Earlier today, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  announced a new Cross State Air Pollution Rule designed to protect Americans from dangerous air pollution from coal-fired power plants. The new protections will reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in 27 states including Texas. SO2 and NOx form soot and ground-level ozone smog which contributes to poor air quality days and respiratory illnesses affecting millions of Americans.   Texas environmental groups Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and Environmental Integrity Project welcomed the EPA’s announcement.

Dr. Neil Carman, Sierra Club’s Clean Air Program Director in Texas, a chemist and former Air Control Board investigator celebrated the announcement:

The Sierra Club applauds EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s landmark Cross State Air Pollution safeguard announcement today.  EPA’s actions today will help save lives and reduce dangerous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants.  Air pollution does not respect state boundaries.  As a result, air pollution created in one state can burden surrounding states with harmful pollution.  Texas coal plants are known to produce pollution that has negative consequences for the health of people both in Texas and surrounding states, particularly in eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas.  We are especially pleased with EPA’s decision to include Texas in its proposal and to include sulfur dioxide, as Texas coal plants are at the top of the list of worst polluters in the nation.

According to the EPA, in 2005, 17 Texas coal plants emitted 531,059 tons of SO2 and 134,234 tons of NOx. By 2014, the new safeguard will reduce from 2005 levels — 303,467 tons of SO2 or 57% of SO2 and 49,814 tons of NOx or 29% of NOx.  90% of these reductions will occur at Texas coal plants.  EPA Chief Administrator Lisa Jackson today said that this rule will prevent 670-1000 premature deaths in Texas beginning in 2014.

Carman concluded, “This will result in a leap forward in reducing ozone in Texas non-attainment areas where urban areas have been struggling to clean up the air.  People living near the coal plants will definitely enjoy living with cleaner and safer air.”

TEXAS ENERGY NEEDS COVERED & COST BENEFITS

Tom ‘Smitty’ Smith, Director of Public Citizen’s Texas office spoke about the economic implications of the new EPA safeguard saying,

Concerns about meeting Texas energy needs are unfounded.  ERCOT’s most recent state of the market report along with its 2011 Report on the Capacity, Demand, and Reserves in the ERCOT Region show that we have sufficient generating capacity to meet summer peaks.  With cost effective energy efficiency measures, we can meet the electrical demand and clean the air.  Concerns about costs of this protective measure are also unfounded.  EPA found that this protection will result in a less than 1% increase on electricity bills.

We believe – and, the Texas PUC’s own Itron report, the “Assessment of the Feasible and Achievable Levels of Electricity Savings from Investor Owned Utilities in Texas: 2009-2018” shows that we can cost effectively reduce the energy needed in Texas by 23% using energy efficiency measures that are far cheaper than the cost of burning coal.   Today Texans are paying almost $6 billion a year in health care costs resulting from power plant pollution, and the insignificant cost increases that might result to consumers will be more than made up in lowered medical costs for all.  It’s time the utilities do their fair share to clean the air. The emissions controls that the utilities will be required to use are very similar to those put on every new car since the 1970s. Besides health benefits, the EPA’s safeguard supports Texas transition to a clean energy economy and green jobs.

Texas officials should convene a panel to analyze the cost of pollution upgrades at the coal plants and look at whether there are more cost-effective ways to meet our energy needs in the future.

TEXAS TRANSITION TO CLEAN ENERGY JOBS

San Antonio’s public utility, City Public Service recently announced the phase-out of its dirty old coal plant, Deely in favor of clean energy solutions and just yesterday announced a call for bids for a 400 Megawatt solar power plant.

Smith concluded, “The costs of solar are plummeting as this clean renewable energy source comes to scale.  San Antonio is leading the way to Texas clean energy future and the rest of the State should get with the clean energy program.”

A recent report published in March of 2011 by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy found that a significant investment in energy efficiency in homes and businesses and investments in new combined heat and power capacity within the industrial sector found that some 98,600 jobs would be created over the next 20 years in Texas. An American Center for Progress Report study found that a 25% renewable energy standard by 2025 coupled with increased spending in energy efficiency through the monies earmarked for Texas through the ARRA would produce some 150,000 jobs in Texas by 2030, while a 2009 Blue-Green Alliance study found that a nationwide Renewable Energy Standard would create 60,000 new jobs in Texas over the next 10 years, including 20,000 in solar energy.

Next week, Texas environmental groups will release new data that details pollution problems at existing coal plants and underscores the importance EPA’s inclusion of Texas in this new Cross State Air Pollution rule.. 

The odd man from East Texas

Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board

July 2, 2011

For whatever reason and for whatever it says about their region, East Texans occasionally send us lawmakers who are just a bit different.

