Approval of controversial pipeline is bad for the environment, and bad politics, as it would offend not just environmentalists, but voters of all stripes across America’s heartland who would have the pipeline run through their backyards. It is another ethics landmine that would invite more attack from the WH’s political enemies about pay to play politics– this time because of copious amounts of Big Oil influence-peddling. 

We’ve previously talked about Solyndra. It’s not a problem with solar or of federal investment, but of questions about campaign finance and due diligence, problems which also exist in the much larger loan program for nuclear, especially when nuclear energy companies have been such big campaign backers of Obama’s.

In fact, worth reading is Brad Plummer’s Five Myths About Solyndra from the Washington Post, a great take from Climate Progress about the Solyndra timeline showing the  and this post from Blue Virginia showing there’s plenty of blame to go across the partisan aisle for this mess.

Money in politics will ALWAYS create these problems.  You can see here how a wireless company was trying to trade on their big dollar donations to get access to the White House.  This is why Obama must champion REAL campaign finance reform, specifically full disclosure of all independent expenditures and public financing options for people running for Congress.

But that is a tough legislative mountain to climb– and not one that it seems the White House has the intestinal fortitude for, given their willingness to always “compromise” (read: capitulate) to the Powers That Be. But those Powers That Be don’t Be without the steady stream of money they pour into campaign coffers, so its unlikely that Obama would rush to reform that system that has, so far at least, worked out better for him than his opponents.

So while it is unlikely Obama can avoid the ethical morass and swampland that is money for access and favors, one landmine he can avoid in approving the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring the world’s dirtiest oil from Canada to Texas.

Not only should we be seriously questioning the safety and integrity of our pipeline system after spills from as far afield as downtown Salt Lake City to Kalamazoo to Yellowstone National Park, but this graphic from the New York Times shows the large spills we’ve had all over the country just from existing pipelines. 

The other question is obviously one of addiction. If we are to take seriously the metaphor of an addiction to oil, then Keystone XL is like a new meth dealer moving in next to our heroin dealer. Climate scientist Jim Hansen has called the approval of the pipeline “game over” for the climate.

But besides a discussion of the merits, there is the question of why is this the rake in the yard Obama needs to avoid? It starts with the voters, specifically those who will be affected by this pipeline.

Today at 1:30 pm Texas time, East Texas landowners who made up the group Stop Tarsands Oil Pipelines, or STOP, held a press conference detailing their opposition to this proposed monstrosity. Among their chief complaints were that the State Department had failed to account for the current devastating Texas drought in their environmental impact study.   From STOP:

Strike 3: State Dept’s 3rd Pipeline Assessment Ignores Texas Drought

DOS puts Europe/China’s oil supply ahead of water for 12 million Texans and ag lands as wildfires burn

East Texas cattle rancher Don Williams has trimmed his herd in half, lost calves to drought, and now faces wildfires burning just 20 miles from his ranch.  Even before all of this, Williams was concerned about the impact the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would have on water supplies in the Carrizo Wilcox aquifer, which most East Texans rely on.

When he learned that the State Department, in their review of the proposed pipeline, had not even looked at what drought conditions meant for the pipeline’s safety, he was outraged.

“We need that aquifer, and that they could just ‘overlook’ what’s happened here in the last year shows we can’t trust what they’re telling us,” said Williams who also serves on the City Council in New Summerfield, a town of just over 1,000 people. “Tar sands oil isn’t like regular crude – they’ve got to pack it with heavy metals and chemicals just to thin it down enough to pump it. The first pipeline they built spilled at least a dozen times in just one year of operation.”

A report released today by an East Texas group called Stop Tarsands Oil Pipelines corroborates Williams’s story, demonstrating

Drought? What Drought?

that the historic Texas drought, which has been devastating communities and grabbing headlines all summer long, was overlooked by the US State Department in its third and purportedly final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

“Texas is burning, our firefighters have faced 300 consecutive days of wildfire,” said David Daniel, STOP’s Founder and President. “I’ve seen firsthand that a tar sands pipeline spill in Michigan is still contaminating water 14 months later, putting 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River off limits. If we had a similar spill in Texas under conditions like these where could we go for water for our homes, farms, and ranches?”

The report issued by STOP examines the implications for operating the proposed pipeline, which would push the denser and more toxic tar sands oil at higher pressures and temperatures than conventional oil pipelines, during droughts like the one currently scorching Texas. According to STOP, the impacts of a severe drought were ignored by the U.S. State Department in its review of the environmental impacts of the proposal.

STOP also documents that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has placed six TransCanada water withdrawal permit applications on hold due to drought.

“If State Department had bothered to talk to any Texans they would have realized that pumping 830,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude through the middle of Texas would be a grave mistake,” said Don Williams, East Texas Cattle rancher and City Councilman, New Summerfield. “We need all the water we have to keep our farms and ranches in business.”

To make matters worse, says David Daniel, the oil being delivered by this pipeline may not be intended for U.S. consumption. He points to a report by oil industry economist Philip K. Verleger, which concludes that the tar sands oil is much more likely to be exported to global markets for consumption in China and Europe.

“They’re selling this pipeline to the public as energy security, but the truth is that U.S. demand for oil has flat-lined whereas China’s demand keeps growing,” says Daniel. “Dr. Verleger is an oil industry economist who just happens to also be honest about what he sees, which is more than I can say for TransCanada after dealing with them the last couple years.”

You should visit their website at stoptarsands.org to listen to the rest of their stories. Their full study on the drought vs. the pipeline can be found here. 

Beyond that, with lobbyist ties to the White House, this makes approving the decision for the Keystone XL the biggest affirmation that pay-to-play politics and revolving door between industry and government are alive and well in Washington DC. TransCanada, the owner of the proposed pipeline, hired former Clinton campaign staffer Paul Elliot and several other Obama staffers to lobby the State Department and the White House. Is it any wonder why their analysis would overlook something so obvious as the Texas drought when they are being lobbied to get this out the door as quickly as possible?

It’s worth noting this is the third flawed FEIS that the State Department has produced. Three strikes and you’re out? Well, if there was any justice in this world, yes, as it would be obvious this is not due diligence, but pure politics and a Potemkin village of looking at impacts to local residents and their water supplies. It is a boneheaded mistake, and makes it look like the Obama administration is full of a bunch of rookies, making obvious mistakes like forgetting drought.

If Obama wants to avoid having his Presidency resemble The Three Stooges any more, he needs to clean the pie off his face from Solyndra, and don’t even go close to that rake. He can’t afford another similar self-inflicted wound, especially one that is not only so avoidable but also happens to be the right thing to do.

Now where are those three nincompoop chandelier hangers I hired?

However, it does bring up important questions about the Obama administration, ethics, and the influence of campaign contributions. This is entirely a self-inflicted wound, a bone-headed mistake if not an ethical problem, and is the type of landmine the White House needs to avoid. There is another, similar trap they need to avoid touching in the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, where Big Oil’s big money tendrils and the revolving door are even more frightening than those from Solyndra.

The first charge against Solyndra is the wastefulness of the federal loan guarantees that it received and the loan guarantee program in general.  Well, if solar was the only industry getting this aid, that might be something. But given the incredibly large amounts given in federal subsidies to fossil fuels compared to solar, that is not the case. Indeed, direct subsidies for nuclear in recent energy legislation adds up to over 13 billion (that’s with a b, kids) and recent loan guarantees for nuclear construction are over $60 billion, $18 billion of which have already been allocated in Georgia.  This amounts to a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear industry, especially since the CBO estimates those loans will have a 50% default rate.

Other critics have gone after Solyndra because they say solar isn’t ready for prime time– while, in fact, it shows the opposite. Solyndra was pioneering a new method of making photovoltaic cells and got buried under the onslaught of cheap solar imports from China.  Their process, which you can see below, courtesy BusinessWire, is very different from traditional photvoltaic arrays.

Their technology just didn’t get cheap quickly enough compared to traditional PV manufacturing, largely from Chinese imports. But in the silver lining to that otherwise not as nice cloud, those same cheap Chinese imports have meant a huge boon to American manufacturing who provide many of the materials and heavy equipment needed to manufacture PV.

Meanwhile, because of that change, solar has reached grid parity in terms of its costs.  Grid parity means that the cost of producing electricity through a pv cell is less than or equal to the average cost of electricity.  Other companies are making huge solar breakthroughs. Solyndra, unfortunately, was not one of them. But this is market economics, and this is what we expect, nay, desire from our entrepreneurs.

Meanwhile, the Department of Energy, undeterred, has announced two more loan guarantee programs for solar innovation. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense is getting on the solar train, too, with a Solar City program that will provide clean energy to the homes of 160,000 of our troops and their families. I can’t think of a better way to commemorate 9/11 than with true energy independence being given to some of the most deserving among us.  Now, let’s just do it for all of our military, veterans, firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public servants. But 160,000 homes to start with is pretty darn nice.

