling of a motor vehicle when idling is necessary to power a heater or air conditioner while a driver is using the vehicle's sleeper berth for a government-mandated rest period. Idling is not necessary to power a heater or air conditioner if the vehicle is within two miles of a facility offering external heating and air conditioning connections at a time when those connections are available.
(c) No driver using the vehicle's sleeper berth may idle the vehicle in a residential area as defined by Section 244.001, Local Government Code, or in a school zone or within 1,000 feet of a hospital or a public school during its hours of operation. An offense under this subsection shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500.
(d) This section expires September 1, 2009 [2007].

SOLAR ENERGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The bill also enables a solar energy demonstration program. From the text of the bill:

ARTICLE 7. SOLAR ENERGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
SECTION 7.01. Subchapter Z, Chapter 39, Utilities Code, is amended by adding Section 39.9051 to read as follows:
Sec. 39.9051. ENERGY EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FOR SOLAR ELECTRIC SYSTEM; GRANT PROGRAM. (a) The commission by rule shall establish grant programs for:
(1) a demonstration project for installation of solar electric systems for new residential subdivisions;
(2) a demonstration project for installation of solar electric systems for new or established affordable housing for persons with low incomes; and
(3) a demonstration project for installation of solar electric systems for not more than three small businesses.
(b) To qualify for a grant under this section, the solar electric system must be a device that:
(1) generates electricity using solar resources;
(2) has a generating capacity of not more than 1,000 kilowatts; and
(3) is installed with a manufacturer's warranty against breakdown or undue degradation for a period of at least five years.
(c) A demonstration project grant program established under this section must provide for full or partial payment of the cost of equipment and installation for the solar electric systems. The commission shall establish for each grant program a competitive bidding process for grant applicants. The commission shall
consider the value of funding demonstration projects in different parts of this state, after considering the demographic and geographic diversity of this state.
(d) To qualify for a grant under Subsection (a)(1), the applicant:
(1) must be a person whose primary business activity is the building of residential housing developments; and
(2) must have installed or must be contractually obligated to install qualifying solar electric systems in each residence constructed in a residential subdivision.
(e) To qualify for a grant under Subsection (a)(2), the applicant must have installed or be contractually obligated to install a qualifying solar electric system for residential real property:
(1) appraised in accordance with Section 23.21, Tax Code, as affordable housing property; or
(2) subject to a contractual obligation that the property will be appraised in accordance with Section 23.21, Tax Code, as affordable housing property within a reasonable time after the grant is received.
(f) To qualify for a grant under Subsection (a)(3), the applicant must be a small business or owner of a small business that meets qualifications adopted by the commission after consideration of federal Small Business Administration standards for qualification for loans from that administration.
(g) The commission shall issue a report to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house of representatives not later than December 1 of each even-numbered year summarizing the status of the grant programs established under Subsection (a).
The report must include the amount of money granted to each demonstration project and an evaluation of whether the projects demonstrate the economic and ecologic viability of solar electric system installations.
(h) This section expires December 31, 2010.
SECTION 7.02. (a) The Public Utility Commission of Texas may not spend money to implement a demonstration project grant program established under Section 39.9051, Utilities Code, as added by this article, except for money described by Subsection (b) of this section that is appropriated to the commission.
(b) The Public Utility Commission of Texas may solicit and accept gifts, grants, and other donations from any source to carry out the demonstration grant program established under Section 39.9051, Utilities Code, as added by this article.
(c) This section expires December 31, 2010

.

Read Text of Enrolled Bill
Read History of Bill
Read Fiscal Notes

Working together to meet federal air quality standards

By RICHARD GREENE - Special to the Star-Telegram - Sun, Aug. 05, 2007
Editor's note: EPA Regional Administrator Richard Greene sent the following reply Thursday to Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley's letter, printed in the July 29 Star-Telegram. It is being published with Greene's permission.

Thank you for your recent letter expressing concerns about the adequacy of the clean air plan that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has proposed for the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

I have shared our reservations about the proposal with state officials and explained that the EPA cannot approve a plan that does not meet federal air quality standards. I am pleased to be able to say that we enjoy a good working relationship with our state counterparts, and efforts are ongoing to develop ways to strengthen the proposed plan.

