Our wins came in two forms – bills that passed that will actually improve policy in Texas and bills that didn’t pass that would have taken policy in the wrong direction.

We made progress by helping to get bills passed that:

• Expand funding for the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) by about 40%;
• Create a program within TERP to replace old diesel tractor trailer trucks used in and around ports and rail yards (these are some of the most polluting vehicles on the road);
• Establish new incentives within TERP for purchasing plug-in electric cars; and
• Assign authority to the Railroad Commission (RRC) to regulate small oil and gas lines (these lines, known as gathering lines, are prone to leaks); and
• Allows commercial and industrial building owners to obtain low-cost, long-term private sector financing for water conservation and energy-efficiency improvements, including on-site renewable energy, such as solar.

We successfully helped to stop or improve bad legislation that would have:

• Eliminated hearings on permits for new pollution sources (the contested case hearing process is crucial to limiting pollution increases);
• Eliminated additional inspections for facilities with repeated pollution violations;
• Weakened protections against utilities that violate market rules and safety guidelines;
• Eliminated property tax breaks for wind farms, while continuing the policy for other industries;
• Granted home owners associations (HOAs) authority to unreasonably restrict homeowners ability to install solar panels on their roofs; and
• Permitted Austin City Council to turn control of Austin Energy over to an unelected board without a vote by the citizens of Austin.

We did lose ground on the issue of radioactive waste disposal.  Despite our considerable efforts, a bill passed that will allow more highly radioactive waste to be disposed of in the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) facility in west Texas.  Campaign contributions certainly played an important roll in getting the bill passed.

We were also disappointed by Governor Perry’s veto of the Ethics Commission sunset bill, which included several improvements, including a requirement that railroad commissioners resign before running for another office, as they are prone to do.  Read Carol’s post about this bill and the issue.

With the legislation over and Perry’s veto pen out of ink, we now shift our attention to organizing and advocating for a transition from polluting energy sources that send money out of our state to clean energy sources that can grow our economy.

We’re working to:

• Promote solar energy at electric cooperatives and municipal electric utilities;
• Speed up the retirement of old, inefficient, polluting coal-fired power plants in east Texas;
• Protect our climate and our port communities throughout the Gulf states from health hazards from new and expanded coal export facilities;
• Fight permitting of the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines in Texas;
• Ensure full implementation of improvements made to TERP; and
• Develop an environmental platform for the 2014 election cycle.

Our power comes from people like you getting involved – even in small ways, like writing an email or making a call.  If you want to help us work for a cleaner, healthier, more sustainable future, email me at kwhite@citizen.org.  And one of the best things you can do is to get your friends involved too.

Why veto such an overwhelmingly popular bill? It is because of a provision in the bill that would require members of the Railroad Commission to step down if they announce their candidacy for another office. This again demonstrates that the governor is more interested in protecting powerful politicians than protecting Texas residents.

Members of the Railroad Commission frequently seek higher office. Recently, two commissioners ran against each other for the same U.S. Senate seat. The commissioners, who serve more like judges than elected state officials, oversee complex oil and gas cases that require familiarity with the law and impartiality. When commissioners use their position as a springboard to run for another office, they often go absent from the commission, and the demands of campaigning reduce their ability to do their job.  This portion of the legislation could have been used as a model for how to adequately reform the Railroad Commission, but instead the governor shot it down.

It is worth noting that 81-93 percent of the total campaign donations to the commissioners come from the oil and gas industry, which is overseen by the Railroad Commission. Perhaps that’s why in 2012, despite handling 82 contested cases, the commission didn’t deny a permit to an oil and gas company even once. Clearly, the industry doesn’t want to risk losing members of the Railroad Commission who have been carefully cultivated.

It is a bad sign for democracy when a single person can veto the will of almost an entire legislature, and when a sunset bill for an entire state agency is sunk because of just one provision that would inconvenience the oil and gas industry.

Click here to see other bills vetoed by the governor and his justification for some of them.

Typically, this would be the height of the wildfire season in the southwest – New Mexico, Arizona, parts of Colorado, but despite how dry it is and how hot it’s been, a lot of the region had been spared until the big fire started in Colorado this week near Colorado Springs.

According to several scientists on a Climate Nexus panel on Tuesday (Climate Nexus is a strategic communications group dedicated to highlighting the wide-ranging impacts of climate change and clean energy solutions in the United States), major wildfires could occur across the Southwest this year, including in Texas.  Now that Texas is in its third year of drought, the state is likely to experience a longer fire season as a result of dry conditions and rising summer temperatures. High fire risk conditions raise the concern that Texas could again experience severe wildfires. Fires on Labor Day weekend in  2011 destroyed more than 1,600 Texas homes. 

A draft report by the federal National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Council (NCADAC) shows that in recent decades, the frequency of large wildfires and the length of the fire season have increased substantially.  Earlier spring snowmelts and warmer spring and summer temperatures have increased the risk of fire in the Southwest. Fire models predict that more wildfires will occur in the future, with increased risks to communities throughout the region.

To see this interactive map click here

SONGS, which has been in operation for 45 years, may be a harbinger for the future of our aging nuclear fleet, many of which are near the end their original license period and are applying for extensions.