But difference, like diversity, can be good.

Representative David Simpson (R-Longview)

This year, the people of the Pineywoods sent us Republican Rep. David Simpson, who wears his Christian faith on his sleeve and is uninterested in being just another freshman eager to go along to get along.

“I guess I don’t know what a freshman’s supposed to do,” Simpson told the American-Statesman’s Tim Eaton in April.

Last Wednesday, in the special legislative session’s closing moments, Simpson showed he also doesn’t know what a freshman isn’t supposed to do by giving a blistering speech generally critical of legislative process and specifically critical of the death of his bill criminalizing invasive pat-downs by Transportation Security Administration agents.

Simpson’s “personal privilege” speech was odd, and many of his House colleagues consider him a bit odd. Be that as it may — and setting aside what we believe was his misguided war against the TSA — it should be noted that Simpson raised some basic and important questions about legislative process.

“We all, no doubt, were aware that when we came to these grand halls that there also would be within them duplicity and deceit,” he told colleagues. “The challenge, though, is not to succumb to it, not to go along to get along in order to be re-elected, not to be complicit with its corruption.”

Corruption is a strong word. If Simpson has first-hand knowledge of corruption, it is his duty to report it to the proper authorities. But Simpson also pointed to peculiarities of the legislative process that, while somewhere this side of corruption, can cause head-scratching, including the expedited handling of measures on the House Local and Consent Calendar that might not actually meet the requirements for streamlined handling.

He also raised good questions about the no-new-taxes state budget of which Gov. Rick Perry and other Capitol conservatives are so proud.

“Methinks we boast too much,” Simpson cautioned. “Some are touting that we have not raised taxes and have not used the rainy day fund. But let’s be honest about it. We are deferring $4 billion into the next biennium. Is that conservative? Is using tax speed-ups conservative?”

Simpson also noted shortfalls in Medicaid funding and the use of the rainy day fund to balance the current state budget. “And we have not kept up with the enrollment of our schools,” he said. “We are funding our schools a little bit more but not on a per-capita basis.”

“How can it be right to approve a half-billion dollars of handouts to special interests, including commercials for Fortune 500 companies? We put them before our children, before our students, before our coming workforce,” he complained.

Simpson was referring to state records that show subsidies (though not $500 million worth) for the production of commercials for Fortune 500 companies.

Simpson also discussed his support for abolishing the state’s Emerging Technology Fund that doles out dollars to promising business ventures. For his efforts, Simpson said he “was scolded and told (by a state leader) that if I wanted to come back … we’ve got to keep taking pork back to the district.”

“The majority in my district don’t want more pork, more handouts for special interests,” he said. “They want a level playing field.”

“Politics has a lot in common with fairy tales,” he said. “In both arenas, you have to suspend rational faculties in order to comprehend what’s going on.”

He is correct. At the Capitol, when House members flit about the chamber and cast votes for absent colleagues or to register an absent colleague as present, you do indeed have to suspend rational faculties to justify what you’re seeing. You also have to do that when a majority of the members of each chamber blatantly retreat into private to discuss the public’s business.

You also gaze in wonderment when important legislation, including bills that died during the process after lengthy deliberation, spring to life as below-the-radar amendments appended to related or semi-related or unrelated legislation in the session’s closing days.

Tom "Smitty" Smith - Director, Texas office of Public Citizen

It all gets back to what Tom Smith, director of Public Citizen Texas, an advocacy group that bills itself as “the people’s voice,” calls “the three really big lies about the Texas Legislature.”

1. The first is that “ideas pass and fail on their merits, as opposed to whether they are going to protect the politicians that are in power.”
2. The second big lie is that the rules are fair. “Anybody who has watched the Legislature knows the clocks don’t run on time and the rules get bent to benefit the people who are the insiders,” Smith said.
3. The third big lie is that the budget is based on needs. Smith noted that economic development funds controlled by Gov. Rick Perry didn’t get cut, “but we cut budgets for those people who need it the most, whether it be state agency workers or school kids.”

Smith and Simpson probably are on the opposite sides of many issues of importance. But Smith praised Simpson for “calling out the basic lies that permeate the Texas legislative process.”

“He represents the kind of principled politician we all hope we elect every session to represent us,” Smith said.

Some see Simpson as odd. Smith sees something else.

“For me, he is a hero,” Smith said

We should all keep this in mind when we go to the polls to vote.  Kudos to the Statesman for editorializing on this.