All of the specific questions and suggestions contained in your letter are under active consideration and review. I am especially encouraged by your attention to various measures to clean up the air that can be accomplished by local government entities.

Under the jurisdiction of the North Central Texas Council of Governments, in which Tarrant County is an active participant, initiatives are being considered that could result in the adoption of city or county ordinances designed to reduce and eliminate local sources of harmful emissions that lead to air pollution.

Nothing could serve the public better than unified and committed officials at all levels of government working to achieve healthy communities. I am pleased to know of your strong interest in air quality and your willingness to assume a leadership role, and I look forward to your continued efforts to help find local solutions.

Richard Greene is Region 6 administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Glen Whitley does good - Judge to EPA: Beef up clean-air plan

By Faith Chatham - Aug. 3, 2007
I am frequently critical of Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley for his maze of associations which I view as conflicts of interest. However, he deserves kudos for his action recently. He took a bold move which deserves recognition. He is reported as the first elected official in this region to write a letter to the EPA objecting to the TCEQ's approval of the DFW Clean Air Plan. He urges more funding for passenger rail and mass transit in this region. Currently there is no mass transit in Arlington or Grand Prairie, two of the larger cities in this region. I hope that other officials will mirror this move and speak out for the protection of the health of our citizens. Judge Whitley nails it when he calls for controls on the emissions on gas drilling, tougher standards for power plants in Central and East Texas, a solution to the Tower 55 congestion which leaves locomotives idling, and greater funding for passenger rail and mass transit to move people instead of vehicles in the DFW metroplex. Judge Whitley's stance is chronicled in a Fort Worth Star Telegram article:
By Scott Streater - Fort Worth Star Telegram Sat, Jul. 28, 2007

FORT WORTH -- Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley has issued a blistering critique of a state ozone reduction plan for Dallas-Fort Worth, arguing in a letter to federal regulators that the plan fails to protect public health because it does not take aggressive enough steps to clean the air.

Whitley, in a three-page letter to Richard Greene, the Environmental Protection Agency's regional administrator in Dallas, urged the federal government to demand further pollution reduction from power plants and local cement kilns, and to put more money into expanding passenger rail and other mass transit to reduce auto pollution.

"I am urging you to withhold federal approval of the plan until it includes measures that will move the D/FW area closer to attainment of the federal health standard for ozone," he wrote. "The plan, as it stands now, fails to propose sufficient measures to protect the health of Tarrant County's 1.7 million residents and the more than 6.4 million residents in our urban North Texas region."

Whitley's letter, the first sent to the EPA by a local elected official since the state approved the plan in May, follows an unflattering analysis of the state plan last week by a Southern Methodist University engineer, who warns the EPA that it is inadequate.

The EPA must approve the State Implementation Plan, as it's called, which outlines exact steps the region will take to comply with federal ozone standards. The Dallas-Fort Worth area is struggling to meet the federal ozone standard by June 2010 or face severe sanctions.

Whitley said Friday that he hopes the letter will spur the EPA to strengthen the plan.

Greene said he will formally respond to Whitley in the next few weeks. However, he hinted Friday that the state cleanup plan will be modified.

"We've already told [the state] that we're looking for improvements in this plan," said Greene, whose staff is meeting with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to resolve their differences. "They have been receptive. They are listening. We are exploring ways to improve the plan, and to get further emission reductions."

Greene said he has talked to local leaders and state regulators about including a requirement that all government agencies in the region retrofit diesel-powered equipment with pollution controls. Most of the cost would be paid for under a state grant program.

Despite the criticisms, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality officials "remain confident" that the plan is adequate and will be approved, said Terry Clawson, a commission spokesman.

Tarrant County Commissioner Roy Brooks, who has publicly criticized the state plan before, praised Whitley for sending the letter.

"The fact is, the plan they have adopted does not do anything to clean the air," Brooks said. "It's just a wholly inadequate plan."

Whitley concluded his letter to Greene by insisting that federal and state regulators explore all air-quality improvement options.