But why Solyndra is troublesome is because it appears undue influence may have been exerted to get them these loan guarantees.  One of Solyndra’s top investors was also a bundler for the Obama campaign responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations.  A commitment to the highest ethical standards that the Obama Administration guaranteed when they took office meant they should have done extra due diligence on giving any loan guarantees to anyone with any sort of money connection to the White House. Every i dotted, every t crossed– special treatment, but special treatment to insure they weren’t receiving funds because of political donations. Indeed, they should have been held to a much higher standard than their peers.

This is an entirely self-inflicted wound on the part of the Obama Administration. It should have been avoided, and questions not only the ethics of those in charge but the rationality. Surely they should have seen this coming.

If they didn’t, here’s a warning sign for you: Keystone XL. The pipeline, proposed by Canadian company Transcanada, would bring the world’s dirtiest oil from the Alberta tar sands to refineries in the Houston area along the Texas Gulf Coast. They are currently doing their best to get the pipeline approved, including a slick PR campaign, push-polling in areas around where the pipeline would be and promising jobs if the pipeline is built, and using Washington’s revolving door of lobbyists, staff, and political consultants. Dirty money, dirty campaign, dirty tactics, dirty ethics. In fact, knowing that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be the final decider on whether the State Department issues the permit or not, Transcanada hired her former campaign operative Paul Elliot to be their chief lobbyist, among other hires with ties to the Obama campaign and administration.

Clinton and Obama approving Keystone XL would be another avoidable landmine for the White House. Unfortunately, this landmine has much more dire consequences if approved, as it would signal both Business as Usual in Washington with Big Oil getting their way, the end of any veneer of ethics or being serious about campaign finance by the Obama Administration, and. . .oh, “game over” for the planet because of runaway climate change.  More on this later.

Wildfires rage over Labor Day near Bastrop, TX, southeast of Austin

This puts into focus several things that have been ruminating in my head all weekend, and it all comes back to this one question– Why does Rice play Texas?  This weekend, two of our nation’s best universities met on the football field. And while both Rice and University of Texas can duke it out on relatively equal footing on the basis of academics, Rice is. . . shall we say, not the athletic powerhouse that Texas is. So, why does Rice always begin its football season with a drubbing of 34-9 (hey, tip of the hat for getting 9 points on the scoreboard– I guarantee there will be teas that do less this year), with the Owls now having lost 41 games out of the last 42 meetings to the Longhorns? And here the answer lies with the other goings-on of this long weekend.

It started with a bang and whimper as our Caver-in-Chief, President Obama, announced he would overrule both the Supreme Court in Whitman v American Trucking Associations and the EPA in pulling back on the agency’s interstate smog rule that has been in the works since the Bush Administration. As Prof of Law Lisa Heinzerling points out in an excellent post over at Grist called Ozone Madness, this decision is wrong based on the law, the science, the economics, and the transparency.

While the President is trying to, I’d assume, take what he sees as the high ground and compromise with those people who claim that these regulations kill jobs, the opposite is, in fact, true. These National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, are set by the Clean Air Act and, defined by the Supreme Court, are to be based on the best available science about what levels of pollutants are healthy for human beings (people like you and me) to breathe. Tea partiers and some of their corporate paymasters in the fossil fuel industry have been caterwauling that these rules will be “too expensive” to implement, and therefore shut down a lot of old, dirty power plants.

Ummmm.. . . yes, please? Couldn’t we, nay, shouldn’t we shut them down? Our best available science tells us these pollution sources are making us sick. We need these life-saving regulations to help all of the sick children, the elderly, and just the plain folks who  suffer from asthma and other respiratory disease. Count up the missed school days, the missed work days, the premature deaths– count how they hobble our economy. How can children compete in a global economy if they are missing days from school sick because they can’t breathe? How much work is done not on time? How much lost productivity have we hamstrung our economic engine with to cater to people who don’t know how to compete in a modern energy economy against cleaner forms of production? Because the new EPA rules won’t shut down all power plants, only those who can’t compete, who can’t run cleanly. And since there is also good evidence to show that these sorts of life-enhancing regulations actually help, not hurt,  the economy. It also rebuts the White House’s own stated position that they posted just one. day. earlier. that clean air helps the economy, preventing in this year alone:

• 160,000 premature deaths;
• More than 80,000 emergency room visits;
• Millions of cases of respiratory problems;
• Millions of lost workdays, increasing productivity;
• Millions of lost school days due to respiratory illness and other diseases caused or exacerbated by air pollution.

So aside from the doublespeak and the just plain bad policy, it looked like the Obama Administration is also taking early steps to signal that they will approve the Keystone XL pipeline to bring the world’s dirtiest and most carbon-intensive source of oil on the planet to Texas Gulf Coast refineries, despite weeks of protests involving thousands of people and hundreds of arrests.

The impact on the climate if this is approved? Well, according to Jim Hanson, one of our top climate scientists, he called it “essentially game over.” Or, as Bill Paxton in Aliens put it:  (WARNING: NSFW for swearsies, including the dreaded f-dash-dash-dash word)

Ok, well, all kidding aside because this is deathly serious, as in the fate of the planet’s climate, THIS is what Jim Hanson told climate protesters outside the White House just before he was arrested for his part in the protest.

Bill McKibben, environmental activist and one of the ringleaders of the several weeks long protest event, said this on Friday about how this is not the end of the protests, it’s only the beginning:

These are serious stakes. “Game Over” stakes. What does that mean? Well, for climate, if you’ve liked the record-breaking heat this year in Texas, you’re in luck, as this could easily become the new normal with climate change. And with the heat, we’ve got the huge economic impacts of the drought. For farmers and ranchers, the Dallas Morning News is reporting a 5 billion dollar loss. Thats Billion with a B, folks.

So next time someone starts talking about how it’s “too expensive” to deal with climate change, do what the Violent Femmes say to do and “Add it Up.” (warning:song lyrics also NSFW because of those darn swearsies)  Loss from hurricanes like Irene, loss from this summer’s floods and tornadoes in Joplin, loss from drought, loss from wildfires, loss to the economy from dirty air (since hotter temperatures mean worse smog), and tell me that just continuing to do nothing and just putting more carbon into the atmosphere is potentially the most expensive thing we can do.

So, what does this have to do with Rice vs Texas? Well, what we have here is political expediency and taking the easy path instead of fighting for what is right. Regulations, regardless of their impact on a multinational corporation’s bottom line, save lives, and improve lives. This is what Ralph Nader fought for when he wrote Unsafe at Any Speed. Corporate whining and their record-breaking profits are not more important than people, and people’s’ rights to breathe clean air, or live in a stable climate. I, for one, am not willing to give up on Central Texas, and let this become the new normal for climate. When I first came to Austin, my literal first impression of the area was “I now understand why people were willing to die at The Alamo to protect this land.”

Decades ago, another President came to Texas to challenge a nation to go to the moon before the end of the decade, and asked an assembled crowd at Rice University the magic question.

“Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, “Because it is there.” … But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?“

President Kennedy answered his own question:

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

Climate change is the same challenge, which I previously hit on in another blog post where I also used this quote. It is certainly one we must be willing to accept, unwilling to postpone, and which we intend to win.

But, most importantly, he notes that “But this city of Houston, this state of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward.”

Let me take liberty with JFK’s speech where he talks about the need to build a space industry and replace it with a clean energy economy. “If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The [creation of a clean energy economy] will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for [clean energy].  Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of [energy]. We mean to be a part of it—we mean to lead it.“

Our economic torpor, our environmental problems, and yes, our hurricanes and droughts and wildfires, are ALL things we can solve if we are willing to take this same leadership role. Surely there will be pollution in the future, there will be recessions, there will be storms and droughts and fires– but they will NOT be supercharged by an ever-increasing blanket of carbon making our planet warmer and warmer. We must stop doing the same things over and over, relying on fossil fuels, and expecting different results. We must put our courage to the sticking place, and say that we will not allow the voices of a few, economically powerful and well-connected industries to wreak untold havoc on us and our neighborhoods.

You’ll notice, in JFK’s speech, he talks about the costs that a trip to the moon will require. He advocates not spending money recklessly, but in spending a large amount of money to win this challenge.

To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year’s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at 5 billion 400 million dollars a year—a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United States, for we have given this program a high national priority—even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240 thousand miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25 thousand miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun—almost as hot as it is here today—and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out—then we must be bold…

However, I think we’re going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don’t think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job.”

President Obama will be giving a speech on jobs later this week. In it, I’d love to hear even a smidgen of the boldness and realism of Kennedy. I’d love for him to recant his statement on the EPA smog rule, and say that he will stop the Keystone XL pipeline, as it will only increase our dependence on oil when we need to be quitting it. But I doubt it.

But, it could be worse. We could be realistically thinking about electing as President of the United States someone who believes climate change is a hoax, that climate scientists are in it for the money, and the best way to run a state is to slash the budget of the Forest Service, the agency responsible for fighting fires in Texas, by $34 million– almost one-third of its budget– on the eve of one of the most destructive fire seasons ever. It is worth noting that during the sunset hearings on the Texas Forest Service I testified as to the need of the Forest Service to engage in extra forecasting as to what a climate-change-fueled fire season would look like and be prepared to fight it, so this is a little bit of a personal issue for me.