Election season is imminent and advocates for environmental welfare and public health need not look very far for the hyper-political red tape and drawbacks to pollution legislation. Like many of her colleagues in the Democratic Party, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has been campaigning nationwide for the regulation of toxins such as mercury from coal burners which, in effect, could prevent thousands of related deaths and stimulate the job market. Just two weeks ago, Jackson even made an appearance on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” encouraging viewers to exercise vigilance in the fight against toxic emissions and to demand personal protections for clean air and water.

Her sentiments were met with grand applause due to their pertinence in 2011 where it is estimated that 72% of all toxic mercury air pollution in the United States is attributable to coal plants in violation of the Clean Air Act. Just to add some perspective to this statistic, such a figure indicates that 386,000 tons of hazardous compounds are being emitted into the atmosphere per year at an unprecedented rate.

Jackson’s apparent support for tightened environmental regulations was short-lived however, when just one week following her Comedy Central interview the EPA halted essential protections for controlling exposure to air-borne mercury, arsenic, lead, and a plethora of acid gases. The basis for these laws were established in 1990 when President H.W. Bush signed Clean Air Act amendments into law thus making it the EPA’s responsibility to establish emission standards for industrial facilities. Originally, these plans operated on a permit system designed to pinpoint power plants, factories, and additional sources of ground level ozone that had exceeded allowable limits for what was deemed “requisite to protect the public welfare.”

One of these statutes created under H.W. Bush’s administration, called Boiler MACT, monitored emission caps from boilers that produced power sources specifically like those found in large to small coal plants. As of February 2011, under a court issued order, the EPA was also charged with the task of enforcing this body of legislative action. And now, a mere two years after the Obama administration vowed to protect the interests of public health and respect the law, this regulation is one of many that Jackson’s post at the EPA has indefinitely delayed.

Historically, the EPA has acted as an outspoken critic of the industrial “Powers that be” and their habits of ignoring Clean Air Act restrictions with economic impunity. In fact it was the EPA’s records that first indicated that more than 4,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 1,600 cases of acute bronchitis and an excess of 313,000 missed work and school days could be avoided if these laws were enacted properly- and this doesn’t even account for the upwards of 6,600 toxic related deaths. But the EPA strayed its course due to the fast-approaching 2012 elections. They managed to place re-election aspirations above environmental necessities on the hierarchy of political agendas, caved to industry pressures, and watered down many of their contingencies to begin with.

In lieu of this regressive blow to mandatory emission guidelines, Lisa Jackson and the EPA as a whole have endangered countless vulnerable Americans by casting a blind eye to the Boiler MACT legislation. Not only are these steps in reverse potentially (almost certainly) disastrous, people living near industrial giants and coal-fired power plants are now at serious odds with their own health and well-being.

However, not everyone is as much of a fan of the proposed order as Reich. Texas Congressman Jeb Hensarling was scheduled to attend a breakfast yesterday morning hosted by a PAC fro Fluor which is a major government contractor. Last week Rep. Hensarling voted in favor of an amendment to counteract President Obama’s executive order. Adam Smith of Public Campaign wrote on his website ” I wonder if Hensarling discussed his concern about the influence of money in our political process with the government contractor lobbyists handing him money this morning.”

In addition, this cycle has left many Congressional staffers feeling as though Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has changed the game in Congress as showed in a recent Public Citizen survey. Furthermore, as Stephen Colbert demonstrated, the Citizens United ruling made it much easier for unlimited funds to flow into politics.

Colbert proves just how dangerous the Supreme Court ruling can become. He jokes about the implications, but in Texas it is very real. In Texas, individuals as well as corporations have always had a major impact in elections and legislation. Most recently, a new Texans for Public Justice report shows that Bob Perry along with two conservative PAC’s gave substantial amounts of money to opponents of the new Home Owner Association Reform bill. Anther report by Texans for Public Justice shows that the Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons gave money to more than 61 percent of the Texas House of Representatives. Of that group, 83 percent of them voted in favor of the out-of-state nuclear waste bill. Public Citizen advocates for the government to serve the voters and not corporate special interests such as Bob Perry’s Homes or Harold Simmons‘ corporations. Public Citizen Texas fights for clean and fair elections through public financing, not corporate funded elections. We also want greater accountability in government. The public should know where political contributions are coming from, especially when corporations are involved. Because as Stephen Colbert said that the American Dream is about people working hard enough so “someday they can go on to create a legal entity which can then collect unlimited funds [for elections].”