"The plan to improve air quality in North Texas must succeed," he wrote. "Failure to meet tough air quality standards is not an option."

Ground-level ozone

The federal government regulates ozone as a health concern.

At high concentrations, ozone can trigger asthma attacks, stunt lung development in children and aggravate bronchitis, emphysema and other respiratory problems.

The Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment area consists of nine counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant.

Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, needs lots of sunlight and heat to form. Ozone season in Dallas-Fort Worth runs from May through October.

Ozone is produced when nitrogen oxides mix with volatile organic compounds. Those come mostly from automobile exhaust and industrial smokestacks. Trees also produce the organic compounds as part of photosynthesis.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

Another article on Judge Whitley's letter to the EPA appeared in the Star Telegram Sunday, July 28th.
Needing a better plan for our air
By GLEN WHITLEY Special to the Star-Telegram
Editor's note: Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley sent the following to EPA Region 6 Administrator Richard Greene on Thursday. It is being published with the judge's permission.
By GLEN WHITLEY
Special to the Star-Telegram

Star-Telegram/Ron Jenkins
The Fort Worth skyline is shrouded in pollution as traffic flows along Interstate 35W north of the city on Aug. 8, 2003. Editor's note: Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley sent the following to EPA Region 6 Administrator Richard Greene on Thursday. It is being published with the judge's permission.

I am writing to express my continued concern about the state's proposed clean air plan for the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

I first stated my concern about the failure of this plan to protect public health at a state hearing on a draft of the plan in February, long before the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality voted to submit a revised and weaker plan to the Environmental Protection Agency.

As you know, these revisions weakened an already tenuous clean air plan. Therefore, I am urging you to withhold federal approval of the plan until it includes measures that will move the D-FW area closer to attainment of the federal health standard for ozone.

Other than in the Houston area, Tarrant and Denton counties suffer from the worst air pollution in Texas. The rest of the Metroplex is not far behind. North Texas residents are constantly put at risk by their chronic exposure to levels of ozone that exceed the current health standard. The plan, as it stands now, fails to propose sufficient measures to protect the health of Tarrant County's 1.7 million residents and the more than 6.4 million residents in our urban North Texas region.

Further, the recommendation by an EPA science advisory panel to tighten the ozone standard by about 15 percent, and EPA's own proposal to tighten the standard by about 10 percent, make our situation in North Texas even more troublesome.

The state plan should provide measures to bring the D-FW area into compliance with the federal Clean Air Act by 2010. However, an independent analysis of the plan by a Southern Methodist University scientist shows that it is inadequate and has little chance of succeeding.

Federal law allows Texas to argue that the plan will bring air quality in the region close enough to what is required under the Clean Air Act. Based on that, state officials say, the EPA should approve the plan. However, the EPA can only approve the plan if it believes the state's technical evidence and other data demonstrate that the entire D-FW region will be in compliance with the current federal ozone standard. But to reach that goal, ozone levels in the D-FW area would have to drop dramatically.

Under the revised state plan, ozone levels at four air monitors in the D-FW area would be out of compliance, up from two monitors in the draft plan.

Excessive ozone levels at two of those monitors may outweigh the state's other evidence of regional compliance with the Clean Air Act.

In addition to the ozone we create here, air pollution is driven into North Texas by weather and winds. It is transported into our region from other areas. It travels south from the Ohio River Valley. It comes from the Houston area and from East Texas -- often creating high background levels.

Add that to our own homemade ozone, and it becomes doubly difficult to meet federal clean air standards.

In 2001, the EPA approved a state clean air plan for North Texas that led to some significant air pollution control measures and improvements. Most of those measures involved reducing on-road vehicle emissions, about half the local air pollution problem. Cars and gasoline-powered trucks now undergo emission testing.

The program to get the worst-polluting vehicles off the road or get them fixed is also successful. But the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan -- a program that offers grants to retrofit or replace older diesel engines with newer, cleaner ones -- needs to meet its goals. Voluntary measures, like high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and other traffic control measures, may help, but that will not get us entirely where we need to go.

Also, the Texas Legislature must give North Texas the tools necessary to implement a regional passenger rail initiative. Such a system will result in fewer cars on the road, now and in the future, and reduce air pollution.