• Unit 1 began commercial operation on January 1, 1968 and ceased operation on November 30, 1992.  Since then it has been dismantled and is used as a storage site for spent fuel for Units 2 and 3,
• Units 2 and 3 were both licensed in 1982 and by license amendments in March, 2000 are currently licensed until 2022. However, unit 3 has been shut down since the detection of a leak in one of the steam generator tubes on January 31 and Unit 2 is off line, for routine inspections which found that design flaws appeared to be the cause of excessive wear in tubing that carries radioactive water at San Onofre.

SCE cited continuing questions about when or if the remaining SONGS units might return to service as the cause for their decision, concluding that the uncertainty was not good for customers or investors.

In a statement Friday, California Public Utility Commission’s President Michael R. Peevey called the decision “understandable,” and that the closure of the nuclear power generating station “will require even greater emphasis on energy efficiency and demand response programs.” Utility companies will also need to add transmission upgrade and find new generation resources.

Concerns in Texas

In Texas, both nuclear plants (Comanche Peak outside of Fort Worth, and South Texas Nuclear Generating Station (STP), between Houston and Corpus Christi on the Texas Gulf Coast) are nearing the end of their life expectancies as reflected in their original licenses which are due to expire in 2027 and 2028, and have filed for a license extension.  STNP’s unit two has experienced nine months of outage during 2 prolonged shutdowns in 2 years. The second outage was triggered by a fire that occurred only days before the public hearing on the license extension application.

Environmentalists expressed concerns about the plant’s ability to operate safely beyond the original life expectancy of the plant.

“Relicensing should be halted while a serious, in-depth examination occurs,” said Karen Hadden, executive director of the Austin-based SEED coalition, which advocates for sustainable energy, and member of the Austin Electric Utility Commission (Austin Energy owns 16% of STP Units 1 and 2). “I think it’s becoming increasingly unreliable, and it’s costing us money to fix it.” She noted that it was difficult to get information about the plant’s problems and she expressed concern that these aging plants will experience problems more often and of greater threat to the safety of the plant and the surrounding communities.

According to an article by NBC news, data on heat-related deaths suggest that public health officials have been underestimating them, as summers get longer and hotter due to climate change, and as storms that can cause widespread blackouts become more common and more intense.  The latest numbers, part of the CDC’s weekly report in death and illness, list non-residents for the first time, a group that includes illegal immigrants, tourists, migrant workers and others. These groups suffer especially when it gets hot.

Forty percent of heat related deaths over the last 10 years were in just three states – California, Arizona and Texas, all border states in the south.

Weather experts stress that it’s impossible to say whether any individual storm or heat wave was caused by climate change. But is clear that climate change is contributing to changing patterns and that the sheer magnitude of these extreme weather events present a challenge to public health.

Climate predictions and observations are suggesting that the magnitude of extreme weather events is increasing.

Click here to read the entire article.

On Thursday, May 30, 2013, the Texas Senate held a public hearing on redistricting as a launch of the 83rd 1st special session.  The hearing started at 9:00 am and closed at 11:30 am after everyone had testified.  Testimony was for 3 minutes each. I arrived early to a nearly empty auditorium, and when the hearing started, the hearing room was far from packed.

A number of attendees at the hearing, including some of the Senators, pointed out that this was mighty short notice for a public hearing with such far-reaching consequences.  The announcement of the hearing was made Monday, May 27 at 5:30 pm, 62 hours before the hearing, according to Chair, Kel Seliger.  Also the hearing was set for 9:00am on a work day.  No field hearings were or will be scheduled.  It was also brought up that the minorities most affected by this redistricting were the least likely to be able to arrange and afford to take time off work, arrange and afford childcare and afford transportation to Austin.

There will be two more Senate redistricting hearings, Thursday, June 6 and Wednesday, June 12, both at 9:00 a.m. in the Finance Room, E1.036.  All amendments and alterations must be submitted by noon June 10 for consideration for the June 12 meeting.

Most of the testimony was opposed to the maps in SB1, SB2, SB3 and SB4 on the basis of disenfranchisement of minorities.

My testimony was about Austin being split into 6 US Congressional districts, one snaking to Houston, one to Fort Worth, two to San Antonio and one to Laredo.  I pointed that Austin would have no US Congressional representation in Washington.  Austin is big enough to have 7/8 of it as one Congressional district.  In a world that made sense, the other 1/8 of Austin would be in a compact district contiguous with the main Austin district.  Likewise, Travis County is big enough to be almost two US Congressional districts and shouldn’t be split into 5 districts, effectively disenfranchising Travis voters in Washington.

The only elected officials from Travis County or Austin represented were the Travis County Commissioners who registered opposition to the US Congressional map splitting Travis County into 5 US Congressional districts, each having less than 35% of the voters from the district living in Travis County.  The objection was that effectively Travis County would have no representation in the US Congress.

The maps in these bills are the interim maps that were drawn so we could have 2012 elections.  You’ll find interactive maps on the official Texas Redistricting website here: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/redist.html

You can choose cities and choose to overlay various maps that have been submitted as well as overlay the interim maps for US Congress, Texas Senate and Texas House.