Apologies for the political birdwalk and the sniping at the two likely major-party candidates for the Presidency. What is clear is what JFK was talking about: we must do things like fight climate change not because they are easy, but because they are hard, and because they are a challenge we are willing to accept and unwilling to postpone. It is a fight we must win, it is a fight for our very existence as we know it here in Texas.

This Saturday my alma mater will be coming to Austin to play Texas, and as my BYU Cougars sit as 4.5 point underdogs against the Longhorns, they and we must remember that this is why Rice plays Texas. This is why BYU plays Texas. To challenge ourselves, and organize our best efforts to make us better. That is why Rice plays Texas. And that is ultimately why we must get our head in the game on clean energy and quit our addictions to fossil fuels and their campaign contributions.

###

For updates on where exactly wildfires are raging in Texas, please visit http://ticc.tamu.edu/Response/FireActivity/

Off the Kuff looks at a movement to end pensions for public employees.

Amy Price is one of just a few progressives running for Houston City Council in 2011, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs is helping her campaign.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson show that the Texas GOP’s next trick will be to come after pubic employee pension to protect their wealthy campaign contributors, “Wisconsin-style” pension scheme coming to Texas.

I guess my favorite Rick Perry getup is “tough cowboy who shoots coyote with laser pistol”. Libby Shaw has some of the others at TexasKaos. Read all about it in her piece: Rick Perry’s Colorful Costumes.

This week, McBlogger considers The Audacity of Hopelessness.

Neil at Texas Liberal noted the absence of Tea Party sponsored highway rest stops between Cincinnati and Columbus. Government plays a role in our everyday lives that some of us may only consider when they are constant attack.

With the beginning of the college football season this weekend, Citizen Andy asks “Why does Rice play Texas?” And how does it relate to the wildfires, Obama’s cave-in on the EPA’s smog rules, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline protests, Hurricane Irene, and our continued drought and economic malaise, clean air, climate change, and a switch to a clean energy economy?

Well, we are faced with a La Nina weather pattern, bringing hot, dry weather to the Lonestar state. La Ninas have happened before and they’ll happen again- as evidence by the 86 year old record og 68 days of 100+ heat. For it to be hot in Texas in the summer is normal, but it’s not normal for it to be this hot for this many days.

Which brings us to climate change. Scientists theorizing about climate change decades ago predicted exactly what we are seeing now: slight upticks in temperature giving us more slightly hotter days. So, a day that would normally be 98 or 99 is now 101 or 102 due to the radiative forcings of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Or, like this informative video from Futurama explains it:

Things are even getting so bad that they’re delaying Texas football games by an hour to let the temperatures cool off.  So, as unprecedented as these individual points are, they don’t necessarilly individually indicate a pattern of warming. However, when you consider that in 2009 we were also in danger of breaking the 1925 record, and 2008 was also an unseasonably hot year, the fact that climate is getting hotter is in no doubt.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of folks wasting their time debating the science of climate change. Our Texas governor, Rick Perry, himself a well-known source of greenhouse gases, recently told people in New Hampshire that “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.” Call me crazy, but Perry sounds. . . well, crazy. Politifact looked into it and called his statement False.  That’s putting it nicely.  Perry was probably obliquely referring to the non-scandal known as Climategate, the only real scandal of which was that several scientists had their private emails hacked and published. Despite looking for problems with the scientists’ actual work reviews by several major agencies have cleared the scientists, including yet another one, today, from the National Science Foundation.

So, it’s hot. Those of us with functioning brains can understand why it’s hot, and getting hotter. So what do we do about it?

The first and most obvious step is energy efficiency. If we’re going to be demanding more cooling, rather than pumping out more pollution, let’s use that energy as efficiently as we can by sealing leaks in our homes, offices, etc. Let’s use more efficient lighting and appliances, all of which help keep our energy bills low. Let’s look at harnessing the power of that big hot Texas sun to do more than just melt our snowcones. Let’s look at oru energy policy holistically so that we can come up with cheaper, cleaner, cooler solutions to our energy needs.

Pearl Brewery, San Antonio - home of one of the largest solar roofs in the region

We’re in the midst of a heat wave and drought that are on record to be Texas’ worst in recorded history. (and now imagine if global warming actually kicked in, the way all those scientists say! *wink*)

But we have a few options. Cope, adapt, or conquer. I much prefer the last solution to the first.

First, we can cope. Rep. Joe Barton from here in Texas once famously said in a Congressional hearing that his constituents don’t have to worry about global warming- they’ll just find some shade. Well, we can do that. We can also do what is more likely which is just go sit in our homes and offices and blast the air conditioning as much as we can to make these ever-warming, record-breaking hot, dry summers as tolerable as possible.

The only problem is, all that electricity comes from somewhere. And with record-breaking demand on the ERCOT grid, they have been warning Texans to conserve or risk rolling blackouts. And while blasting the a/c may seem like an affordable luxury for the people who live in the McMansions of West Austin, I don’t know about the rest of you, but most Texas families can’t afford the huge energy bills that would be associated with just setting the thermostat at 70 and letting it go.

We can already see what coping is getting us.

Bluebonnet is already promising help to members and are refusing to disconnect any members during the hot summer months for non-payment. Pedernales is warning members to conserve or face ERCOT’s mandated rolling blackouts. A worse coping mechanism would be to double down on the bad policies which have contributed to the problem in the first place, which would mean building more pollution-belching, climate-killing coal-fired power plants. Even worse news is that this “solution” is far more expensive than any other, with building coal plants so fiscally shaky that they put coops’ financial futures at risk.

Or, we can adapt. We can change how we do things to stave off the worst effects of our unprecedented droughts and heat waves. This means doing smart things, like moving to smart meters, which help monitor and manage energy loads in individual home. Our central Texas coops have been among the best at rolling out some of these programs, including pilot smart meter programs at both the Bluebonnet and Pedernales Cooperatives. A greater push for efficiency decreases our need for consumption at peak times and the savings from efficiency from adding more insulation or weatherizing your home pay for themselves. Even being more responsive at peak is a a goal we can shoot for– imagine getting and email or a message on your smartphone from your coop to ask you to conserve energy and then being able to lower your thermostat or go into an energy saving mode for your appliances from your computer or your phone. That is the very real future of having a truly smart grid and smart meters in every home in your coop. And, of course, because this is a cooperative, when one of us saves money and demand, we all do, so it makes sense to use coop resources to take the bite out of our energy usage. But in the meantime, until your coop can let you change your thermostat from your iphone, you can work on voluntary conservation measures. PEC has created just this type of voluntary program to ask members to “Beat the Peak”, which would save coop member-owners millions of dollars if they would cut usage during the peak hours of 3-7pm.

Adapting is fine, but even better is conquering our problems. As Texans, and as Americans, this is generally the tactic most of us would choose. This would mean not only going after the low-hanging efficiency fruit, and aggressively going after demand-side management as a resource, but also looking for ways to turn our crisis into opportunity. While the Texas sun may be causing us problems, it can also be the key to our future, as solar prices drop to rates competitive with other “cheap” fossil fuels. Renewable wind power is also popular among cooperatives, with many Texas coops buying into wind. For example, the eight member coops who belong to the South Texas Electric Cooperative (STEC) recently ordered another 50 MW of wind power after a previous contract of 50 MW worked so well for member-owners. Golden Spread in Amarillo also recently bought into a local wind farm, a move which will save their member-owners money. Moving away from polluting fossil fuels will get us off the crazy train we’re currently on.

So, how do we beat the heat? Cope, Adapt, or Conquer. As I said, I’ll take the latter. In closing, here’s a fun video from one of our neighbors in Pedernales, (no, not Willie Nelson, but thanks for asking), a musical ode to the Big Hot Texas Sun.

Originally posted at MyEnergyCoop.org.

The Congressional map got its final legislative approval, and Off the Kuff analyzes the new districts.

This week WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the (in)action at The Lege. Quorums were broken and tempers flared, This week’s Political wrap-up, GOP laziness was the theme.

Bay Area Houston thinks the Texas Tea Party is calling for an immigration raid on homebuilder Bob Perry for his roll in killing their sanctuary bill.

This week, McBlogger tells us exactly why a federal debt default isn’t a good thing.

Rick Perry’s ‘aids’ (sic) are preparing to respond to the ‘crusted-over rumors’ of the governor’s alleged homosexual liasons. Chief ‘aid’ (sic) Dave Carney emphasizes that Perry is the ‘most tested’ candidate on the Republican side. Seriously, that’s what Politico wrote. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs has a screen shot.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme sees republican hate meets the greed of Rick Perry crony, Bob Perry. Greed wins.

Libby Shaw gives us the skinny: Rachel Maddow Debunks Rick Perry’s “Texas Miracle” Myth . Check it out at TexasKaos.

Public Citizen’s TexasVox shows us that while Houston implements water restrictions to deal with this global warming-enhanced drought, San Antonio is trying to do something about it by retiring their coal plant and making heavy investments in solar.

Neil at Texas Liberal compiled a Fourth of July reading list. As fun as it might be to blow off your fingers as you set off fireworks in violation of drought-mandated brushfire rules, it is even more fun to learn about your past. If you allow others to define your history—as, for example, we have allowed crazies to take over the symbolism of the Boston Tea Party—such folks will most likely use this power to also screw up your future.