As we make progress, as new cars run cleaner because of technology and as older polluting cars leave the streets, non-road sources of pollution become an ever-increasing share of locally and regionally produced ozone.

Pollution from diesel equipment and locomotives -- like those that sit idling at the Tower 55 rail crossroads in Fort Worth -- must be addressed. Additionally, pollution from industrial sources like cement kilns and power plants must be addressed.

We can leave no stone unturned in our effort to improve air quality.

Now is not the time to relax our effort to provide clean air for the citizens of the region. We need an honest and accurate across-the-board assessment of our pollution sources and a full disclosure and application of all possible pollution control measures and remedies.

We need to use the best available control technology to reduce pollution linked to emissions from cement kilns and power plants, train engines and on- and off-road vehicles.

Electricity generating power plants in Central and East Texas should have to meet the same emissions standards as power plants in the D-FW area. Additional air pollution from new natural-gas drilling rigs and compressors must be addressed.

Smog and unhealthy ozone readings are an unpleasant fact of life in North Texas. It's been that way for decades. Air pollution compromises the health of our children, our seniors and those with chronic respiratory disease. It affects all of us. It compromises economic development and our business climate. It could lead to penalties such as restrictions on industry and the loss of federal highway dollars that would harm development in this fast-growing region.

The plan to improve air quality in North Texas must succeed. Failure to meet tough air quality standards is not an option.

Glen Whitley is Tarrant County judge.

TCEQ fines 71 entities for environmental violations

TCEQ APPROVES FINES TOTALING $823,480 - Includes fine of $121,880 against Oxy USA
TCEQ - Wed., July 25, 2007
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) today approved penalties totaling $823,480 against 71 regulated entities for violations of state environmental regulations.

Agreed orders were issued for the following enforcement categories: 17 air quality, eight dry cleaner, one Edwards Aquifer, three field citations, one industrial waste discharge one licensed irrigator, four multi-media, three municipal solid waste, four municipal waste discharge, 17 petroleum storage tank, three public water system, one sludge, and four water quality.

In addition, there were default orders issued for the following categories: one multi-media, and two petroleum storage tank. Penalties were also assessed against a regulated entity following hearings at the State Office of Administrative Hearings for one solid waste violation.

Included in the total fine figure is a penalty of $121,880 against Oxy USA of Kent County. The fines are as a result of five violations found during investigations in September and December, 2006, including failure to prevent unauthorized emissions and failure to meet reporting requirements.

The TCEQ's next agenda meeting is scheduled for August 8. Agenda items from all commission meetings and work session agendas can be viewed on the TCEQ Web site. See live webcast of the meeting and archived meeting

Learn the status of Air and Water Permits and Participate in the Permitting Process

By Faith Chatham - July 21, 2007
Information and Participation can make a difference in our environment. Currently several environmental groups are objecting to decisions of the current Executive Director of the Texas Environmental Air Quality Commission. Citizens usually only catch a snippet on a television news broadcast or occasionally read of controversies regarding air quality and water quality permits in the newspaper. Citizens can go directly to the source to find out the status of permits. There are ways to find out the facts for yourself so that you can decide for yourself what is best for you environmentally. When you oppose a permit, or disagree with the decision of the TCEQ, there is a public participation process which enables you to protest or contest agency decisions.

GET INFORMED

The Texas Environmental Air Quality Commission publishes the status of permits on their website. For several of the searches, the permit number must be entered in the query field. These projects and their permit number, name of company and county are listed in the Director's Marked Agenda, They are listed by month and year for 2005-2007. In the archives they are listed by year from 1999-2004.

So far this month (July 2007) the executive director has signed 30 permit authorizations. To see the details of these permits. Some are permit amendments, permit renewals or new permit applications.

Citizens can track a pending enforcement complaint, track status of a complaint or read about the enforcement process.


Public Participation
The TCEQ's Public Participation Policies are posted on their website describing how citizens can participation in the process for approving/rejecting applications for water quality, waste, and air permits, when a contested case hearing is possible under Texas law.