Parallel to this, court is in session in San Antonio with various minority plaintiffs on our redistricting vis a vis the Voting Rights Act.

House Hearings
The House will be having hearings on the companion bills HB1, HB2, HB3 and HB4 tomorrow, Friday, May 31 and Saturday, June 1, both days at 9:00 a.m. in the Capitol Extension Auditorium, E1.004, opposite the cafeteria.

I would urge those who can to attend the hearings and record your opposition to these bills.  They disenfranchise the minority vote and they disenfranchise Austin and Travis County.  To that end,  I’ve reached out to a number of our City Council members and Texas House Reps from Austin and our Austin/Travis Senator Kirk Watson to please come to the hearings and get on record with their voice on this significant issue for the area.

Video of the hearing is at http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchives/ramav.php?ram=00006247

On May 9, carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration in the earth’s atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time since measurements began in 1958, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. Climate experts consider this to be the tipping point when unimaginable disastrous climate change is inevitable.

As if to illustrate this point of no return, monster tornadoes raged across the middle of this country completely obliterating Moore, Oklahoma. Pieter Tans, a senior scientist in NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division told a New York Times reporter,  “It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem.”

For years, responsible investor groups have called for ExxonMobil to address climate change. The company’s board of directors seems to hardly notice. Again this year, there are resolutions calling for greenhouse gas emissions goals.

But a major shift in shareholder resolution themes is emerging. 2013 shareholder resolutions call for ExxonMobil to disclose what the company is doing to adapt to extreme weather and climate change. This shift in resolution themes illustrates how neglecting to address climate change has contributed to a global crisis in which disasters are anticipated and preparedness for such events is a priority for any company’s business plan.

The situation reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote:

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong — these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.

As I cast my votes this year, I hope that more shareholders will get involved to move ExxonMobil toward a life-sustaining future. ExxonMobil’s $44.9 billion in earnings for 2012 came close to a world’s record. Instead of wildcatting in costly, unproven non-conventional fossil fuel technologies such as fracking and tar sands that add greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, the company could show foresight and leadership by investing in clean, renewable energy such as wind, solar and geo-thermal.

At the very least, ExxonMobil could invest some of its vast resources in best available technology to clean-up the emissions from its refineries and chemical plants. In addition to increasing CO₂ levels, these emissions endanger the lives and health of the people living on the fence lines of these operations.

Unless citizens get involved, we can expect ExxonMobil to continue business as usual. Of course we should expect our company to disclose to us it’s plan for adapting to climate change and how much it will cost.  But I regret that this company, the U.S. government and others did not heed NASA Scientist James Hansen’s warning to the U.S. Congress about climate change in 1988. If action had been taken then, I believe we could have avoided much of the loss and suffering due to storms, fires and drought we recently have seen and are likely to see in the future.

If you are an ExxonMobil shareholder, I urge you to exercise your power — review the shareholder resolutions and vote.  We must continue to work toward getting this company to take responsibility for its role in climate change. As Ralph Keeling, geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography noted in the report about CO₂ levels, “There’s no stopping CO₂ from reaching 400 ppm. That’s now a done deal. But what happens from here on still matters to climate, and it’s still under our control. It mainly comes down to how much we continue to rely on fossil fuels for energy.”

– Jane Dale Owen is granddaughter of Robert Lee Blaffer, one of the founders of Humble Oil and Refining Company, the parent company of Exxon Mobil. She is president and founder of Citizens League for Environmental Action Now (CLEAN) www.cleanhouston.org, an organization that provides news, information and education about global and local environmental issues.

It was a late night at City Hall yesterday. By the time many of us testified it was after midnight, but our efforts and those of our partners — the SEED Coalition, Texas Campaign for the Environment, other advocates and concerned Austin residents — made the difference.

The City Council paid attention to your emails and comments.

Recognizing good governance will help us ensure that our elected officials continue to be responsive to us in the future.
Instead of handing governing responsibility of Austin Energy to an unelected board, the City Council created a committee on Austin Energy to dedicate more time to the important issues facing our utility. All members of the City Council will serve on the new committee.

The City Council did exactly what we wanted by maintaining democratic control of Austin Energy and dedicating more time to our most important city asset.
Of course, we’ll continue to monitor the discussions of the new City Council Committee on Austin Energy and we’ll let you know when we need your help again to protect democracy, clean energy, fair rates and funding for our city services.

Help us show our appreciation — email City Council members and thank them.

UPDATE

This morning, Mayor Lee Leffingwell pulled Item 29 from the consent agenda indefinately.  Item 71 has been set for 7PM

May 22, 2013

Our basic premise that governance by an elected body is more accountable is proving true.  Over the past couple months, many Austinites have expressed their concerns to City Council about a proposed ordinance that would establish an un-elected board to govern Austin Energy.

Before citizens got involved in the process, this ordinance seemed destined to pass and we all would have found ourselves with less power over an important piece of our local government.

As citizen’s began to voice their concerns the majority of city council members heard their constituents and the ordinance was substantially changed. Councilmembers deserve a lot of credit for the work that they have done to improve this ordinance.  However, it would still establish an un-elected board, which is a dangerous road to go down because such a board could be granted more powers in subsequent ordinances.