Related articles

• Stephen Colbert To FEC: I Don’t Want To Be The ‘Chump’ Without Unlimited Corporate Cash (VIDEO) (alternet.org)
• Stephen Colbert Super PAC Hits A Snag (abcnews.go.com)

On Tuesday night, Rep. Dennis Bonnen (HB 25, Angleton), offered an amendment on SB 875 that would provide industry an affirmative defense against civil suits. This amendment would severely restrict Texans’ ability to protect their property by giving industry immunity from nuisance and trespass action on nearly every type of regulated activity.  On Wednesday afternoon, after an hour-long debate, the House tried to remove the Bonnen amendment from SB 875. The vote was 82-63 to take it off the bill, but the motion failed because, according to the House rules, an amendment on 3rd reading, requires a 2/3rd majority for passage.  So the bill passed on 3rd reading with the Bonnen amendment on it and headed back to the Senate.

Last night, due not by any small amount to all of you who called in expressing your concern about this bill, the Senate refused to concur on the bill, sending it to conference committee.  The senate members of the conference committee (conferees) are:

• Senator Troy Fraser – Chair, R-Horseshoe Bay – 512-463-0124 
• Senator Robert Duncan – R-Lubbock – 512-463-0128
• Senator Kirk Watson – D-Austin – 512-463-0114
• Senator Mike Jackson – R-La Porte – 512-463-0111
• Senator Craig Estes – R-Wichita Falls – 512-463-0130 

Later today we expect the House to announce their conferees and we will update this blog with that information.

UPDATE

The house appointed their conferees.  They are:

• Rep. Kelly Hancock – Chair, R-North Richland Hills – 512-463-0599
• Rep. Dennis Bonnen – R-Angleton – 512-463-0564
• Rep. Warren Chisum – R-Pampa – 512-463-0736
• Rep Craig Eiland – D-Galveston – 512-463-0502
• Rep Wayne Smith – R-Baytown – 512-463-0733

This all sounds familiar to those who have followed the TCEQ Sunset legislation and industry’s attempt to weaken the public’s ability to contest a permit.    The original bill (SB 875) only limited local governments’ right to bring nuisance or trespass lawsuits for greenhouse gases that negatively impacted their communities, but that was significantly expanded with Bonnen’s amendment, that upon review was so broad that it took away people’s right to protect their property from pollution beyond greenhouse gases.  The Senate conferees have said they are committed to taking the Bonnen amendment off, however this is still a bad bill.   

How can you help? Call your representative and senator’s Capitol office today. Here’s what you need to say:

Vote no on SB 875 as it comes back from the Conference Committee.  Texans believe in private property rights–and they will rightly object to laws passed to restrict these rights and the rights of our local governments to protect our interests.

If you’re not sure who represents you, you can find out here.

Thank you again for your efforts to keep this bad bill from becoming law. 

Recently, Brazil has also just earned itself the title of largest beef exporter in the world, exporting everywhere from Hong Kong, the European Union, and even to the United States (primarily fast food restaurants).  According to the Center for International Forestry Research, ‘between 1990 and 2001 the percentage of Europe’s processed meat imports that came from Brazil rose from 40-75 percent’ and by 2003 for the first time ever, ‘the growth in Brazilian cattle production—80% of which was in the Amazon—was largely export driven.’

The United States has recently been in dispute with Brazil over the cotton production industry, and (thank heavens!) placed a ban on the import of Brazilian beef…but hold on folks:  that ban is set to expire at the end of this year.  Another important note to consider: this ban on Brazilian beef imports is not a complete ban, in fact, many restaurants and other fine dining businesses in the US continue to partake in the destruction of the Amazon.  The ban only pertains to grocery stores, and is currently in debate as to whether or not it will be lifted.  The ban depends upon the dispute over cotton production industry between the two countries.  The ban was originally instated in the US due to the high levels of foot and mouth disease prominent in Brazilian beef.

Foot and mouth disease is an infectious, and sometimes fatal, viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed animals.  The virus causes a high fever for two or three days, followed by blisters inside the mouth and on the feet that may rupture and cause lameness.  Foot-and-mouth disease is a severe plague for animal farming, since it is highly infectious and can be spread by infected animals through aerosols, through contact with contaminated farming equipment, vehicles, clothing or feed, and by domestic and wild predators.  Its containment demands considerable efforts in vaccination, strict monitoring, trade restrictions and quarantines, and occasionally the elimination of millions of animals.  But once the ban is lifted this year, there’s no telling how much of our beef will be imported from Brazil.

