TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas

AUSTIN, Texas — The 85^th Legislature gave all Texans a surprising bit of good news when they extended the programs for the Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP), which was set to expire in 2019.

TERP is the second largest air pollution reduction program in Texas, and since its inception in 2001 it has become the most cost-effective way to reduce air pollution in the state.

Only hours before the final deadline to pass a “Conference Committee Report,” the Texas Legislature approved SB 1731, which included an amendment to reform and expand TERP. In response, the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and Environmental Defense Fund — who have supported and worked with legislators and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality since 2001 on TERP implementation — praised lawmakers for their efforts, but issued a warning: the Legislature must actually appropriate the money now.

“We salute the Texas Legislature for extending and expanding TERP programs so that Texas actually complies with EPA’s health-based standards for ozone pollution in our major cities,” noted Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director of the Sierra Club’s Lone Star Chapter. “However, the Legislature failed to extend the fees that pay for the program, and the budget bill actually cut appropriations for TERP by some $80 million over two years, subject to a possible adjustment by the Legislative Budget Board. This will need to be fixed for the program to work as it should.”

Recent polling has found that TERP has strong support in Houston, where air pollution is a constant problem. “We’re glad that the Legislature responded to the concerns of Houstonians,” said Adrian Shelley, director of the Public Citizen Texas office. “One of the major improvements for TERP under SB 1731 is the provision to allow more money to be spent in rail yards and port yards, where we have the greatest air pollution concentrations,” he added.

“We’re pleased that TERP has been extended and now includes modifications that will allow more cost-effective projects at ports,” said Christina Wolfe, Manager, Air Quality, Port and Freight Facilities at the Texas office of the Environmental Defense Fund. “There is plenty of work ahead of us to ensure that all Texans breathe healthy air, so we appreciate the Texas Legislature taking this first step in recognizing the importance of TERP. Now we need them to ensure the programs are funded.”

The bill to extend and expand the program had a somewhat tortured history. After passing the Senate early in the session, SB 26 by Craig Estes (R- Wichita Falls) was then referred to the House Committee on Environmental Regulation. There, clean air advocates — which included environmental groups like EDF, Sierra Club and Public Citizen, and industry groups like the Texas Chemical Council, the Texas Association of Business and electric utilities — worked with Chairman Joe Pickett (D – El Paso), Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R-Odessa), Rep. Ron Reynolds (D-Houston) and Rep. Tony Dale (R- Round Rock) to craft a revised version of SB 26, which put more emphasis on the most cost-effective programs, including the revised Seaport and Rail Yards program to clean up pollution from equipment at our ports and rail yards.

However, the House version of SB 26 was put late on the calendar and the House of Representatives did not get to the bill when the deadline of midnight occurred on May 23rd. Then, versions of SB 26 were added to three other bills as amendments, though two of them were not taken up. Finally, on May 29th, at approximately 9:30 PM, both houses passed the TERP bill as part of SB 1731 by Sen. Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) and Rep. Morgan Meyer (R-Dallas).

While the groups behind the TERP legislation were happy with the passage SB 1731, some last-minute confusion on the budget made it unclear how much TERP is actually funded for the next two years. During last-minute budget negotiations, TERP funding was cut from approximately $118 million per year to $78 million per year, and a contingency rider that was supposed to restore funding if a TERP bill passed was not in the final version of the budget.

In addition, separate legislation to extend the six fees that actually fund TERP did not pass, meaning the Legislature will need to come back in 2019 to extend them if the programs are to continue.

“We call on Governor Abbot to not only sign SB 1731 into law, but call back the Legislative Budget Board to adjust the budget to reflect its passage and return the nearly $40 million a year that was cut to fund these new programs,” added Reed. “Ultimately, the Legislature is going to have to decide how important it is to get the dirty air in our cities cleaned up and extend the fees — and spend the revenues — to help our children, the elderly and those with asthma to be able to breathe clean air.”

###

Read Full Post »

Republicans have been waging a war against public health regulations in the United States for longer than I’ve been alive. One of the latest worrisome developments in this trend is the push-back from many conservative states, Texas among them, against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new standards regarding ground-level ozone, otherwise known as smog.

When the last revision of ozone standards was completed in 2008, the standard, at 75 parts per billion (ppb), was set to allow much higher levels of pollution than many environmental and public safety groups felt was necessary to protect the public well-being. The panel in charge of advising the EPA on the new standard, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), unanimously recommended a standard between 60 and 70 ppb. However, the Administrator of the EPA at the time was appointed by President Bush, served conservative interests, and chose to adopt 75 ppb instead.

Now, thankfully, under the new regulations finalized in October of 2015, states will have to meet a standard of 70 ppb after the CASAC again recommended a standard between 60 and 70 ppb. With the difficult political climate right now, it’s clear the EPA believed that adopting the least aggressive option while still improving public health would meet with the least resistance. However, it has met considerable resistance from the current Congress, as 10 bills have been introduced attempting to delay the implementation of these standards, with some bills even attempting to prohibit funding the EPA.