Discussion of the ordinance that would establish an un-elected board to govern Austin Energy has been set for 7 pm this Thursday (5/23).  It is item #29 on the agenda. (click here and select item 29 to watch the portion of today’s work session concerning this ordinance)

If you wish to sign up to speak on it or just to register your opinion, you can do so at the kiosks inside City Hall.

Because of the changes made to the ordinance in response to citizen participation in the process, the primary supporters of the ordinance, including Mayor Leffingwell, now no longer support it.  Thus, the ordinance may be withdrawn on Thursday morning, so look at the agenda before heading to City Hall Thursday evening.

During floor discussion of his greenhouse gas permitting bill, HB 788, he said, “Science has not shown greenhouse gases to be a problem.”  Then Smith went on to say, “There’s no need to regulate greenhouse gases.”  Well, Politifact Texas disagreed.  They throughly researched Mr. Smith’s statements and found them to be totally false, or “pants on fire” as they put it.

Take a look at the PolitiFact Texas analysis and give Representative Smith’s office a call and tell them what you think about his inaccurate statements: (512)463-0733.

Julia on her ranch before Keystone starts work

Crews from TransCanada/Michels/Universal Field Services and others I don’t recognize started arriving yesterday in preparation for the destruction on our place. Within hours of their arrival the pasture inside “their” fenced in area was shredded, road signs designating “work area” went up, hundred of timbers used to support heavy machinery were unloaded from 18 wheelers and stacked, and most gut wrenching was the “blading” of our land by a trackhoe in preparation for even more heavy equipment. I’ve attached a photo of my land a few months ago and what I witnessed yesterday. I intend to share as much of this process with you as I can.

But just as the workers were really getting going, yesterday afternoon a monstrous wind and thunderstorm blew in, forcing all the men off their equipment, scurrying for cover in their nearby pickups. A sign perhaps?

I was told our place is the final link, the last piece of property needed to complete TransCanada’s conveniently uncoupled and renamed Gulf Coast Segment of their Keystone Project. Furthermore, they will work 7 days a week if needed to overcome any delays, weather or otherwise. All eyes are on us folks, we really are The Last Stand.

Day one of Keystone’s destruction of Julia Trigg Crawford’s ranch

All this while our appeal is freshly delivered and active at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texarkana. Unbelievable. TransCanada’s decision to move forward and initiate construction during our legal case just strengthens my family’s resolve to continue fighting. We maintain, now more than ever, that they never had the right to take our land in the first place. Their claimed Common Carrier status? A rubber stamp handed out by the embattled Texas Railroad Commission. This pipeline? An interstate project, even the Railroad Commission says it is out of their jurisdiction. The product to be carried? Tarsands, a product mined in Canada, and one of the most toxic and destructive products borne by Mother Earth. Just ask the residents in Kalamazoo and Mayflower what it did to their communities and waterways when it could not be contained. And sadly ask the First Nations in Alberta how is is destroying their lands and lives.

I hear the beeping of heavy equipment being moved, I guess they’re back at it already today, so I’m headed out to watch and take more photos. If you thought I was a mad and motivated landowner before, well, you’re about to see me hit a new gear. Stay tuned.

We’ll keep you updated about her appeal and the work on her land.

Plant in Point Comfort

The Calhoun County Port is located an hour southeast of Victoria, Texas, and across the bay from Port Lavaca, in Point Comfort. In March, I took a trip to this port city and was astonished by some of the issues I found there.

The port has submitted documents to TCEQ for operating a bulk material handling dock.  Our coalition was told it will be used for coal imports, most likely for the plants there.  The permit application allows for the handling of coal and petcoke.  The main facilities there are Alcoa and Formosa plants for plastics.

I first noticed the lack of wildlife near the site.  On the Port Lavaca side of the bridge over the bay there are seagulls flying around, but in Point Comfort I did not see any wildlife.  No birds, insects, or even squirrels.  There was a deathly silence surrounding the area, broken only by the whirring of port-related trucks.  No one was fishing on the Point Comfort side of the bridge, while the Port Lavaca side was bustling with people fishing on piers.

On Texas 35 I saw a large elevated area that I first assumed would be used for a landfill.  There were Caterpillar bulldozers pushing around dirt up a 15 foot tall, mile-wide manmade hill.  However, it may also be a site of the coal import facility since it is right next to a ship dock.

I drove further and saw many TCEQ air quality permit signs, including for the Formosa plastics plant.  Some of the plants with TCEQ air quality permit signs were emitting some kind of steam.  At the end of the road was a large chute with huge piles of bauxite, the ore from which aluminum is made.

The residential areas were empty and had very few cars in front of them.  I wasn’t sure if that was because few people in the area had cars, but later on I was told that a lot of the residents died of cancer or the houses were condemned.  There were playgrounds right next to the plastics plant, but it is doubtful that Point Comfort was an area with a lot of children.

