Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘pollution’

UPDATE: Happening now in Houston, until 8pm CT.  Go on Facebook to TEJAS’s page to watch.

https://www.facebook.com/TejasBarrios/videos/

Date:           Thursday, 11/17/2016
Location:  Hartman Community Center, 9311 East Ave. P. Houston, TX 77012
Time:          2:00 pm – 8:00 pm.

Join HPCC public health advocates at an EPA hearing about toxic air pollution from petroleum refineries!

(En español, mira aquí: http://airalliancehouston.org/wp-content/uploads/Spanish-EPA-Hearing-Flier.pdf)

The Environmental Protection Agency will hold a public hearing on the reconsideration of the Refinery Sector Rule for which EPA did not provide adequate opportunity for notice and comment. This rulemaking is the result of a lawsuit filed by Air Alliance Houston, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Community In-Power and Development Association, and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, who are collectively represented by Earthjustice.

This is is our only chance to tell EPA we are concerned about pollution from oil refineries and its impact on our health. This is the only public hearing EPA will hold anywhere in the country, and public comment will be taken for six hours, from 2-8 pm. We’d like EPA to hear from us and our allies in refinery communities throughout the entire hearing, so please sign up to speak today.

Join us in telling EPA:

  • Our health suffers from pollution from oil refineries.
  • Our children are particularly at risk from the health effects of air pollution.
  • Air pollution affects our lives where we live, work, and play.

Together we can demand a stronger rule to protect communities from air pollution. The refining industry must cut pollution by:

  • Reducing emissions from flares and pressure relief devices.
  • Eliminate pollution exemptions for malfunction and force majeure events.
  • Require fenceline monitoring at all times.

Air Alliance Houston will have fact sheets and talking points available at the hearing.
If you would like to present oral testimony at the hearing, please complete this form or notify Ms. Virginia Hunt no later than November 15, 2016, by email: hunt.virginia@epa.gov (preferred); or by telephone: (919) 541-0832.
Space will also be available that day if time slots are not all filled, on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Basic background on key issues from EPA:
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-reconsideration-october-2016
Sign the Earthjustice petition: http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2016/community-and-environmental-groups-sue-the-epa-and-call-on-the-agency-to-remove-free-pass-to-pollute-from

Read Full Post »

This summer, President Obama committed the U.S. to be a global leader on curbing climate disruption and proposed that we start by limiting carbon pollution from power plants. Currently, there are no limits on the amount of carbon pollution spewed into the air by power plants. It’s time to change that.

As they prepare to set carbon pollution standards for existing power plants, the EPA is holding a listening session on November 7 in Dallas for community members and stakeholders. This is your opportunity to let your voice be heard and to tell the EPA that our planet and our futures depend on strong, just action to address climate disruption.

RSVP today for the Dallas listening session to take action for climate protection!

Event details:

WHO: You, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and climate activists
WHAT: EPA listening session on carbon limits
WHEN: November 7 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
WHERE: 1st Floor Auditorium, J. Erik Jonsson Central Library, 1515 Young Street, Dallas, TX (map)
RSVP: Click here to RSVP

Questions: Contact Kaiba White at kwhite@citizen.org or 512-637-9462.

We’ve known for decades that carbon wrecks our health and our climate, and power plants are the nation’s top source. Their pollution fuels climate disruption — it makes wildfires burn hotter and droughts last longer. Warm summer weekends become scorching heatwaves and floods become disasters. Unlimited carbon pollution means more smog, more asthma attacks, and more climate disruption.
(more…)

Read Full Post »

Plant in Point Comfort

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.

Read Full Post »

The comment period for the proposed new TCEQ Compliance History rules was extended in large part due to Public Citizen making the public aware that the TCEQ had run test scores on their data from the previous year’s posting but were not willing to release that information to us, the Austin American Statesman or the public.  When they did release the data and then subsequently extend the comment period, the data was not in a format that was useful to most folks.

After much wrangling with the agency, they finally released the test scores this afternoon and they can be accessed below:

Proposed Chapter 60 Compliance History Test Scores

The test Compliance History scores for proposed revision to 30 TAC Chapter 60 (Compliance History) rule are available here.

The test Compliance History scores available below are intended to provide approximations of what scores might look like under the Commission’s proposed Chapter 60 (Compliance History) rule.  These scores were generated as part of the agency’s proposed rulemaking process.