Past and Future Agendas and Work Sessions for Commmission and Executive Director are online. Webcast of Commission Agenda Meetings and Work Sessions can be viewed online live or from the archive. The action taken by TCEQ Commissioners are posted on the Commissioners' Marked Agenda's link. (The archive contains marked agenda's from 1990-to present). The TCEQ Chief Clerk's database will show:
1. Status of pending permit applications, registrations, license applications, enforcement actions, transfers of ownership of facilities and issuance of bonds for water districts, utility and rate services.
2. Comment period deadline, information about whether a contested case hearing has been requested on an item or whether comments have been received. (The TCEQ Office of Public Assistance provides detailed information about scheduled contested case hearings or public hearings.)
3. Whether the item has been set for consideration at the TCEQ Commissioners' Agenda or for the Executive Director's Agenda

Subscribe to e-mail news releases and updates for TCEQ Rules, Commission Meetings and Actions, Enforcement, Publications and Online Resources, Air Quality, Water Quality, Air Permitting and Compliance, Waste Water Exchance Network and sources for acquiring or selling recycled materials. There are mailing lists of businesses which help in the recycling process.

There are also 5 listservers (similar to mailing lists) for updates and announcements concerning air permitting applications.
To join an Advisory and Stakeholder Listserver E-mail Group, send a blank email to one of the following:
for the landfill listserver: join-mswl@listserv.tceq.state.tx.us

for the oil and gas listserver: join-oilandgas@listserv.tceq.state.tx.us

for the Bulk Fuel Terminal GOP listserver: join-bulkfuel@listserv.tceq.state.tx.us

for the Site-Wide GOP listserver: join-sitewide@listserv.tceq.state.tx.us

for the PBR study listserver: join-pbrproj@listserv.tceq.state.tx.us

for the aci listserver: join-aci@listserv.tceq.state.tx.us

An email will be sent confirming your subscription to the list.


WHAT IS THE TCEQ?

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the leading environmental protection agency of the state of Texas. Three full-time commissioners, appointed by the governor, establish overall agency direction and policy, and make final determinations on contested permitting and enforcement matters. An executive director, hired by the commissioners, is responsible for managing the agency's day-to-day operations.

Among its many functions, the TCEQ must review applications for a wide variety of environmental permits. The procedures outlined here cover applications for the following types of permits (as well as certain amendments and renewals of these permits):

Water quality permits
Beneficial land use permits
New source review air permits
Municipal solid waste permits
Industrial solid waste permits
Hazardous waste permits
Underground injection well permits

The first phase of the environmental review process is the Administrative Review where staff inspects the application to see that all the required parts of the application have been submitted. if it is complete, the agency issues a NORI (Nothce of REceipt of Applicatin and Intent to Obtain Permit)

Responding to the Public Notice

All NORIS provide instructions for submitting comments, getting on the mailing list, requesting a public meeting, and requesting a contested case hearing. Written public comments—including concerns and questions regarding the proposed application—and requests for public meetings and/or contested case hearings should be submitted to:
Office of the Chief Clerk, MC 105
TCEQ
PO Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087

Comments may be faxed to the Office of the Chief Clerk at 512-239-3311 no later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the comment period. However, the original must also be mailed or hand delivered to the chief clerk and received within three business days after faxing. In accordance with current agency regulations, comments or requests sent by e-mail will not be accepted.

Getting on a Mailing List

A citizen can request to be placed on two kinds of mailing lists by sending a written request to the chief clerk, specifying the mailing list or lists you want to be on, and provide your complete name and address.
The lists are:
1. The permanent mailing list for a specific applicant name and permit number.
2. The permanent mailing list for a specific county (which includes all air, water, and waste notices in that county).

Those who submit a comment, request a public meeting, or request a contested case hearing regarding a specific application, are automatically added to the mailing list for that specific permit application.

Requesting a Public Meeting

Public meetings provide the public with an opportunity to learn about the application, ask questions of the applicant and TCEQ, and offer formal comments. It also allows TCEQ staff to hear firsthand the concerns and objections of the community and gather input for use in the agency's consideration of the application. No decision to approve or deny an application is made at a public meeting.