At the gas station as I was leaving I picked up a copy of the local newspaper, the Port Lavaca Wave.  On the front page was a news story about how Point Comfort was getting one more police officer in addition to the sheriff because the plant workers were driving too fast.  On a hunch I decided to look into the crime rate in the area and found something shocking.  There is a correlation between lead exposure and violent crime.  The violent crime rate in Port Lavaca is extremely high for a municipality of its size (11,405).  The violent crime rates are comparable to mid-sized cities like El Paso that are many times larger than Port Lavaca.

What I saw there was straight out of a nightmare, the result of when too little regulation and overpowering industry meet residential areas.  However, workers aren’t safe either, as there was a recent fire that resulted in injuries at the Formosa plant there.  These horrific industrial areas are not limited to isolated areas where people move out.  This is a common theme across the Gulf Coast in more populated areas like Plaquemines Parish near New Orleans, LA and Houston, TX.  In the face of disasters like the one in West, TX issues like these need to be raised to policymakers and community leaders to prevent the deaths of both persons and communities.

The disregard for citizens’ input and time is appalling. Perhaps the mayor’s move is simply a response to citizens having organized more effectively than special interest groups, such as CCARE, who haven’t been able to mobilize support for changing the governance of Austin Energy.

The ordinance may not have been ready for a vote tonight, but the mayor should have left the item open for discussion for the large number of citizens who have set time aside to be present tonight.

We hope that all the engaged citizens that planned on attending the city council meeting tonight will come to the meeting on May 23 and show the Mayor that the public won’t be silenced.

Please contact us with any questions on this issue:

Contact your representative (don’t know who that is . . . click here) and tell them to vote NO on HB 1714

On April 17th, an explosion at the West Fertilizer plant killed 15 people – mostly first responders, and injured hundreds more; that plant had been cited 5 times in 6 years by three enforcement agencies for failing to follow the law. Leaders of Texas’ environmental organizations called on state legislators to protect against the next environmental disaster by rejecting Rep Wayne Smith’s 1714 which would eliminate provision in Texas environmental law requiring more inspections and tougher enforcement for polluters who have poor record with the state or federal environmental agencies.

“Leadership needs to improve regulations, not weaken them further,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office.  The Texas Legislature will consider HB 1714 by Representative Wayne Smith (R-Baytown) in the Texas House that would further weaken the permitting and enforcement processes.”

“HB 1714, would eliminate enhanced inspections of companies that have a history of environmental violations at a time when it is clear that the state and its citizens would benefit from having more scrutiny of companies that violate their permits. This bill would also reduce public disclosure of the state’s evaluation of company compliance histories, making it even more difficult to distinguish the bad actors from the good actors.”

“While the facility at West, TX may have been too small to have qualified for the enhanced inspections as the law is currently written,” continued Smith, “it begs the question, should we be weakening this oversight rather than enhancing it in order to prevent these types of tragedies?”

Years of state budget cuts and lax regulations have left communities at risk.

“The West Fertilizer incident shows how badly the TCEQ has failed to protect Texans under Governor Perry’s ‘paradise for polluters’ administration,” said Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition.  The TCEQ failed to inspect the plant even after three state and federal agencies found five violations at that plant over the last six years. The plant was operating without the proper permits and failed to properly train their workers, label dangerous products or to develop a worst case accident plan.

“Texas has a program that is supposed to target companies that have poor compliance records with extra inspections. The West Fertilizer plant was “unclassified” – meaning the TCEQ didn’t take the time to look at the plant’s record. Had TCEQ inspected the West Fertilizer facility, we can only hope that they might have found the 270 tons of explosives at the site and 15 people might not have died.”

Budget cuts have real consequences. Over the last 4 years, funding for TCEQ has been cut back 34% and 295 employees have been laid off.

“TCEQ doesn’t have nearly enough inspectors for the number of facilities it is responsible for. Facilities are not routinely inspected and the agency’s response to complaints is far from adequate. In 2006, a nearby resident reported a gas leak at the West Fertilizer facility and it took the TCEQ 11 days to travel the 17 miles from Waco to West to follow up,” pointed out David Weinberg, executive director of the Texas League of Conservation Voters, and further illustrates TCEQ’s ineffectiveness.” (See westfertilizerinfo.com for TCEQ files)

As the events of the past two months have shown, the push to hasten the permitting process, weaken the regulatory oversight processes, and abandon due diligence and planning for both large and small industrial facilities has real life consequences.

Hadden said, “These disasters serve as a reminder of the necessity for strong and effective land use regulations, as well as proper enforcement systems to ensure public safety and prevent toxic releases into the environment.  Regulations that reduce the likelihood and size of industrial accidents protect workers, nearby neighborhoods and residents, and minimize the potential loss of life when accidents do happen, as they always will.”

“The Texas Legislature must act now to ensure existing and new regulations protect workers, communities and our state’s natural resources on which we all depend,” concluded Smith.

Contact your representative (don’t know who that is . . . click here) and tell them to vote NO on HB 1714.

RSVP on Facebook: facebook.com/events/167981560029199/

Here are the details:

• What: Austin Tells Obama: No KXL!
• When: Thursday, May 9 at 3:30pm
• Where: Obama will be speaking at Applied Materials at 9700 US Highway 290 East. We are going to be meeting at Uncle Bob’s Self Storage- 9717 U.S. 290 Austin, Texas at 3:30pm and will try and get as close as possible to the event location.