Fast food restaurants like McDonald’s are veterans when it comes to buying their beef from Brazil, and they aren’t the only ones either! It is estimated that the making of a McDonalds Quarter-Pounder destroys 55 square feet of the endangered rainforest. So roughly speaking, this plot of land that the ever so juicy burger annihilated contains on average 1 giant tree, 50 smaller trees, 20-30 different tree species, over 100 species of insects, as well as birds, mammals, and reptiles.  The United States does import their beef from other sources, like companies in Australia as well as Canada, but since these places have been decreasing their production numbers as a result of the global recession, the US is left with few options.  The United States simply does not have enough lean meat sources in the domestic market to feed the population and must resort to relying on the import market (like Brazil) to make up the difference.

So what can you do to help? Many people have no idea where any of their food comes from, let alone their meat.  Tapping into resources that allow you to lead a more informative lifestyle when making decisions at your local grocery store is a great start.  Learning where your meat comes from and how it is raised, and only buying local or less is another option.  Then again, you could always just go cold turkey, no meat, no worries…no pun intended!

According to committee chair Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), Senate Bill 15 would create a 12-member Texas Energy Policy Council to advise legislators on “strategic, market-based” energy and environmental choices over the next 20 years.  We all know how well favoring market-based energy has worked since deregulation here in Texas.

The committee substitute for the original bill that was filed clearly favors coal-fired electric plants even though Fraser sold the committee on the idea that it was not intended to give a competitive advantage for one type of generation over another.

The bill, also directs the Texas Railroad Commission, to conduct a study projecting reserves and future prices of coal and natural gas.

The bill, as filed, directed the Public Utility Commission to identify the heaviest air polluting power plants and recommend closure of at least 4,000 megawatts worth of electric generating capacity.  The bill, as substituted and passed out of the committee, removes that language and instead would only require identification of the 10 percent of electric generating capacity that would be “most impacted by compliance with environmental regulation” and “barriers to retirement” of those plants.

The new energy policy council created by the bill would consist of officials from the Texas House and Texas Senate, the Public Utility Commission, Texas Railroad Commission, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, General Land Office, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, State Energy Conservation Office and academia.

So chalk up another win for fossil fuels, at least so far this session.

Climate change can affect livestock, especially here in Texas, aka the cattle country.  This occurs principally through variations in appetite, and distribution in energy between maintenance and growth.  The potential for disease incidence becomes increased as well. Does this become worth the cost for those who raise cattle? Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that it is not.

My family has owned a working cattle ranch for as long as I can remember.  The cattle were left to openly graze through the pastures and wander about the ranch, to the fishing pond and beyond.  I can remember countless times driving in only to be stopped by a cow standing blatantly in the middle of the road munching on some mesquite.  A few months ago, the decision was made to slowly get rid of the cattle on the ranch.  Why you ask? For one, the expense it costs to maintain such a production is becoming more than the profit.  The cattle are eating everything in sight, not allowing the wild game to acquire enough to eat to reach their full mass potential.  This essentially decreases the amount of hunting leases the ranch receives, since the game isn’t at its full potential, size wise.  As long as the cows continue to eat, they’ll also continue to erode everything in sight, especially since they’ve been grazing for so long out in the pastures.  And specifically speaking of extreme heat waves, I can remember a few times in my lifetime when we’ve had cows die right in the pastures as a result of the brutal Texas heat.  That seems to be a pretty clear indicator of the serious catastrophic risks that the effects of warming have on the hard-working cattle ranchers.

So how does this story tie in with the facts?  The result of these alterations mentioned above as related to the effects of climate change has been known to alter milk and meat production, meat quality, and species reproduction. This is a very real occurrence folks.  The cows just aren’t as healthy any more, and the expense to keep them so is only growing.  The profits returned from a cow who suffers from heat exhaustion and dehydration are less than desirable, considering the amount of money that was pumped in initially.  Climate change also affects the water supply, which indirectly affects the amount of irrigation that is allotted for agricultural purposes as well as the cattle.  In addition, grass growth and the effective distribution of  the pasture and the animals who depend upon the grazing lands in Texas become compromised. So, since the cattle on our land take up so much of the pastures and open land space, our family business is forced to compromise and only produce cattle, when the land could also very well be utilized for growing crops like alfalfa, cabbage, lettuce, etc.  But since the cattle hog all that precious land space, this is no longer a possibility.  Not to mention, pest infestation risks are also greater in warmer climates…and those Texas summers are brutal enough already!

With that being said, if climate change continues to present unfavorable conditions for livestock production, it has been suggested that ranchers may in fact need to adjust the number of cattle on their ranch (like my family’s situation-how ironic!), the time of grazing, and even the genetic composition of the cattle!

We can do anything these days, so why not just add some more GMOs to our meat.  Can’t hurt, right? After all, it’ll make them more suited to these new, more extreme environmental conditions.  So…no worries.