The TCEQ will hold a public meeting if there is significant interest in an application, if requested by a legislator from the area of the proposed project, or if otherwise required by law.

A request for a public meeting must be submitted in writing to the chief clerk during the public comment period and must specify that it is a request for a "public meeting."

The agency distinguished between PUBLIC HEARINGS and PUBLIC MEETINGS.
A request asking for a "public hearing" will be considered a request for a contested case hearing.

Requesting a Contested Case Hearing

The commissioners' decision whether to grant a hearing is based in part on the information provided by the requester. The person requesting a hearing must demonstrate that they are an "affected person" in order to be granted party status. This means that the requester must be personally impacted by the permit decision and that granting the permit would affect interests specific to the requester that the public in general would not share, such as impairing the requester's health or safety or interfering with the requester's use or enjoyment of their property. Affected parties may use this process to challenge the executive director's preliminary decision on an application.

A contested case hearing is a legal proceeding similar to a civil trial in state district court. Hearings are conducted by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), an independent agency that conducts hearings for state agencies. When a contested case is referred to SOAH, an administrative law judge will preside over the hearing and will consider evidence in the form of sworn witness testimony and documents presented as exhibits.

Because contested case hearings are legal proceedings, parties may wish to hire an attorney to ensure that their interests are fully represented. However, representation by an attorney is not required.

Requests for contested case hearings must include the following information:

1. The requester's name, address, and daytime telephone number.
2. The permit number and applicant's name.
3. A statement clearly requesting a "contested case hearing."
4. The location of the requester's home, business, or property that is affected, and its distance from the proposed facility.
5. A detailed explanation of how the requester would be adversely affected by the proposed facility or activity in a manner not common to the general public.
6. If the request is made on behalf of a group or an association, the request must identify one or more members who have standing to request a hearing, and state how the interest that the group or association seeks to protect is relevant to the group's purpose.

Please Note: To retain the right to a contested case hearing on an air permit application, there must be at least one request for hearing submitted within the time frame specified in the NORI. For more information on this, see "Technical Review of Permit Applications," below.

Technical Review of Permit Applications
After agency staff have determined the application to be complete, staff reviews it to see if it complies with state and federal regulations. It it passes this TECHNICAL REVIEW, the executive director (ED) issues a preliminary decision in a NAPD (Notice of Application and Preliminary Decision. The NAPD is published in a newspaper and mailed to the mailing list. It contains the same information as the NORI and provides additional opportunity for the public to submit comments, request a public meeting and/or hearing.

Second notices are required for most permits. However, Air Quality Applications for registration of a concrete batch plant standard permit are required only when a request for a contested case hearing was made during the first notice (NORI) and was not withdrawn before the preliminary decision was announced.

Public Comment Period closes 30 days after the publication of the NAPD. If no contested case hearing was requested for an Air Quality permit, the public comment period ends on the "end of public notice date" announced in the NORI.

There are three ways to protest the permit decision of the Executive Director:

1. Request a contested case hearing

2. Request a reconsideration

After the decision letter has been mailed, any person has the option of filing a request for reconsideration, which asks the commissioners to reconsider the ED's decision. The request should include name, address, and phone number, and why you believe the decision should be reconsidered. The request for reconsideration must be received no later than 30 days after the date of the decision

If the commissioners decide to grant a request for a contested case hearing, the case is referred to SOAH with a list of issues to be the subject of the hearing and an expected duration for the hearing. At the conclusion of the SOAH hearing, the judge issues a proposal for decision, which is submitted to the TCEQ for formal consideration. The commissioners then approve, deny, or modify the proposal for decision.

When it appears that the parties may reach a compromise, the Commissioners may refer the application for alternate dispute resolution so that the dispute can be settled through mediation. If the dispute is not resolved, the hearing process is continued.


3. File a motion to overturn the decision of the Executive Director.

If no request for hearing or reconsideration is received and the executive director issues the permit, any person may file a motion to overturn, requesting that the commissioners overturn the executive director's action. The motion must be filed no later than 23 days after the date the agency mails notice of the signed permit, and must explain why the commissioners should review the ED's action. If a motion to overturn has not been acted on by the commissioners within 45 days after the date the agency mails notice of the signed permit, the motion is thereby denied, unless an extension of time is specifically granted.