Applied Materials is a technology company that makes solar panels. Obama will probably be speaking about clean energy and he needs to get the message that he cannot support a clean energy economy and also approve the Keystone XL pipeline, one of the dirtiest energy projects in the world.

President Obama already supported construction of the southern leg of Keystone XL through Texas and Oklahoma, but he has a chance to reverse course and make the right choice on the crucial northern leg of the pipeline. 350 organizers have met him at every one of his public events in the past few weeks — including overseas — help them keep the pressure on when he comes to Austin. We can’t let him talk about clean energy without speaking up about Keystone XL.

This is one of the best ways you can show the President that Keystone XL does not fit into a clean energy future. So, invite your friends and neighbors and co-workers, and take an hour to join tomorrow. Click here to RSVP!

Julia Trigg Crawford, a Paris area landowner whose land was condemned and taken by the Keystone XL pipeline, which declared itself a common carrier, and was given the right through an eminent domain decision.  The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that in order for a pipeline company to take land, they must prove they really are common carriers, but to date Keystone XL has not proven they will carry anybody else’s product. Crawford’s land is threatened with imminent trenching for the Keystone XL pipeline even though she has appealed the court’s decision that Keystone XL is a common carrier and has the right to take her land.

Texas law ought to protect landowners from Big Oil, but today in Texas the Railroad Commission rubber stamps common carrier permits.  As a result, I am days away from having my land destroyed by the Keystone pipeline and poisons being pumped through my pasture,” said Crawford.

What’s upsetting to those of us who live along the path of these tar sands pipelines — no matter if they are new pipelines like Keystone or repurposed lines like the 35-year old Seaway and the 65-year old Pegasus — is that no one knows just how toxic these tar sands are and there isn’t a safety plan in place for residents or first responders should there be a spill,” noted Crawford. “Many of the toxic substances in these products are deemed ‘proprietary’ and therefore first responders haven’t had and won’t have the complete information they need to address an incident when a spill occurs unless the legislature acts. Saving the health of my community and my water is more important than a private company’s worries about the “proprietary” information of their product. This puts Texans and those who are here to protect us at risk.

There have already been three spills in residential areas: one along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan about three years ago, one in Arkansas last month, and a small leak in Ripley County, Missouri less than a week ago, a month after the same pipeline spewed thousands of barrels of crude in Arkansas. Almost three years and $850 million later, the Enbridge tar sands spill in Michigan is still not cleaned up. Witnesses told elected officials today that they should have the right to know what is in these pipelines before they are declared common carriers, are given the right to condemn Texans’ land, and travel through Texas backyards and water sources

Tar sands are far more toxic than conventional crude, and as a result of the recent Pegasus spill in Arkansas we now have a recipe for disaster with several tar sands pipelines threatening communities throughout Texas.  Tar sands crude contains a toxic mixture of more than 30 chemicals that can cause cancer, brain damage, and even death.  When tar sands crude hits water, it doesn’t behave like conventional crude.  The benzene and hydrogen sulfide go airborne necessitating the evacuations of nearby citizens due to possible exposure to dangerous neurotoxins, meanwhile the heavier bitumen in the tar sands crude sinks like a stone and essentially paves the river bottom, comment Rita Beving, a consultant to the 391 Commissions that have formed in several East Texas communities to either oppose the pipelines or to get additional information about the pipelines.

In Texas, the 65-year old Pegasus pipeline runs from Dekalb to Corsicana and then turns southeast to Nederland carrying tar sands crude.  The 36-year old Seaway line comes into Texas at Grayson County passing through the east side of Dallas and onto Freeport.  Seaway is now being surveyed to twin the existing line to double its capacity to carry tar sands for upgrading and refinement on the coast.  Finally, the new Keystone line is being trenched, entering near Paris in North Texas and coursing through the state to refineries in the Port Arthur/Houston area.

Public Citizen is proposing a few suggested amendments that would make for a far better bills.

• Right to Know: Landowners and citizens have a right to know what is being carried in the pipelines going through their communities, farms, ranches and school yards.  We like Senator Davis’ language on this subject pg 5 section 111. 0122 9 (a) (3)   This provision should be expanded to include the chemicals used to dilute the materials such as tar sands in the pipeline and to refer citizens  to a website containing more information about the toxicity of the  substances.
• Notice: Landowners should have the right to actual mailed notice about the decisions being made on common carrier status so they can decide whether to contest the decision in a timely manner. We prefer Senator Duncan’s language but think it should be expanded to include neighbors and others who might be affected if a spill were to occur
• Hearings: Protestants have the right to a fair hearing in front of an impartial judge.  Time and again we hear from local landowners that the local district court judges, while sympathetic to their plight, tell them that they don’t believe they have jurisdiction, and these same landowners hear the same thing from the Railroad Commission   We prefer Senator Davis’ provision that requires the use of the State Office of Administrative Hearings. They will be far more mindful of landowners’ rights and more impartial than the Railroad Commission who sees part of its mission to be promotion of the oil and gas industry, but regardless Texans need to have a clear path to follow to address these issues.  We do have concerns about the 30 day time frame and would urge the bill to be modified to allow hearings in a SOAH regional office
• Test for Common Carrier status: It is important that common carriers are really serving the common interest. Thus assuring that the common is not so affiliated with one company that they are not just a private pipeline is key. We prefer Senator Davis’ language.