At McBlogger, Cap’n Kroc discussed the ridiculous plan for Formula 1 racing in Austin and the possibility that it could help us extract better redistricting terms from the Lege. He also points out that that Rick Perry needs to come out of the closet and be himself. It’s a blockbuster post that you have to read to believe.

Congressional redistricting moved its way through the Senate and into the House last week, and Off the Kuff took a look at the numbers for the proposed new districts.

Libby Shaw provides the update on Governor Rooster Perry’s run for POTUS. Come check out what the national audience has in store for a Perry campaign at TexasKaos.

With all the talk last week about how Sarah Palin misinterpreted Paul Revere’s ride, Neil at Texas Liberal offered up a post about the actual event. You need to learn history for yourself. If you let others define your past, they will use that power to screw up your future.

Ryan at TexasVox gives us a double dose of bad news about opposition to the possible tar sands pipeline coming to Texas and the numerous spills they’ve had already.

Letters From Texas presented the case against Rick Perry for President.

The Republican Party of Texas can’t figure out whether to shit or go blind over “sanctuary cities”. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs collects the evidence.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks that the ‘new’ GOP is the same old bad joke if Rick Perry is the best candidate they have to offer.

NOTE: TexasVox and Public Citizen do not endorse all the positions taken by other members of the Texas Progressive Bloggers Alliance, but we are happy to share their thoughts.

The House passed on 2nd reading a bill which would give polluters a shield against being sued for nuisance over their greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, greenhouse gases include all sorts of bad pollution, like methane, and even the pollutants that cause smog: NOx and ozone. 

Even worse, there is concern that the Bonnen amendment would apply to every area of the state of Texas water code. 

This is a bailout for polluters and would take away your rights to stop emissions in your backyard that affect your family, your home, your farm, or ranch.

They say this is just about global warming, but it’s not!

Please call your Representative and tell him or her to

VOTE NO ON SB 875

Talking points to tell your legislator when you get their staff on the phone:

This bill is far more than a global warming bill – it’s immunity for polluters

The original bill was a bad concept, but it only limited local governments’ right to bring nuisance or trespass lawsuits for greenhouse gases.  The new version significantly expands the scope of the bill and TAKES AWAY PEOPLES’ (INDIVIDUALS, FARMERS, RANCHERS, BUSINESSES AND LOCAL GOVTS) RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY FROM POLLUTION.

The Bonnen amendment went way too far

Please vote no

UPDATE: We’ve added a little here and there based on some new information we’ve gotten since first publishing this, specifically some information from NRECA (National Rural Electric Cooperative Association) and Pedernales’ counsel about the effects of converting to SMDs.

Well folks, yesterday marked the beginning of voting for the board of the Pedernales Electric Coop.  I’m a proud co-op member, something I couldn’t have said several years ago when the co-op board met behind closed doors and the board nominated its own members. But now we have returned to the principle of democratic control by the member-owners of the co-op, in no small part due to the work of Public Citizen and others.

There’s been a lot of news recently about PEC and Public Citizen’s involvement in the reform effort.  We’re not going to comment on that just yet, as we want to keep this focused on the issue at hand, which is the election.  Voters across the co-op have the opportunity to vote for two board seats and on a member referendum about future elections and how they should take place.

You can vote in three ways.  A ballot should have been mailed to you on Wednesday according to PEC staff.  In it you will see that you can vote for candidates in Districts 2 and 3 and on the question of single member districts.  You can see videos of each of the candidates at the PEC Candidate Forum online here. We’ll let the candidates speak for themselves on why they should get your vote, as we do not and will not endorse anyone in these races.

However, what’s missing in all of this is a discussion about the pros and cons of single member district voting. Below I’ve attached the presentation we made to board candidates about what we would like to see in the future for PEC. We lay out a broad vision that investing in the future and the key to lower rates is efficiency and renewables. These also just so happen to help things like clean air, create jobs, and use little water in comparison to traditional power generation.  We believe that as a co-op, based on the principles of what a cooperative is (as opposed to a private utility or municipal utility), we have a special place in the community to be responsible, ethical, and think about the greater good of our policy choices.

Beware– this presentation is loooooooong, but I wanted to bring attention specifically to the slides about the pros and cons of single member districts. (pgs 15-19)

But in the spirit of transparency we wanted to put the entirety of what we spoke to the board candidates about out there. You know, in case someone publicly accuses you of being a secretive, corrupt cabal that pulls the strings at the co-op.

So, let’s discuss single member districts, or SMDs for short. I’m putting on my political science hat (my Political Science 350:  “Theories of Democracy and Democratization” professor would be so proud of me) and let’s talk about what SMDs actually do.  I’m personally agnostic about how people should vote on this. I see good sides and down sides to it, but both sides deserve an airing.

But first, what are we voting on?  This is how it will appear on the ballot:

The Bylaws of the Cooperative require a vote of the Members to recommend to the Board which system should be used for future Director Elections. Please select which of the following options that you prefer for electing PEC Directors.

(A) ______ At-Large System. Under the current, at-large system, the seven Directors reside in different geographical districts. Directors are locally nominated by petition of Members within their district but elected by a vote of Members from all districts, across the Cooperative. Under this system, all Cooperative Members are eligible to vote every year.

(B) ______ Single-Member System. Under a Single-Member System, each of the seven Directors would reside in a different geographical district. They would be nominated and elected locally, by action of only Members within their district. Each Cooperative Member would normally be eligible to vote every three years, when his or her local Director is up for election.

(C) ______ Hybrid, Combination of At-Large and Single-Member System. Under a Hybrid system, most Directors would be elected locally, by members within their Single-Member districts. A smaller number would be elected by all Members of the Cooperative. Each Cooperative Member would normally be eligible to vote every year. This method would require Members to approve a change to the Cooperative Articles of Incorporation.

For how PEC views the issue, please take a look at this document, prepared by PEC staff for GM Juan Garza back when this discussion came up over a year ago.  Among the most important things here are the VAST difference in populations between districts-  Dist 2 and 3 (Anderson Mill, Cedar Park, Leander, Liberty Hill, Georgetwon outskirts) are both by far the largest, followed not too far behind by Buda/Kyle/Circle C-centric District 7 and Marble Falls/Horseshoe Bay/Bertram in District 1.  Switching to SMDs has serious implications for how this would shift the balance of power heavily in favor of the Austin suburbs, and require more frequent redistricting. They also point out that some members would not be able to vote in a board election for over 6 years because of election cycles.  Not very democratic.

Beyond that, here are just some general arguments based on the political science of what kinds of systems you create with single member districts vs voting at large.

The Arguments for Single Member Districts

SMD’s are simple. People inherently understand them because we’re familiar with voting for Congress this way. They also give more empowerment to majorities. Say you live in Cedar Park/North Austin (District 3). If a majority opinion exists in your district that says you want a solar program like Austin Energy has to defray some of the cost or help finance you putting photovoltaics on your house and you want to sell the excess electricity back to the co-op, then once elected the board member is free to represent that opinion, whereas if you are elected at large you understand that people of the minority opinion (who want no solar program) may also have voted for you, often leading to a greater concern about minority rights.

SMD means all majorities all the time, since the only thing you need to worry about is getting 50%+1 of the votes cast in the next election from your home district.  With the majority of co-op members living in the Austin suburbs, SMDs would make the c0-op very Austin-suburb-centric very quickly. Depending on your view of the co-op, you may view that as a positive or a negative, but it would certainly change the character of the co-op from being somewhat rural-centric to very Austin centric.

SMDs also give a sense of connection between the voters and the person they elected. This has both good and bad sides- there is a greater loyalty to the specific interests of the constituents who elected you, but this has the unfortunate byproduct of creating problems of “pork” and pitting geographic areas against one another.  Because I’m advocating for “my” voters, I want to bring home the bacon for “my” constituents.  So the people of Cedar Park and Leander may pit themselves against Kyle/Buda or Marble Falls/Horseshoe Bay.  Because so much of our infrastructure cost is associated with running poles and wires, and it’s always more expensive to run one line out to one house in a rural area but is relatively cheap to wire up an entire new subdivision, board members may be inclined to favor policies which make rural customers pay more for their relatively expensive services.

SMDs are also going to require more frequent redistricting. As much growth is going on in some areas of the co-op, and not others, the districts quickly get out of whack and no longer represent a “one-man, one vote” sort of system.  Soon one board member is representing 30% more people than another board member, yet they both have an equal vote- meaning that the vote strength of the larger districts are diluted.  Voting at large is more forgiving, as even if your districts gains or loses population, you still are elected by every eligible voter.

Bottom line: Single Member Districts will surely make the co-op more suburban/exurban focused: depending on your point of view,you might call that a bad thing or a good thing. It will create geographic splits in the co-op, but may empower majority board members to adopt their agenda more easily.

Arguments for voting at large

Voting at large is the norm for most co-ops across the country and is also how many small and medium cities run their governments.  Because turnout is relatively low, we give everyone as much of a chance to weigh in as possible.  In fact, most of the cities served by PEC elect their city councils at-large.