The estimated cost of implementing the new 70 ppb standard is $1.4 billion, whereas choosing a standard of 65 ppb would have raised the cost of implementation to $16 billion. States have until 2020 to reach 70 ppb, with the most polluted areas allowed as long until 2037 to reach attainment. This should be a win for Republicans, so it’s difficult to understand the current rhetoric being thrown around by those who are objecting to the new standard. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed in a press release “The EPA’s new ozone rule is not supported by scientific data” and then went on to complain that it will require “costly new regulations that will harm our economy and kill jobs.”

These are ridiculous assertions. Here’s why:

Firstly, a brief outline of the process for reviewing Ozone NAAQS (standards) should be enough to refute the claim that there is no science behind the rule: Federal EPA scientists reviewed 2,300 scientific studies to complete the preliminary Integrated Science Assessment. After the EPA prepared a Risk and Exposure Assessment to identify at-risk populations and health impacts, a Policy Assessment summarized the information in the previous two documents and provide the EPA Administrator with policy options.

Then, as required under the Clean Air Act, an independent scientific advisory panel, the CASAC, was formed to review the entire process. The panel members are generally from academia and private research institutions. Leading experts on health and environmental effects of specific pollutants are then regularly called in to supplement the panel’s considerable scientific knowledge.
Secondly, the health benefits were estimated between $2.9 billion and $5.9 billion, clearly outweighing the $1.4 billion cost. The projected health benefits come in the form of less heart and lung diseases and a reduction in premature deaths. Most notably, 320 to 660 premature deaths could be avoided with adoption of these new regulations, which account for 94 to 98 percent of the EPA’s total monetized benefits of the new standards.

Under the new standards we can prevent:
• 11,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms
• 230,000 cases of exacerbated asthma
• 188,000 days when people miss school or work from illness related to smog
• 340 cases of acute bronchitis
• 960 hospital admissions and emergency room visits

To say that these costly regulations will not be worth the benefits is to say that one does not care about or value human life or quality of human life.

Republicans have been fighting for the right to disregard human life, environmental health and EPA regulations for a long time. Most recently, the 112th Congress attempted to pass legislation that would have required the EPA to take costs into consideration when setting standards. As it is now, the EPA is supposed to place public and environmental health above economic costs. The current Congress has again introduced legislation requiring the EPA to take costs into account when setting future standards.

In their 2015 brief on the new Ozone NAAQs, the Congressional Research Service highlights eight of the ten plus bills that have been introduced by the current Congress that attempt to delay or prevent implementation of the new standards. Texas is spearheading the effort to subvert the EPA, with four of the highlighted bills coming from Texas Representatives. All the eight bills are backed by Republicans. North Texas Representative Sam Johnson, introduced legislation that would “provide no funds made available under any act may be used by EPA to implement any ozone standard.” On top of that, Texas is suing the EPA, in an attempt to overturn the new ozone standards.  It is clear that this lawsuit and these many legislative attacks are acts of Republican disbelief in science and disregard for public health.

Read Full Post »

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to reclassify the Dallas-Fort Worth area (DFW) as being in severe nonattainment of the original 8-hour ozone standard of 84 parts per billion. The proposal will be published for public comment in the Federal Register in seven to 10 days. Upon publication, a 30-day public comment period will begin.

EPA has been coordinating closely with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), North Central Texas Council of Governments, elected officials and statewide environmental organizations in preparation for today’s proposed action. While DFW’s air quality has steadily improved as its population grows, the area missed a June 2013 deadline to attain the 1997 ozone standard. Because the area did not meet the deadline of June 15, 2013, to attain the 1997 standard, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to reclassify DFW as a severe nonattainment area.

TCEQ has developed a clean air plan for the revised 2008 ozone standard and is expected to submit that plan to EPA for review by July 2015. A copy of the proposed plan is publicly available – click here to access it .

DFW air quality has significantly improved over the last decade. Ten years ago, the 8-hour average was 98 parts per billion (ppb); the preliminary value for 2010-2014 is 81 ppb. During that time, DFW has also been among the fastest-growing regions in the country. The area’s achievement came through a combination of federal measures to clean up fuels and reduce emissions from engines, state measures to reduce emissions from stationary sources, and efforts of the public during ozone season—including using public transport, refueling in the evenings, and properly maintaining their vehicles.

Ground-level ozone is created by chemical reactions between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight. In DFW, mobile sources such as cars and trucks are the biggest emitters of ozone “ingredients.” Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma. Ground-level ozone contributes to the formation of smog, and can harm sensitive vegetation and ecosystems.

Click here to read more about ground-level ozone and its adverse health effects:

Read Full Post »