Things to watch out for:

Conclusive Determination:  One of the divisive issues in the House debate has been over whether the Railroad Commission’s decision on the issue of whether a RRC decision on common carrier status is a conclusive determination for the purposes of a judicial proceeding.  What this section means is that a landowner or other affected party can’t challenge the common carrier status in a later court even if they never really got notice.  Farmers, ranchers and environmental groups have all expressed their concern about this provision as have Tea Party and liberal groups.  This is a major issue in the Julia Trigg Crawford appeal and in several other appeals as well. The committee’s decisions on the issue of who gets notice, how they get it and what kind of information about the contents will determine a lot about how contentious this debate will be.

Confidentiality: Senator Davis’ bill provides in two sections that the information about the common carrier application and the substances in the pipeline are confidential if specifically identified as such by the company. The presumption should be one of openness unless the company can prove that real harm will result from disclosure that outweighs the public right to know. We can see company after company claiming that their tariffs and customers are confidential and that the substances and the toxins used to dilute the tar sands are confidential.

Think it couldn’t happen? Ask the people whose health and homes were ruined in Mayflower or Kalamazoo. Ask the first responders how long they had to wait to get information on what was in those leaking pipelines. In both cases information was withheld and declared “confidential”

Citizens have the right to know when an application has been filed, right to effective mailed notice, a right to know if the applicant really is a common carrier with real customers and real tariffs or just a private pipeline and what’s in the pipelines so they may decide how to react to an application.

Contact the members of the Senate State Affairs Committee and your senator and ask them to require disclosure of the chemicals flowing through the pipeline that will be flowing through Texas land, perhaps even your backyard, as part of the notification process and before eminent domain proceedings can begin.

Senate State Affairs Committee Members: Duncan (R-Lubbock) – Chair / Deuell (R-Greenville) – Vice Chair / Ellis (D-Houston) / Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) / Huffman (R-Houston) / Lucio (D-Brownsville) / Nichols (R-Jacksonville) / Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) / Williams (R-The Woodlands)

You might wonder “what’s the point?”  The point is to take control of greenhouse gas permitting for Texas facilities from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and place it in the hands of our state environmental agency – which has a much cozier relationship with industry.  While EPA may ultimately prefer that states take responsibility for such permitting, we hope they wouldn’t support such a ineffective system as is proposed in HB 788.

Adding insult to injury, the author of the bill, Representative Wayne Smith, took advantage of the opportunity to spread misinformation.  Smith stated, “…the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are based on an unfounded science,” claiming this language was struck to remove the politics from the bill.  His remarks epitomizes a legislature that continues to threaten the health and safety of the people it should protect through weakened environmental regulations.

In fact, removing language which has been in Texas’ Health and Safety Code for 22 years which gives TCEQ the authority to limit greenhouse gases put the politics in the bill and took the science out of it.  Governor Rick Perry is an avid climate change denier and may have influenced the drafting of HB 788.

This type of misinformation does a disservice to Texas citizens who must endure the harmful impacts of climate change, such as drought, wildfires, sea-level rise and more volatile weather patterns. These changes have already cost our state billions of dollars and numerous lives.  Climate change is happening now and given the big jump in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions last year, we’re probably in for more harmful impacts than many predicted just a few years ago.

This graph compares increasing CO2 levels (dark line) to increasing average global temperature over the last century (blue and red bars).

Although our efforts to stop or amend HB 788 in the Texas House were unsuccessful and it was disheartening to hear Representative Smith’s comments, Earth Day brought a refocusing on facts.

The Committee on International Trade and Intergovernmental Affairs held a hearing on Global Climate Change and Trade.  Attendance was sparse in the audience, but a stellar line-up of scientists, delegates, and business representatives took the witness stand to testify on the fact of climate change.

HB788 was mentioned in anonymous fashion as a bad greenhouse gas bill on several occasions.  But, the most glaring comments were directed at Texas’ lack of policy to address climate change.  Cynthia Connor, the Resource Security Policy Adviser for the British Consulate General in Houston spoke in serious tones.  Her message was that Texas has a responsibility to adopt climate change policies to protect $20 billion in Texas investments by UK-owned business, which are responsible for  70,000 jobs.

Almost all of the witnesses addressed Texas’ policy of climate change denial.  To their credit, most of the Representatives on the committee asked questions to confirm the scientific findings, how climate change affects Texas, and how our climate change policies compare to the rest of the modernized world.  The general consensus is that Texas lags far behind the rest of the world.  Texas fails to acknowledge the potential harms of climate change and ignores its responsibility to lead the nation in ethical energy policies as the top producer of oil and natural gas.

While these weren’t messages of hope, at least they were based in scientific facts and observations.  At least for a brief time, science was recognized in our state capitol.

We must each do what we can to reduce our personal impact and we must convince our elected officials that the time for climate change denial is over.

HB 788 is now being considered in the Texas Senate.