Voting at large means that while board members may represent one specific geographic area, their constituency is the entire co-op.  This means their duty is toward the common good of all, not to one specific area. There is therefore less balkanization of the co-op. Given the spirit of cooperatives that “We’re all in this together” makes at-large voting a more natural fit. And given the history of co-ops having to be formed because the big utilities claimed it wasn’t profitable enough for them to run their poles and wires out to the rural areas, having a system that gives equal representation to a rural voter and a suburban voter is only fitting.

Furthermore, everyone gets to vote every year. With an SMD, you would only get one vote every three years, and if you didn’t like how things were going you would have to wait until your board member was up for election again to try to affect change.

Some critics of the current board have claimed that SMDs would keep the co-op free from special interest influence, but this is demonstrably false. Our members of Congress and State Legislature are elected from SMDs, and last time I checked special interests are pretty influential in Washington and Austin.  In fact, if SMDs drive down turnout, as is likely, that makes it MORE possible, not less, that a small outside group using direct mail, canvassing, and other modern campaign tactics could win a co-op seat. The lower the turnout, the more impact every vote counts.  If you want to reduce the possibility of influence from special interests, increase turnout. Don’t enact policies that would likely reduce it.

Option 3: A hybrid system

The way this option is written it says a “majority” of seats would be SMDs but based on the idea that everyone still got at least one vote every year.  With a current board size of 7, a majority is 4, and if you want to vote every year you need 3 at-large seats. So for this discussion’s sake let’s assume that is what the co-op would adopt. Well, you can argue this is the best of both worlds- or does it just exacerbate the problems of both systems?  Almost no matter how you slice up the co-op, you will have one extremely large district and probably 2 that are dominated in population by the Austin suburbs. A third would be a medium sized district made up of exurban population centers.  Or you could draw balanced districts that were relatively equal in size as well as population, but that would again put more emphasis on the Austin suburbs as it’s just simpler to get your votes in the compact suburban areas rather than in the sparsely populated rural ones.

Hybrid systems also change the character of boards/councils.  In many cases, the members at large can have disproportionate influence, though it’s impossible to say. In some cases, because they have no geographic power base, the at large members become less important.  Other times, because they represent the entire area they have more influence. Either the inclination towards “pork” and balkanization is counteracted by the at large seats, or they also vote based on their own perceived constituencies, exacerbating the problem.

In any case, co-op members would be represented at all times by 4 members of the Board they individually had the opportunity to vote for (one from your district and 3 at large seats).  And you would get to vote every year, which is a bonus.

Regardless, given the population dispersion of the co-op, truly at large seats would likely be filled by people from the Austin suburbs, just because that’s where the majority of the population is.  Even though they would represent the whole co-op, this plan would, again, like SMDs, tilt the balance of the co-op towards the wants of the suburban areas.

Conclusion

So now I’ve confused myself even more and I have my minds even less made up about which system to vote for:

At large seems to keep the spirit of “all in it together” alive,

SMDs are simple and easy to understand,

and a hybrid system could potentially be the best of both, or the worst of both.

Ultimately, democracy is decided by the people who show up. You have the opportunity to vote on board seats- something we couldn’t do even 5 years ago. Please study the issues and the candidates and choose wisely.

Related Articles

• Cobb EMC members move to unseat board (ajc.com)
• Embattled CEO out for now at Cobb EMC (ajc.com)
• PEC names new CEO (texasvox.org)

The long range plan to kill public education is reaching the end game. Over at TexasKaos lightseeker talks about seeing one of the (unintentional) moving parts at a public lecture given by one of the premier charter schools in the nation. Check out Educational Reform and Our Common Peril!

Bay Area Houston has the latest on State Representative Larry Taylor’s emergency surgery.

What conservatives believe to be true ranks far above what is actually true, and even what is demonstrably true according to science and mathematics. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs points out that this why Rick Perry declares Easter weekend as ‘Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas’, and why John Cornyn “isn’t so sure” that Jon Kyl was wrong when he claimed that abortions were 90% of Planned Parenthood’s budget. It should consequently be no surprise that they place no value in teachers and education.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks the Texas Supreme Court, aka the republican crony justice system, sucks.

Always looking out for your mental health and well-being, Letters From Texas Worldwide Headquarters, Psychological Testing Department, offers a redistricting rorschach test.

The Senate Finance Committee lead by GOP Senator Steve Ogden approved their version of the Texas budget last week. WCNews at Eye On Williamson shows that it truly is the lesser of two evils.

How about a bit of good news for a change? Off the Kuff notes that a bill that gives microbreweries greater latitude in getting their beers to customers passed the House last week.

Neil at Texas Liberal praised Governor Perry for his call for prayer to end the severe drought in Texas. At the same time, Neil asked that if prayer can end the drought, might it be that Texas is being punished by God for hard-hearted policies towards the poor?

McBlogger take a looks back on one idea to bring more water to Texas that will work, and another that’s from Governor Perry.

Easter Lemming discovers Oh the places you will go as an iPhone, even if it is no longer your iPhone.

And because late is better than never, some reheated leftovers from last week’s roundup that we missed because of pressing business in the Pink Dome that interrupted blogging activities.

The Texas Progressive Alliance sincerely hopes that the wildfires in West Texas will soon be controlled as it brings you this week’s roundup for 4/18.

The first State House redistricting map is out, and Off the Kuff has a look at it and some alternatives to it.

Letters From Texas poked fun at the…um…hard turn John Sharp’s web domain has taken, in which somebody has…um…erected quite a different focus. But most of the week was spent on more serious concerns – the West Texas range fires.

Having previously declared himself out on supporting President Obama’s re-election campaign, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs finds even less to like about the rumored candidacy of Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez for US Senate. Less, as in nothing.

The Texas Cloverleaf looks at the proposed TX House redistricting implications in Denton County.

This week on Left of College Station, Teddy covers the local politics of the City of College Station controversial vote to annex the community of Wellborn, and Teddy covers the national politics of the Congressional Republicans failure to lead by their politicalization of military pay. Left of College Station also covers the week in headlines.

From Bay Area Houston: The Houston Chronicle asks How stupid are Texans?

DosCentavos opines on State Rep. Leo Berman’s kinder gentler racism through a “cost-saving” English-only bill.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants everyone to know that Victoria DA Hissy Fit’s tainted case against city officials has been dropped.

The Texas GOP released it’s proposed map of Texas state House districts for the next decade. Dembones at Eye On Williamson posted about the most oddest shaped district in the map, Gerrymandering Wilco.

Libby Shaw at TexasKaos tells us that When Middle Schoolers Serve in Congress there is price to be paid.

Neil at Texas Liberal noted that Rick Perry has asked Barack Obama and Washington on help with Texas wildfires. While everybody impacted by the fires merits help, it sure is something that Washington-basher Rick Perry feels he must turn to the federal government to solve Texas problems. Where are the Texas Tea Party citizen-volunteer disaster relief teams to help people in need?

Like many, the crew at McBlogger is feeling the pinch of higher gas prices. What’s really causing it and what can be done about it may surprise you.

Oh, and on a completely unrelated note and blog, I warn you not to go see the new movie version of Atlas Shrugged.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5byZatNW85o]

After that, several other folks dealing with the health impacts of hydraulic fracturing stepped up to the mic: Calvin Tillman, the Mayor of Dish, TX, a city at the heart of the frack debate, Tammi Vajda a resident of Flower Mound and Sister Elizabeth Riebschlaeger who lives on the Eagle Ford Shale, who absolutely brought the house down.

The final clip features my remarks, which you can mostly fast forward through to get to  Alyssa Burgin of the Texas Drought Project.

We heartily recommend you read the report and call your legislators about the problems Texas faces with fracking. And special thanks to Donna Hoffman at the Sierra Club who took this video.  You can check out their blog at texasgreenreport.wordpress.com

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

A megawatt of electricity from a natural gas power plant will generally produce anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the greenhouse gas emissions, specifically CO2, compared to a megawatt from a coal plant.  And since coal plants have rightfully been targeted as the biggest climate polluters the natural gas folks have been positioning themselves as the cheaper, cleaner alternative.

Not so fast, since methane, the main component of natural gas, is also a greenhouse gas that the EPA rates as having 20 times the heat-trapping capacity of CO2.  Since so much methane is released into the atmosphere during the fracking and drilling process, Howarth’s study questions that assumption, implying the climate benefits are minimal, if they even exist.  From The Hill:

More broadly, many gas supporters see domestic reserves as a “bridge” fuel while alternative energy sources are brought into wider use.

Howarth’s study questions this idea.

“The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming,” the study states.

But [natural gas industry spokesmen] also note that gas has other advantages over coal as an energy source, due to its lower emissions of conventional pollutants including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

The study cautions that the research is not meant to justify continued use of oil and coal, but rather to show that using shale gas as a substitute might not provide the desired checks on global warming.

Howarth and Cornell engineering Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, who also worked on the study, acknowledged uncertainties in the nexus between shale gas and global warming in a presentation last month.

“We do not intend for you to accept what we reported on today as the definitive scientific study with regard to this question. It is clearly not. We have pointed out as many times as we could that we are basing this study on in some cases questionable data,” Ingraffea said at a mid-March seminar, which is available for viewing on Howarth’s website.