Lately, we proud citizens of Texas have been experiencing many floods and droughts throughout the years.  Drought can be detrimental to the cattle population as well.  Drought causes a lack of safe water accessibility for the cattle drinking it, leading to the production of unhealthy cows, who in turn do not provide healthy milk for our young human population.

As we are already dealing with an increase in warming and a shift in climate conditions, it is also worth noting that as our own population increases, the agricultural and livestock industry is only going to grow as well.  In addition to our human induced warming, a continued growth in livestock production will only exert more pressure on our ecosystems, the biodiversity, the land, our forest resources, and water quality, all the while contributing to more warming, as we continue to contribute as well.

So if all of this is happening on a quaint family cattle ranch, can you imagine the circumstances on an overpopulated factory farm? I can only imagine the conditions they’re in.  Plus, it’s important to realize that all these current studies being conducted refer to TODAY’S agricultural and livestock conditions, not tomorrow’s.

Now just imagine: a world of tomorrow with more population, way more cows to feed our population, more warming, less water supply and access to other natural resources, and perhaps a completely different economy.  There is much to be considered to maintain the health and safety of our human population for the future.  Part of this starts by learning how to successfully manage the health and ever changing conditions of the food we eat.

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.

As of today, several countries have announced intentions to review their nuclear power policies as a result of the unfolding drama in Japan.

• India announced a review of all nuclear reactors in the country in view of the Japanese radiation leak. India has 20 nuclear power plants, mostly located along the coast.
• Germany’s coalition government has suspended an agreement prolonging the life of the nation’s nuclear power stations, Chancellor Angela Merkel said.
• The Swiss government suspended plans to replace and build new nuclear plants pending a review of the two hydrogen explosions at Japanese plants.

Analysts say stocks were being largely driven by the quake-related news flow; while news of the devastating tsunami effects in northeastern Japan waned.  Fears spread amid the scramble to contain meltdowns at Tokyo Electric Power’s (Tepco) troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant as investor attention remained riveted on the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors at the facility, which were damaged by the effects of the quake and tsunami. Selling accelerated in the afternoon following a new explosion at the No. 3 reactor, similar to the one that hit the No. 1 reactor on Saturday.

Tepco’s shares went largely untraded, closing down 24 percent. Goldman Sachs also lowered its rating on the stock to Neutral from Buy and cut its target price 13 percent.

Between Tepco and Tohoku Electric Power, some 15 nuclear power units are in questionable status.

Hitachi and Toshiba, which make nuclear power technology, both sank 16 percent.

Why is the economic news of these Japanese companies of interest to Texas?

Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (NINA), the nuclear development company jointly owned by NRG Energy, Inc. and Toshiba Corporation, are the major financial partners in the two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project (STP).  Last year they announced they had reached an agreement with Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), that owns the Fukushima Daiichi, to also partner in the STP expansion.

NINA was also counting on the Japanese government to provide loan guarantees to the project.  So, of the major financial investments in this Texas nuclear expansion, three are Japanese.  One can easily predict that both the Japanese government and Japan’s nuclear industry’s economic future are going to be tied up for the foreseeable future.  Given this, it would be mind-boggling if the U.S. Department of Energy approved a loan guarantee for STP’s expansion.

One issue he does bring up is that Fukushima Daiichi is bound to raise some very big questions, inside and outside Japan including here in Texas.

Last year Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (NINA), the nuclear development company jointly owned by NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NRG) and Toshiba Corporation, announced they had reached an agreement with Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), that owns the Fukushima Daiichi, to partner in the two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project (STP).

Tepco has been implicated in a series of cover-ups down the years.

• In 2002, the chairman and four other executives resigned, suspected of having falsified safety records at Tepco power stations.
• Further examples of falsification were identified in 2006 and 2007.

As Austin Energy and CPS consider the Power Purchase Agreements NRG is peddling they should look very hard at what is happening in Japan and at TEPCO’s ability to remain a financial partner in STP.

In a Wall Street Journal article by Rebecca Smith (click here to read the entire article), she writes that the unfolding crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant casts doubt on the fundamental premise that has undergirded the global nuclear industry for five decades: that engineers can build enough redundancy into plant safety systems to overcome dangers.

Peter Bradford, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 (who has spoken to local leaders in Central Texas about numerous issues that should preclude them from becoming partners in or signing power purchase agreements with NRG in the STP expansion), said that the accident exposes shortcomings in risk analysis as well as in engineering.

“The redundancy, such as it was, obviously was inadequate to the event that actually happened,” he said. He said the problem is that certain risks always are discounted in the licensing process as “so highly unlikely that you don’t have to plan for them.”