If the commissioners approve a permit application after it has gone through the contested case hearing process, protestants may submit a motion for rehearing, requesting that the commissioners review their decision. This motion for rehearing is a prerequisite to appeal and must be submitted within 20 days after you are notified of the decision. If the commissioners do not act on the motion within 45 days after you are notified of the decision, the motion is overruled by operation of law. If the commissioners do not receive a motion for rehearing, the action of the commissioners will become final

.

For More Information
Office of Public Assistance
800-687-4040
Provides information on the permitting process, the status of applications, public meeting procedures, and permitting issues for low-income and minority communities.

Office of Public Interest Counsel
512-239-6363
Explains legal procedures for challenging permit applications, such as hearings.

Alternative Dispute Resolution
512-239-0687
Assists with the informal resolution of contested matters.

If you can't find it online, you can submit an OPEN RECORDS REQUEST.
Instructions are online.

Environmental groups try to push out head of environmental agency

Billboard, Web site, letter-writing campaign dedicated to effort.
By Asher Price - AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF - Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Environmental groups have launched a $20,000 campaign to topple the chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, including renting a billboard near the commission's headquarters demanding that the governor appoint a new chairperson.

The billboard, which rents for $8,000 a month, faces south near the intersection of Braker Lane and Interstate 35 and asks the governor to replace Chairwoman Kathleen Hartnett White. It has a picture of a coal-fired power plant with the word APPROVED stamped over it.

Government watchdog and environmental group Public Citizen said it used membership money to pay for the campaign, which includes a Web site (www.getwhiteout.com), a letter-writing effort addressed to Gov. Rick Perry, and a 10,000-piece mailing.

Last month, over the objections of the agency's own public interest counsel and state administrative law judges, she approved an air permit for a coal-fired power plant in Robertson County that critics contend could harm Austin's air quality.

A commission spokesman, Andy Saenz, says White planned months ago to leave office by the time her term ends at the end of August.

The billboard is a "tremendous waste of space and money," Saenz said.
Read more in the Austin American Statesman

Read Bio of Cathleen Hartnett White on TEQC website.


FOLLOWUP - A pricey victory for environmental groups
By Asher Price - Austin American Statesman - Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Can environmentalists rightfully claim their day-old Get-White-Out campaign has been a rousing success, or are they just trying to spin their way out of a costly, ineffective exercise?

In a scuttlebutt item in today’s paper we wrote that environmental group and government watchdog Public Citizen had launched a $20,000 campaign to push Kathleen Hartnett White, the chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, out of office. The campaign includes a Web site and a billboard near TCEQ headquarters warning that her decisions have endangered public health.

White had angered environmentalists by approving a coal-fired power plant about 100 miles from Austin. Last April she had written the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to oppose stricter caps on ozone, a lung-damaging pollutant. And her agency has been criticized for not exacting harsher penalties from polluters. (Among the critics was the state auditor’s office, in a 2003 report.)

Well, a spokesman for White told us that for months she had planned to leave by the end of her term, which falls on Aug. 31; he called the campaign a waste of time and money.

When I asked Tom “Smitty” Smith, the head of Public Citizen about that, he said he had heard rumors about White’s departure for a while, but never anything official. He also said that the campaign serves notice that political appointees will face close scrutiny and that Gov. Perry should appoint a “tough visionary” to be chair of the commission.

This afternoon I received a statement from Public Citizen, which said that White’s departure “is a victory for those in the environmental community who recently began calling for her ouster. Although state officials claim they were aware of her impending departure, it wasn’t until Public Citizen put up a billboard calling for her to be replaced that state representatives told the public of White’s plans.”

At $20,000 to learn that your target was leaving office in any case (and without any sense that her replacement will be any more sympathetic to environmentalists), this might be a bit of a pyrrhic victory.

Read more in the Austin American Statesman

Breathless - August Edition of D Magazine

By Terri Meza and Faith Chatham - July 20, 2007
The August edition of D Magazine has a great article on air quality in North Texas. The article is titled "Breathless".