“What we are hoping to do by this study is to stimulate the science that should have been done before, in my opinion, corporate business plans superceded national energy strategy,” he added.

This is an incredibly important discussion to have, especially given the impacts that fracking is having on our air, water, health, and our state budget.

UPDATE: The Texas Energy Report got some good response from around the Capitol and we couldn’t help include it:

“Sounds like the coal industry may have funded it,” joked Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), author of Senate Bill 15, which would create a 20-year energy and environmental policy council for Texas.

“The direction they’re going is exactly opposite of what we hear that natural gas is cleaner with less greenhouse emissions. We’ve always worked under that premise,” said Fraser who is also chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

***“I would like to see it. I don’t know what they’re drawing their conclusions on. I would say it’s interesting – significant I don’t know,” said Rep. Jim Keffer, chairman of the House Energy Resources Committee.  “We’ll have to take a look at it. I’m sure there’ll be another side.”

Keffer is the author of a bill to require oil and gas companies drilling for shale gas to disclose the contents of chemicals they inject into the ground with water and sand during fracking. Fracking involves high-pressure injections of water into the ground to fracture rock formations and release gas.

The Environmental Defense Fund of Texas, which has embraced Keffer’s bill as the most significant fracking disclosure measure in the nation, said more work is needed to determine the air quality implications of fracking.

“Though we have questions about the study’s emissions estimates, it nevertheless highlights the importance of getting better data,” said Ramon Alvarez of the EDF.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Off the Kuff discusses the bet the Republicans have made about how the voters will react to deep cuts to public education.

At TexasKaos, Lightseeker warns Don’t Buy Into the Lie – Help Spread the Truth About the Fiscal Mess! Updated with video! Check it out – be part of the solution, not part of the problem…

From Bay Area Houston: Unlike the gop who believes the solution to teen pregnancy is duct tape and a $50,000 speaking engagement by Bristol Palin, PP actually provides education services, family planning services, and low cost birth control.

Barack Obama asked the question “Are You In?” last week, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs decided he wasn’t.

Texas has a revenue problem that’s so bad even the GOP is starting to realize it. WCNews at Eye On Williamson posted about that this week, Texas GOP tax talk getting louder.

The Texas Cloverleaf looks at the potential, and potentially wacky, new districts in which Denton County might end up.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes that republicans want to stop you from voting, kill public education and control women’s uteri. Did you see anything about creating jobs, except for the special uterus police?

Neil at Texas Liberal noted that while it is great for Houston Mayor Annise Parker that she raised $1 million for her reelection campaign in a single night, this fact is much less relevance to a public that finds little to care about in a Houston city politics that is nearly devoid of grassroots enthusiasms.

Off the Kuff notes that when one Bradley goes away, another one gets nominated.

Three Wise Men examines the possibility of a federal government shutdown and what Republicans are doing with the budget in Texas.

Musings rounds up news on teacher layoffs across Texas.

Presenting the comedy gold of the Honorable Anthony Weiner of The Bronx, NY, now showing for a limited time at Brains and Eggs.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme says you just have to read the paper to see how republicans are destroying every thing and everybody they can.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson says It’s time for the left to join the class war.

At TexasKaos, more on Perry’s assult on our State’s future. See GOP Robs Texas of its Future. If this doesn’t make clear what Perry is doing, you will never get it.

Marking the 43rd annivesary of the death of Martin Luther King, Neil at Texas Liberal reposted his 2011 MLK Reading & Reference List. Every day is the right day to be hopeful. Study MLK’s life and make the decision to take action for a better America. Nobody will do the work of freedom and democracy for you.

Who would have guessed that the biggest problem we have in the US is that taxes are too low? Turns out, that’s THE problem with the budget, not spending.

What a week. And here’s a little something for today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

APRIL 1, 2011

HOLLYWOOD, CA — X-men are “gone to Texas” for their premiere, which will take place on the grounds of the country’s newest and potentially largest nuclear waste dump.

Fox executive Tim Rothman said, “The X-men have been referred to as ‘The Children of the Atom’- so we decided to showcase that in our premiere”

Harold Simmons

While the site, owned by Waste Control Specialists and Dallas supervillain billionaire Harold Simmons, only contains so-called “low level” radioactive waste, the waste site will house all of the radioactive waste created by a nuclear reactor except for spent fuel rods, meaning there is plenty of radiation emitted by some waste products to have its desired effect:

“We’d really like to cut costs for future sequels by creating actual super-powered mutants,” said Rothman. “Who better to start irradiating than our actual cast?”

Rothman also noted that the proximity of the waste site to the Ogalalla Aquifer, which provides water to 11 states, is also ideal. “There’s how many million people who might drink this water? Surely some of them will have to get superpowers!” Several Texas environmental regulators quit their jobs in protest of the waste dump possibly leaking into the water.

Executive Producer Bryan Singer and Director Matthew Vaughn also added this statement, “We love the idea. This is the type of groundbreaking marketing we ought to do more of, and will allow us to use more practical effects in future… no, stop! They have guns to our heads and have kidnapped our families. We’re being forced to say this.This is a &#$%ing TERRIBLE IDEA. Don’t believe anything…” They were unavailable for further comment.

In an unprecedented display of corporate synergy, this will further tighten the bonds between billionaires, campaign finance spending, and Fox.  Simmons, who is known for his political contributions to Republican candidates, will donate the use of his site rather than making more ad buys attacking Barack Obama on Fox News, a sister company of  20th Century Fox. “It’s all Rupert [Murdoch]‘s  money anyway, so who cares? We billionaires have to stick together. We thought we’d help out our team indirectly this time instead of giving more campaign bribes, err donations to politicians, as those usually have to be disclosed, ” a spokesperson for Simmons stated.

###

We here at Public Citizen Texas are aghast at this proposal and will keep our eye on further developments to try to keep you informed. We’d like to remind everyone of the date today, April 1, and to keep an eye out for tricksters who might try to pull any sort of sort of trick on folks here in Texas.  Like, say, storing a bunch of nuclear waste here, making us the dumping ground for the country. Or opening the state to radioactive waste from all over the country, turning Texas into the nation’s dumping ground.

That’s the real trick. And it’s not very funny.

Alliance for Clean Texas Members (l to r) Luke Metzger, Environment Texas; Tom "Smitty" Smith, Public Citizen Texas; Robin Schnieder, Texas Campaign for the Environment; David Weinberg, Texas League of Conservation Voters; Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club - photo courtesy TLCV

As lawmakers are loathe to talk about the dreaded “T” word (tax),  groups like Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Texas Impact, Texas Campaign for the Environment, and Texas League of Conservation Voters, who sponsored this morning’s press conference, are offered alternative solutions to cutting needed education and health care services by raising $1 billion in revenue, while also protecting the environment.

These ideas include a severance tax, like oil and gas currently pay, for coal mined in the state and an import duty from out of state coal. Imported coal creates zero Texas jobs and pollutes the environment. If we’re going to ask oil and gas to pay a severance tax, we ought to ask coal to do the same.

Other ideas include making polluters pay the value they get from breaking clean air and water laws (ie, if by polluting you increase your profit by $15 million, you pay $15 million in fines), a surcharge on inefficient gas guzzlers and heavily polluting vehicles, and a recycling refund on bottles and cans (just clap your hands, just clap your hands!).

Cutting pollution would also mean fewer sick kids, fewer sick people in general.  Children and the elderly are most at risk for pollution-caused or -aggravated disease AND they are the most likely to receive assistance from government health care services, so cutting pollution will save the state untold millions, if not billions. AND, since sick children are less likely to attend and be successful in school, cutting pollution also improves the quality of our schools– a triple value for our pollution-cutting dollar!

Combine this with former Lt. Governor Hobby calling on the state to end the tax credit on high-cost drilling operations (read: fracking) valued at $7.4 billion between 2004 and 2009.  We had previously pointed out the hypocrisy of making the oil and gas industry’s culture of corporate welfare the only sacred cow in the budget due to their protected status resulting from all their campaign contributions.

Well, between the billions from the fracking exemption, the billion of Green revenue the ACT coalition mentioned… as they say in Washington, “A billion here, a billion there– pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”

Alliance for Clean Texas has a $1 billion check for the Texas Legislature

State lawmakers who are serious about balancing the budget without brutalizing our schools, nursing homes, and hospitals ought to look carefully at these proposals and implement them.  Even in the coldest, darkest winter, a farmer cannot start eating his own seed, as it will impact his ability to plant in the spring. Cutting necessary services to the bone and then sucking out the marrow will leave Texas cupboards bare, both literally and figuratively, as we struggle out of this recession.

The answer is simple- cut pollution, not teachers, doctors, and nursing home beds. Don’t let big polluters get their way, forcing grandma out onto the street and your kids into overcrowded classrooms.

The Texas House will be taking up HB 1, the budget, this Friday, and debate is expected to last all day and into the night. Texas Impact, one of our colleagues in ACT, along with several other groups are organizing a vigil for Texas’ future during the debate. RSVP on Facebook and we’ll see you there!