He said that may be the case in Japan, with an earthquake that apparently exceeded the level that the plant was designed to withstand, possibly compounded by other unexpected technical problems or by the tsunami. It’s not yet known if operator error may have played a role, as it did three decades ago at Three Mile Island.

“The really important question,” Mr. Bradford said, “is to ask how different licensing bodies decide what risks have to be guarded against and see if that analysis was adequate.”

Even Texas Congressman Joe Barton, who is chair emeritus of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and a strong proponent of the push for nuclear expansion in the U.S. is now saying:

. . . that nuclear plants are designed with earthquakes in mind. “They’re supposed to be double and triple redundant…. If I’ve been to one briefing, I’ve been to a dozen, given by the industry, where they talk about all the safety features and the built-in redundancy features that protect the reactors in the event of an accident, a natural disaster, even a terrorist attack.”

Mr. Barton added that he’s “very puzzled that, even as big as this earthquake was, the plant didn’t meet those standards. That’s something that even proponents of nuclear power want to get to the bottom of…. I believe very strongly in the future of nuclear power, but those who support it have to insist that the safety redundancy features perform.”

To date, the major stumbling block to the US rushing headlong into a “nuclear renaissance”  has been the huge financial cost and risks involved in building new nuclear plants in down economy.  It is tragic and unfortunate that it is taking the failure of these Japanese plants in the wake of what surely is one of the worst disasters in Japanese history to cause the US to look more closely at their rush to increase our country’s nuclear portfolio.

As Texas officials began looking into the causes of the Texas electricity blackouts, New Mexico was holding its own hearings.  The ripple effect felt by down pipeline states when Texas’ electric grid and natural gas supplies went awry during an abnormally cold winter storm in February of this has prompted the federal agency to examine how to ensure that a new fleet of natural gas plants around the country can get plenty of fuel.

This has major implications for a state that has been expanding natural gas drilling operations exponentially over the past several years, many think to the detriment of the environment and the health of those who live around those operation.  Just ask the folks in the Barnett Shale region of North Texas.  Some of them might even be able to light their water taps on fire for you.

If you want to learn more about the concerns of citizens living in natural gas drillling areas check out “Gasland,” the Academy Award nominated documentary film by Josh Fox, that examines whether hydraulic fracturing of shale formations threatens water supplies and poses other environmental hazards.  Click here to read our earlier blog about the movie.

Video of the aftermath of the explosion shows that the containment building
has been destroyed.

The NIRS update goes on to explain, in a General Electric Mark I reactor, the containment building is fairly weak and is considered the secondary containment. The primary containment is a steel liner that surrounds the reactor core. So far, video and photos have not been clear enough for us to determine whether this steel liner is intact.

Radiation levels at the site are reported to be 1,015 micro/Sieverts per hour. This is roughly equivalent to 100 millirems/hour. The allowable annual dose for members of the public from nuclear facilities in the U.S. is 100 millirems/year. The allowable annual dose for nuclear workers is 5,000 millirems/year. The average annual background dose from all radiation sources in the U.S. is about 360 millirems/year.

The explosion in Unit 1 was almost surely a hydrogen explosion. Pressure has been building up in the containment since offsite power was lost to the reactor because of the earthquake/tsunami. The GE Mark I reactor design is called a “pressure suppression” design. Rather than be built to withstand large pressure increases, General Electric sought with this design to attempt to reduce such increases in an accident scenario. The design has been criticized by independent nuclear experts and even Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff for many years (see: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/bwrfact.htm).  In this case, the design clearly did not work. 24 U.S. reactors use the GE Mark I design.

The evacuation zone around the site has been expanded to 20 kilometers (about 12 miles). Another reactor at Fukushima Daiichi, Unit 2, is reported to be without cooling capability at this time. Three reactors at the nearby Fukushima Daini site are reported to be without cooling capability. These are GE Mark II designs, which are considered a mild improvement over the Mark I design. Both sites are on the Pacific Ocean, about six miles apart.

The ASLB is the independent body within the NRC that presides over hearings where the public can challenge proposed licensing and enforcement actions.

Oral arguments will begin at 9 a.m. CDT on Wednesday, March 16, in the Theatre Victoria at the Leo J. Welder Center for the Performing Arts, 214 N. Main St. in Victoria. The session will continue at 9 a.m. CDT on March 17. The session is open for public observation, but participation will be limited to authorized representatives of the groups taking part in the proceeding (Texans for a Sound Energy Policy [TSEP], the applicant – Exelon Nuclear Texas Holdings – and NRC staff involved in the proceeding).

Early arrival is suggested to allow for security screening for all members of the public interested in attending. NRC policy prohibits signs, banners, posters or displays in the hearing room.