Why Our Air is Bad, How We Can Fix It - D Magazine - Thursday, July 19, 2007

Toyin Sosanya will never forget the day her 2-year-old daughter almost suffocated. Little Myra started gasping for no apparent reason. The gasps persisted in the local emergency room, even after the doctors—and Toyin, a pharmacist—suspected asthma and gave Myra a dose of albuterol through an inhaler. No effect. They put the inhaler to her mouth and tried again, then a third time. They continued this as they loaded Myra back in the car and sped to Children’s Medical Center, where doctors, fearing for her life, gave Myra an IV of epinephrine, or adrenaline, which finally returned her breathing to normal.

But soon after, Myra’s twin sister, Tyra, developed asthma. Their older sister, Alexis, then 4, already had it. Toyin missed a lot of work ushering her children between hospital visits, hoping to figure out what caused the attacks. Finally, Toyin got her answer: the doctor said the attacks had to do with Dallas’ poor air quality.

“Maybe you should consider moving out of Texas,” the doctor told her, “somewhere where the air is better.”

Texas is a notoriously filthy state. We emit more carbon dioxide than any other state in the country. In fact, we emit more carbon dioxide, 1.5 trillion pounds a year, than all but six nations in the world.

But ozone is a bigger problem. Cars, trucks, and power plants emit the nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons that become ozone in the atmosphere. Dallas-Fort Worth’s ozone pollution is the seventh worst in the nation, according to the American Lung Association’s 2007 “State of the Air” report—which is worse than we fared in 2006, when Dallas-Fort Worth ranked eighth. Our ozone is worse than cities with larger populations such as New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

Ozone pollution scars the lungs and leaves them susceptible to respiratory infection. Children are particularly vulnerable, especially asthmatic children. This partly explains why Children’s Medical Center Dallas has one of the busiest pediatric emergency rooms in the nation. Its No. 1 cause for admittance is asthma attacks, which have become so frequent that the hospital has an asthma treatment room in the ER. During the summer, when ozone is at its worst, the brightly lit room is strewn with toys and filled with children receiving medicated aerosols through oxygen masks. The Allergy and Immunology Clinic at Children’s fields 60 to 70 requests for new patients a week. And there are nearly 60,000 estimated asthmatic children in Dallas County..continued

I'm the only person in my family who has asthma. I didn't develop it until after I moved back to the DFW area when I was in my forties. This paragraph caught my eye!

...Gauderman and his team found what might be a link between air pollution and new asthma. That is to say, not only does air pollution trigger an attack in a child with asthma, but air pollution may actually cause asthma in a child who didn’t have it. If true, this may explain why some children develop asthma even if no one in their family has it, even though it’s largely considered a hereditary condition.

....
The author points out something that citizens really need to comprehend.

The Bad Guys in This Fight Will Surprise You
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the environmental agency for the state. It is difficult to imagine another environmental agency that cares less about the environment.

Consider its “smog plan.” Dallas is, as you now know, a dirty place to live. The Environmental Protection Agency knows this and has told TCEQ to find a way to make Dallas cleaner or the EPA will reserve the right to withhold Dallas’ federal transportation dollars come 2010—as much as $400 million. So TCEQ spent the past three years creating a plan, holding meetings to debate the plan, and then tweaking it. The final draft was presented in May.

But the plan as it stands now doesn’t actually get North Texas in compliance with the EPA. It gets us close, and the EPA in similar situations in the past has said close is good enough. But this time, the EPA’s regional director, Richard Greene, sent the state a memo in late May saying he doubted TCEQ’s plan would cut it. He doubted whether it would get federal approval. The reason: TCEQ had failed to consider the impact of all those diesel engines running drilling equipment in the Barnett Shale, the natural gas field that stretches from the Mid Cities to west of Fort Worth. Nevertheless, the three TCEQ commissioners voted to approve the plan, and the commission’s chair, Kathleen Hartnett White, wrote an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News expressing her “confidence” in this “aggressive” policy and its intent to meet federal air standards...

(Requires D Magazine subscription or guest pass to view complete article)

While visiting D/Magazine we recommend that you review their archive on the Trinity River Project which can be found under "Environment and Development".