Look! A press release! From today’s press conference!

$1 BILLION GREEN DOLLARS FOR TEXAS: LEADING ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES PRESENT WORKABLE SOLUTIONS TO HELP BRIDGE STATE’S BUDGET GAP

AUSTIN, TX—The Alliance for a Clean Texas outlined $1 billion in “green revenue” that could be available to state lawmakers as they work to craft a budget that bridges a $27 billion shortfall for the next biennium.

“Green revenue sources could generate at least $1 billion in general revenue for the state’s budget,” said David Weinberg, Executive Director of the Texas League of Conservation Voters and ACT Executive Committee member. “We have an opportunity to help balance the budget, limit draconian cuts to essential state services and improve our environment. That’s a combination we feel is worthy of lawmakers’ consideration.”

As the Senate Finance Sub-Committee on Fiscal Matters works to find additional savings and state revenue, ACT and its statewide allies outlined several proposals that make up $1 billion green revenue for the state:

1)  Generating revenue from coal could raise $475 million for Texas for the biennium. Placing a fee on coal imported to Texas would generate about $190 million in revenue per year for the state.  Placing a severance tax on coal mined in Texas would raise an additional $48 million per year.  Currently, Texas taxes domestically drilled oil and gas.  Placing a fee on coal could help the state offset the adverse public health impacts from coal generating power.  State Representative Lon Burnam has filed HB 335, which would place a fee on imported coal.

2)  Creating a Recycling Refund for Beverage Containers in Texas could generate an estimated $350 million for the biennium.  Placing a refundable deposit on beverage containers would increase recycling and decrease litter.  Unclaimed bottle deposits could generate revenue for the state, money that could be used to fund waste prevention and reduction programs.  Such a program would also create thousands of recycling and reuse jobs in Texas.  State Senator Rodney Ellis has filed SB 1119 and State Representative Garnett Coleman has filed HB 2114, which would create a refundable bottle deposit program in Texas.

3)  Placing a surcharge on inefficient vehicles could generate $115 million for Texas for the biennium. Fuel-inefficient vehicles pollute our urban air, increasing rates of ozone and asthma, and increase our dependence on foreign oil.  The Legislative Budget Board has recommended a $100 surcharge on fuel-inefficient vehicles as a way of generating revenue for Texas.  State Representative Lon Burnam has filed HB 3067, which would create a surcharge on fuel-inefficient vehicles in Texas.

4) Strengthening clean-air rules at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to ensure that polluters pay could generate $56 million in revenue for Texas for the biennium. Raising the maximum per-day penalty for air quality violations to $25,000 per day could raise an estimated $40 million for the biennium, while requiring the agency to recover the economic benefit of non-compliance that polluters gain would add additional revenue to these totals. All of these funds go to General Revenue and can be used for schools. Removing the 4,000 tons per day cap on emissions could raise an additional $16 million for the biennium.  These measures would create an incentive for industry to reduce pollution, and this revenue could be used to fund clean-air programs.  State Senator Joan Huffman has filed SB 657 and State Representative Wayne Smith has filed HB 2694 to strengthen air-pollution rules in Texas though neither bill addresses the 4,000-ton cap as had been recommended by the Sunset Advisory Commission.

“We import 60 million tons of dirty coal per year for electrical power generation, sending $19 billion of our hard earned dollars out of state when that money could be better spent developing clean energy jobs in Texas.  Coal is a fuel source that’s both harmful to the environment, detrimental to public health and doesn’t contribute a dime to the state in the form of severance taxes,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, of Public Citizen “By imposing a coal import fee and a severance tax, we could generate $475 million.

“The majority of Texans support a recycling refund on cans and bottles because the financial incentive for recycling would clean up our communities, save on pollution control costs and have money left over to meet other pressing needs of the state,” said Robin Schneider of Texas Campaign for the Environment.

“Dirty gas guzzling cars and trucks not only pump out unnecessary pollution that costs us our health, they also exacerbate our dependence on oil,” said Luke Metzger, Director of Environment Texas. “A fee on these vehicles could help fund clean air programs and provide incentives for Texans to purchase fuel efficient cars and trucks.”

“Giving our state environmental agency the ability to charge fines more in line with major pollution events and charge an emissions fee for those spewing out more than 4,000 tons of a pollutant couldn’t come at a better time for Texas,” noted Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director with the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.  ”Making sure those businesses that break the law pay for any economic benefit they gain will provide a financial disincentive for companies that pollute our air and poison our water, and reward good behavior for those that play by the rules.”

Cutting Pollution-Related Health Care Costs Would Save GR

In addition to generating new “green” revenue, advocates said the state could save more than $320 million in general revenue spending on health care by reducing air pollution. Texas Impact released an analysis of air pollution-related costs in Medicaid, CHIP and the state employee health insurance program showing that Texas currently spends $300 million per biennium on the state’s share of Medicaid and CHIP costs for air pollution-related diseases and conditions, and $23 million per biennium for the same costs in the state employee health insurance system. Altogether, the three programs are estimated to account for $1.9 billion in general revenue spending over five years.

“Medicaid is the most important budget driver after public education, and we simply can’t afford to be creating extra health cost burdens,” said Bee Moorhead of Texas Impact. “Clearing the air for all Texans not only would reduce unnecessary suffering—it would save taxpayers money as well.”

ACT was joined by representatives from the Texas League of Conservation Voters, Public Citizen, Texas Campaign for the Environment, Environment Texas, the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Texas Impact to urge lawmakers to look for greener, cleaner ways to generate revenue.  The green revenue could lessen the cuts that the Legislature is pondering for public education, higher education and health care.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

If the goal of the 81st Texas Legislature and Governor Rick Perry is to stifle job creation in Texas for the next two years, then Off the Kuff says they’re knocking it out of the park.

Letters From Texas rolls its collective eyes about the word games played by the Republicans in charge, as they announce their Senate subcommittee to find “non-tax revenue.” Earth to Republicans: if we used to own it, but now the government owns it, it’s a tax.

Musings looks ahead to 2021 when the Texas economy is in the ditch and many thousands of children have had a substandard education. Do we solve the problem now, or wait until we go to the ballot box in Nov. 2012?

Lightseeker tries to put the present battle into perspective with his posting at TexasKaos, Connecting the dots: Killing Education, Killing Unions, Funding the Tea Partiers [revised]. Give it a look. The videos are worth the price of admission by themselves!

WCNews at Eye On Williamson has this to say about the austerity budget that the House passed out of committee this week, House Appropriations passes budget – tea party blamed for cuts.

In the latest post regarding the poll he’s conducting on the mortgage interest tax deduction, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs explains why he has never owned a home.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme warns that republicans are near their goal of killing public education for k-12 and at the university level.

Neil at Texas Liberal apologized for ever having voted for Houston City Councilmember C.O. Bradford for any public office. Neil feels that voting for Mr. Bradford was one of the worst ballot box mistakes he has ever made.

refinish69 is ever amazed by the stupidity of the Texas Ledge. It is the gift that keeps on giving. Case in point is Rep. David Simpson’s Don’t Touch My Junk Bill.

This week, McBlogger takes a look at what austerity will do to Texas.

WhosPlayin has been focused on City Council elections and the criminal records of two of the candidates, each of whom has assault convictions, and each of whom lied on their ballot application.

Off the Kuff discusses the budget deal that allows for Rainy Day funds to be used to close the current biennium’s shortfall.

DosCentavos compares theMexican shootin’ Missouri legislator and the goings on at the Texas Capitol; and tell us what Dems should be doing.

Bay Area Houston notes When the Galveston County Republican Party Chair slept with teabaggers he woke up with a bad taste in his mouth…..and no job.

Are you in favor of preserving the mortgage interest income tax deduction, or do you favor phasing it out for larger, more expensive homes and/or wealthier taxpayers — or eliminating it altogether? PDiddie wants your opinion at Brains and Eggs.

Musings gives an update on the ground perspective of why schools need more support staff, not less, in order to ensure student success with the new, more rigorous curriculum and testing mandated by the Legislature and SBOE.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson makes clear that the recent “drama” surrounding whether to spend some of the Rainy Day Fund was done for political cover, better known as The Show.

This week, McBlogger takes a look at two crazy people who are, unbelievably, elected officials.

refinish69 is disgusted and dismayed at the stupidity that is the Texas Ledge. Nothing like a Clean Crapper Bill or protecting the ignorant to make the State of Texas proud.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme suspects that Republican hate against Muslims resulted in fires at a Houston Mosque. Republicans have sliced and diced the American public every which way – women, people of color, gays, teachers, nurses, Jews, Muslims and who knows what else. Wisconsin has woken up. Lets hope the rest of America soon follows.

At TexasKaos, lightseeker is Shocked! Shocked! at the new “edited” video that has hit the web. Check out The Media Fail Us Again- of NPR and Edited Videos.

Neil at Texas Liberal came across an example of extreme government direction of our lives.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), or "the stimulus" provided funds for a broad range of priorities, but did Texas spend the money wisely?

Public Citizen has been a member of a coalition that has attempted to bring more sunshine, more transparency, and more good government to the implementation on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “The Stimulus.” Two years since its passage much of the funding appropriated has been spent, but there is still more to do. Our groups yesterday released a report “It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over: The Texas Legislature and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act” which can be found at http://www.txstimulus.com.