Exelon submitted an ESP application March 25, 2010, seeking approval of the Victoria County Station site, which is approximately 13 miles south of Victoria. The ASLB is considering whether to grant TSEP intervenor status. The group has submitted several objections, or contentions, challenging Exelon’s application. The ASLB will hear oral argument on whether TSEP’s contentions meet the NRC’s requirements to be admitted for hearing under the NRC’s jurisdiction.

Documents related to the Victoria County Station ESP application are available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/victoria.html .

Documents pertaining to the ASLB proceeding are available in the agency’s electronic hearing docket at: http://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD .

More information about the ASLB can be found at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to limit global warming pollution from big fossil fuel industries like power plants and petroleum refineries. These industries alone account for about 40% of the global warming pollution in the U.S. — making them the two largest sources of emissions.

Here’s where you come in. The EPA is charged with developing rules called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that will protect public health, reduce the pollution that causes climate change, and send a signal to polluters that they need to invest in clean energy technologies.

It’s crucial that the EPA sticks to its schedule and develops strong rules. Between now and March 18, the EPA is accepting comments on their plans. They will definitely be receiving comments from the coal, gas and oil industries. Make sure they hear from you, too.

These rules are common sense. The EPA was created to understand our impact on our environment and protect the health of our people. An overwhelming majority of scientists are united in their understanding of the effects of global warming pollution and the EPA is charged with developing rules based on that science. Yet strong special interest groups are working to derail that process.

The EPA needs to hear that you support their efforts to limit global warming pollution from these industries. That’s why you need to encourage the EPA to issue strong New Source Performance Standards without delay.

The science is clear: Climate change is happening. Unfortunately, big polluters will make big profits if they mislead the American public about that fact. RePower America needs you to counteract and counterbalance their money and their voice by sending a comment to the EPA today.

Fill out the form by clicking here, and RePower America will deliver your comment to the EPA before the March 18 deadline:

These reports from residents led to testing that found that 46 of the more than 230 wells in the area had levels of the toxin in them that were above safety limits. Filtration systems have been provided to the owners of the contaminated wells.

Breathing airborne hexavalent chromium may cause lung cancer, can irritate or damage the nose, throat and lungs, and can also damage eyes or skin. Exposure to hexavalent chromium in drinking water can lead to an increased risk of stomach tumors.

While Texas has been at war with the EPA over the last couple of years, cleaning up sites that pose such a major threat to public health is one of the most vital aspects of the agency’s mission, and I for one, would not like to see the agency hobbled so that they can no longer protect communities from dangers posed by chemical contamination.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality first confirmed hexavalent chromium at more than 50 times the acceptable federal levels in early April 2009 in a well near West County Road 112.

Since then, 234 water wells have been tested by the TCEQ; chromium was found at above safe levels in 34 of them. The plume extends 1.25 miles from the center of the site and it covers about 260 acres, according to the EPA.

UPDATE:

Using the EPA document's description, this is about where the superfund site is centered

According to an EPA document, the Site consists of a contaminated ground water plume originating from an unidentified source. The contaminant plume is located along County Road 1290, between Interstate 20 to the south, and Interstate Business 20 to the north. The Trinity and Ogallala aquifer is the only ground water source for drinking water in the site area. The water table has been reported at depths as shallow as 30 feet below the ground surface and the base of the aquifer is approximately 95 – 105 feet below ground surface. The Triassic red beds form the base of the aquifer. Ground water flow in the aquifer is expected to be generally to the south-southeast.

As part of the National Priorities List, the EPA will take the lead at the site and federal funds will be available for identifying the source of contamination and providing a method of cleanup.

Until a source of contamination is identified, EPA officials said in a release sent out Tuesday that the plume of contamination will continue to grow and affect additional water wells.

City of Midland officials have said, at this time, the city is unable to provide water to residents in that area. A group is working to put together a water district that would serve county residents, including those in the contaminated area, but a source of water has yet to be identified.

If a water source were available, EPA staff have said they could consider funding pipelines as part of the remediation process.

Related Articles

• New EPA Recs for Monitoring Chromium-6 in Water (abcnews.go.com)
• Worker Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium: Public Citizen Health Research Group and PACE International v. Chao
• Industry Negotiates Settlement Agreement with OSHA and Public Citizen on Hexavalent Chromium Workplace Exposure Rule - OSHA’s Final Rule

Mike Norman, the editorial director of the Star-Telegram/Arlington and Northeast Tarrant County, writes about the precarious lab rat position of citizens in the Barnett Shale.  Click here to read his editorial.