Email your Texas state senator to oppose HB 788 and protect Texas’ climate, economy and people.

On Tuesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told judges overseeing the licensing case for two proposed South Texas Project reactors that the applicant (NINA) is subject to foreign ownership control or domination requirements and does not meet the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act in this regard. This will help licensing opponents in the hearing that is anticipated this fall.

“This NRC notice is great for us as opponents of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project,” said Karen Hadden, executive director of SEED Coalition, a group that has intervened in the licensing process, along with the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy and Public Citizen. “We hope that we’ll soon see clean, safe energy developed in Texas instead of dangerous nuclear power. We must prevent Fukushima style disasters from happening here.”

“Federal law is clear that foreign controlled corporations are not eligible to apply for a license to build and operate nuclear power plants. The evidence is that Toshiba is in control of the project and this precludes obtaining an NRC license for South Texas Project 3 & 4,” said Brett Jarmer, an attorney also representing the intervenors.

“Foreign investment in U.S nuclear projects is not per se prohibited; but Toshiba is paying all the bills for the STP 3 & 4 project. This makes it difficult to accept that Toshiba doesn’t control the project,” said Robert Eye.

Toshiba North America Engineering, or TANE, will assume exclusive, principal funding authority for the project, but they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Toshiba America, Inc, a Japanese corporation. Opponents contend that this makes them ineligible for licensing.

“National security and safety concerns justify NRC’s limits on foreign ownership and control of nuclear reactors,” said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “What if a foreign company was careless in running a U.S. reactor? International allegiances are known to shift. Our own reactors could become a weapon to be turned against us in the future and be used to threaten civilians in a war against the U.S. The NRC is right to protect against this possibility.”

“Even if the reactors are operated by the South Texas Nuclear Operating Company, they will get their orders from foreign owners. What if their concerns are more about cost-cutting and less about safety?” asked Susan Dancer, President of the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy. “Japanese investors would have us believe that they can come to America and safely build, own and operate nuclear plants, and that we should not concern ourselves with passé laws and regulations, but the recent Fukushima disaster has demonstrated the flawed Japanese model of nuclear safety and the lack of protection afforded the Japanese people. In such an inherently dangerous industry, the American people deserve protection through federal law, including that our nuclear reactors are controlled by the people most concerned about our country: fellow Americans.”

“Foreign Ownership, Control or Domination policy is spelled out in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office.  “In Section 103d it says that no license may be issued to an alien or any corporation or other entity if the Commission knows or has reason to believe it is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government.”

The NRC interprets this to mean that these entities are not eligible to apply for and obtain a license. According to Commission guidance, an entity is under foreign ownership, control, or domination “whenever a foreign interest has the ‘power,’ direct or indirect, whether or not exercised, to direct or decide matters affecting the management or operations of the applicant.” There is no set percentage point cut-off point used to determine foreign ownership. The factors that are considered include:

• The extent of foreign ownership
• Whether the foreign entity operates the reactors
• Whether there are interlocking directors and officers
• Whether there is access to restricted data
• Details of ownership of the foreign parent company.

For further information please visit www.NukeFreeTexas.org

To read the staff FODC determination letter, click here.

The issue of who should govern Austin Energy is important, but it’s also local in nature.  There is no need for state to amend Austin’s charter.  That is a right reserved for the citizens of Austin.  If the changes proposed by City Council are truly in the best interest of our city, that case should be made to the voters and decided upon at the ballot box. 

To have a state representative who doesn’t even live in Austin carrying a bill to change our charter is unacceptable.

The Austin City Charter was adopted by the people of Austin and the people of Austin approved a governance structure for Austin Energy that is accountable to the people through elections.

An unelected board won’t be directly accountable to the ratepayers and wouldn’t necessarily represent our values.  As we debate this issue in Austin the unelected board at San Antonio’s CPS Energy is slashing the rate customers with solar installations will receive for their energy in half without first consulting the public or the solar industry.  Austin Energy customers could be facing similar changes if we don’t act now to protect our rights.

SB 410 has passed the Senate and will be heard by the House Committee on State Affairs tomorrow.

Please consider attending the hearing and speaking against SB 410.

What: Hearing on SB 410 to change Austin’s charter to move Austin Energy governance to an undemocratic board without a vote by the citizens of Austin, as our charter requires.

When: 1:00pm on Wednesday, May 1

Where: John H. Reagan (JHR) building, room 140 – 105 W. 15th St., Austin, TX, 78701

Why: Because Austin Energy’s governance structure will impact decisions going forward, including on renewable energy and energy efficiency programs and rates.  This is the decision that will determine how other decisions are made.

You can register against the bill at the kiosks outside of room 140.  Even if you don’t wish to speak, registering against the bill would be helpful.  We hope you’ll consider saying a few words about the value of local democracy though.  Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes each.

SB 410 is anti-democratic and is one more example of the state government trying to interfere with Austin’s internal policies and governance.

We need your help to stop this bill.

Public opposition to SB 410 at Wednesday’s hearing may be the only thing that can ensure that our Austin representatives don’t let this bad bill move forward.

Please email Kaiba White at kwhite (at) citizen.org if you can attend the hearing at 1:00pm on Wednesday.