It is worth noting that the txstimulus.com website was originally used by a select committee in the Texas Legislature charged with keeping an eye on how Texas spent ARRA funds.  Bee Moorhead in an interview with the Texas Tribune explained what happened to the website and all of that information the committee had been collecting:

During his days as select committee chairman, (Jim) Dunnam (chair of the select committee) set up a website — txstimulus.com — to provide documents and information on stimulus spending, culled from the committee’s hearings and correspondence with the Texas congressional delegation. In March, the domain, which was registered in Dunnam’s name, lapsed, taking all the information it contained therein.

Enter Bee Moorhead, executive director of Texas Impact, a statewide interfaith organization, and the new owner of txstimulus.com. “Legislative committees can use the internet really effectively, and there are great examples of committees doing that this year,” said Moorhead, citing efforts of the Senate Business and Commerce Committee, “but those websites contain government information, and they can’t just be handled like some individual’s blog.”

The coalition also released a set of recommendations to help Texas improve its transparency. #4 is my personal favorite and one of my pet issues, but all are important. These recommendations are explored more in depth in the press release accompanying this post, which is available in full after the jump.

1. Draw down the unemployment dollars.

2. Keep a legislative eye on the game till it’s over.

3. Move the low-income weatherization program from TDHCA to SECO.

4. Modernize Texas’ Freedom of Information Act.

5. Make the Texas Fusion Center’s budget transparent.

6. Require more project-specific information on TxDOT projects.

7. Be ready for more funding.

8. Target ARRA energy efficiency dollars to areas of greatest need.

9. Build on ARRA health infrastructure investment.

10. Protect the integrity of all state government-related websites.

Included in our report are in-depth analysis of spending on transportation, weatherization, energy efficiency, health care, and others. I highly recommend you read this important piece of research, or at least bookmark it for future reference.  Please to enjoy.

Our coalition press release:

“It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over”

Advocates Say Legislature Should Still Care About ARRA

AUSTIN, TX- In a report issued today, Texas public interest advocates urge the Texas Legislature to maximize Texas’ remaining opportunities regarding the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). The report argues that legislators should have provided more oversight of Texas’ $16 billion in ARRA funds, but says that despite state lawmakers’ lukewarm response, the federal legislation succeeded in providing 236,000 Texas jobs, made public services available to millions of Texans, and strengthened Texas’ transportation, health care and energy infrastructures.

The report, entitled It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over: The Texas Legislature and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, was written by the interfaith group Texas Impact with contributions by other state and national organizations. The report is part of an ongoing national effort funded by the Open Society Institute to provide private sector monitoring and analysis of ARRA implementation and outcomes. Contributors include Texas Impact, Center for Public Policy Priorities, Texas Legal Services Center, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, La Fe Policy Research and Education Center, and Good Jobs First.

Bee Moorhead, Texas Impact executive director, said the Texas Legislature bears ultimate responsibility for ARRA’s success or failure in Texas. “There has been a great deal of attention paid to state agencies and local contractors, but at the end of the day they have all been operating in a matrix designed and overseen by the Legislature. Lawmakers could have been much more thoughtful and farsighted in establishing their policy frameworks for ARRA implementation in Texas,” Moorhead said.

To illustrate the Legislature’s lack of interest in ARRA, Moorhead points to the website www.txstimulus.com.

“There was only one legislative committee ever monitoring ARRA in Texas-the House Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization-and www.txstimulus.com was its website. The committee’s interim report uses the website as a source and incorporates information on the site into the report. But the committee disbanded in December and let their domain lapse in March, taking with it hundreds of documents, including memos from the committee to the other members of the Legislature and correspondence between Texas legislators and our congressional delegation,” Moorhead said.

Rather than allowing the domain to be snapped up by cyber squatters, Moorhead said, she purchased it herself. “Hopefully legislators will take steps to ensure the security of legislatively related websites in the future. Legislative committees can use the Internet really effectively, and there are great examples of committees doing that this year, but those websites contain government information and they can’t just be handled like some individual’s blog,” Moorhead said.

The report recommends ten steps the Legislature could take during the current legislative session to maximize Texas’ remaining ARRA funds and to apply lessons learned in ARRA implementation to ongoing state programs. The recommendations include drawing Texas’ full share of ARRA-related unemployment insurance funding; transferring Texas’ low-income weatherization program from the Department of Housing and Community Affairs to the State Energy Conservation Office; and increasing budget oversight for Texas’ law enforcement online intelligence center.

Don Baylor, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, said Texas could draw $555 million in federal unemployment funds that would allow the state to reduce-or at least avoid increasing-unemployment taxes for Texas employers. “This simple, business-friendly policy change would generate more than $1 billion in economic activity at zero cost to the state budget. Creating jobs, while minimizing employer tax rates, is the logical thing to do,” Baylor said.

The report finds that lack of legislative direction hampered ARRA transparency in Texas. “The Comptroller’s website keeps improving, but it can only be as good as the data agencies are required to report, which is minimal,” said Lanetta Cooper, an attorney with Texas Legal Services Center.

Moorhead said legislative leaders lost interest in ARRA prematurely. “Texas will keep spending ARRA dollars for at least another 18 months and we could still draw hundreds of millions of dollars more. Considering the losses of jobs and services that are likely to result from looming state budget cuts, lawmakers should be trying to maximize every penny,” Moorhead said.

Recommendations

1. Draw down the unemployment dollars.

Texas still could qualify for $555 million in funding to replenish our Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. Legislators should make the statutory changes needed to qualify for its remaining unemployment insurance funds and access those funds before the deadline.

2. Keep a legislative eye on the game till it’s over.

There was only one legislative committee formally charged with monitoring ARRA implementation in Texas, and it has disbanded. The leadership should reconstitute the House Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization and charge the committee with monitoring and reporting on Texas’ ARRA implementation until all ARRA funds that flowed through the state treasury have been exhausted and final reports have been issued.

3. Move the low-income weatherization program from TDHCA to SECO.

SECO and TDHCA both received ARRA funds for energy efficiency, and both agencies administered their funds through a large number of grants to local public and private sub-recipients. SECO’s administration has gone more smoothly that TDHCA’s, and in the future SECO can expect to continue to administer the same kinds of funds through a variety of programs. TDHCA’s weatherization program should be transferred to SECO. Legislators should require SECO to report more information than is currently required about recipients and sub-recipients in the program and make changes to improve sub-recipient performance.

4. Modernize Texas’ Freedom of Information Act.

Texas’ implementation of ARRA transparency provisions pointed out opportunities to improve public information across the board because of the availability of the Internet. The Legislature should modernize the Texas Freedom of Information Act to account for new forms of electronic information and ensure transparency for all state programs.

5. Make the Texas Fusion Center’s budget transparent.

DPS used some ARRA funds to help establish the Texas Fusion Center, a law enforcement intelligence hub that interacts with other law enforcement jurisdictions at the federal, state and local levels. Now that ARRA funds are gone, DPS needs continued appropriations to fund the Fusion Center’s activities, but DPS’s budget is not clear from which line items those additional appropriations come. Legislators should provide additional budget transparency to the Texas Fusion Center through a line item appropriation with associated performance measures.

6. Require more project-specific information on TxDOT projects.

TxDOT set up a special “Project-Tracker” website to provide transparency in their funding decisions, but the site does not include outcomes information, especially regarding impacts on local communities and populations of interest. Legislators should require a greater level of detail on TxDOT’s website regarding specific projects and their impact on local communities.

7. Be ready for more funding.

Texas and other states face ongoing challenges in maintaining and improving the nation’s transportation infrastructure, and congressional discussions about future transportation initiatives including the possibility of more bond opportunities. Legislators and TxDOT should investigate whether Texas could position itself favorably for future federal transportation funding, including ARRA funds turned back by other states, especially by increasing its commitment to rail transportation.

8. Target ARRA energy efficiency dollars to areas of greatest need.

SECO’s energy efficiency programs are designed to maximize return on investment, but including additional criteria would ensure that they also maximize benefit for populations of special interest to the Legislature. Lawmakers could refine SECO’s energy efficiency programs by requiring that a share of remaining ARRA funds and future revolving loan funds target disadvantaged geographic areas or populations.

9. Build on ARRA health infrastructure investment.

Federal investment in Texas’ Community Health Centers increased access to primary care for many Texans in medically underserved areas. Legislators should look to Community Health Centers and similar community-based health care delivery models to meet some of the needs of the large newly insured population expected to result from implementation of national health insurance reform.

10. Protect the integrity of all state government-related websites.

The legislative committee charged with monitoring Texas’ ARRA implementation dissolved and its Internet domain registration expired, deleting scores of state documents that are referenced in the committee’s interim report. Legislators should require that the administrative contact for the URL of any website that styles itself as the website of a legislative entity such as a committee must be a staff member of a state agency.

The full report is available online at http://texasimpact.org/content/it-aint-over-till-its-over-texas-legislature-and-american-reinvestment-and-recovery-act or http://www.txstimulus.com

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.