These are not official Compliance History scores and therefore, are not subject to the Chapter 60 appeal process. Due to computer programming limitations during rule development , individual scores do not reflect all aspects of the formula as proposed. Rather, the scores represent approximate numbers using a simplified model, as explained below. Limitations include the following:

  • The scores were generated using applicable compliance-history data from September 1, 2006–August 31, 2011, made public on October 1, 2011 and thus to regulated entities so they can make corrections, as necessary, since that date.  Upon rule adoption, new compliance-history scores will be generated using data from September 1, 2007–August 31, 2012.
  • The scores do not accurately reduce points for compliance with administrative orders. Under the proposed rule, two years after the effective date of an order, if an entity is compliant with all ordering provisions and has resolved all violations, the points attributable to that order will be reduced.  The reduction will be 25 percent for year three, 50 percent for year four, and 75 percent for year five.  The simplified model does not take into consideration compliance with the order. Therefore, under the simplified model, all orders receive the total reductions allowed each year under the proposed rule.  Entities that have not yet achieved compliance with an order receive a reduction under the simplified model that is not warranted.
  • Points awarded for “small entities” are not completely reflective of the proposed rule.  Under the proposed rule, points are allocated to small entities.  The simplified model allocates points for small businesses but does not allocate points for small cities and counties.
  • Reductions for voluntary programs are not completely reflective of the proposed rule.  The proposed rule allows for a maximum 25% reduction of compliance history points for implementing voluntary programs, such as an environmental management system.  If an entity has multiple voluntary programs, the simplified model does not accurately apply reductions for all programs.
  • Changes to the proposed formula and associated compliance-history components may be made as part of the rule adoption process.  Any changes to the proposed formula or components as a result of the rulemaking process would change scores that will be calculated on September 1, 2012.

To download test Compliance History scores click the link below:

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/enforcement/history/compliance-history-test-data.html

Please note that these reports are large files and, depending on your connection speed, may take several minutes to download.

These scores will only be available to download for the duration of the Chapter 60 public-comment period, which has been extended and will close on March 23, 2012.

You may comment on this rule via eComments.

We have provided sample comments for you to use in submitting your own.  We have also provided information on where and how to submit your comments below.

Comments of _Your name here_ on 2011-032-060-CE: HB 2694 (4.01 and Article 4): Compliance History Draft Rules.

Polluter-friendly amendments, proposed in the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality’s new regulatory rules, serve to increase the degree of noncompliance a company is permitted with no consequence. More noncompliance means more unauthorized toxins in the air, water, and ground in communities across Texas.

We are unsatisfied with the compliance history proposals because:

  • The TCEQ has jurisdiction over 250,000 entities all around the state. Holding one public hearing at 10 a.m. in Austin does not give citizens enough of an opportunity to give feedback. I would like to have a meeting hosted at the TCEQ office in my region so that I can participate in this process.
  • Increased compliance history leniency will cut the percentage of companies considered unsatisfactory from 5% to a mere 3% without reducing an ounce of pollution.  Compliance standards should be raised the longer a regulation has been in place, not made less effective by changing the unsatisfactory rating cutoff from 45 to 55 noncompliance points.
  • The executive director will be able to pardon polluters at his discretion—instead of adhering to a standard protocol. Why have formal classifications if the director can reclassify an entity or decide that a repeat violator charge should not apply? This is a nontransparent, unstipulated and unacceptable loophole.
  • Polluters will improve their compliance history score by signing up for supplemental environmental programs, regardless of effectiveness. Mere participation in a voluntary pollution reduction points does not warrant a 5% reward. The formula should call for measured returns for measured results.
  • The TCEQ has not presented information that calculates how the new formula will affect entities. Given the denseness of the proposal’s language, I would like to have a way to interpret the new compliance history ratings.
  • The proposed language for repeat violations would make it very difficult for any facility with many “complexity points” to ever be considered a repeat violator. Because so many points are given for different kinds of permits, authorizations and even hazardous waste units, getting to “25” complexity points will be easy for any large industrial facility or major entity, meaning that the only way they would be penalized for being a repeat violator would be to have four or more violations over the last five years.

I urge you to utilize TCEQ’s rulemaking process to implement changes that will benefit the health, communities, and resources of Texas citizens and not the pocketbook interests of businesses.

Comments due by 5pm on March 23, 2012.

Texas Register Team – MC 205 General Law Division Office of Legal Services TCEQ P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087

Tips on Commenting Effectively

You will be providing comments for the rulemaking – 2011-032-060-CE: HB 2694 (4.01 and Article 4): Compliance History

  • Identify who you are and why the regulation affects you;
  • Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed rulemaking;
  • Be direct in your comment; and
  • Offer alternatives, compromise solutions, and specific language for your suggested changes.

Read Full Post »

Comment Period Extended to March  23rd

The Texas Commission for Environmental Quality is the second largest environmental agency in the world—with a budget to match. Help hold TCEQ accountable for taxpayer’s interests and stop them from implementing rules that favor polluting businesses.

TCEQ’s Mission Statement and Agency Philosophy includes a commitment to “ensure meaningful public participation in the decision-making process.”  Frankly, that did not translate into practice last week.  At the public hearing on Tuesday, March 6th, Public Citizen testified about our experience attempting to gain access to an agency analysis of the proposed changes to Chapter 60 (Compliance History) rule on a previous report that is accessible on TCEQ’s website as an ASCII file which can be imported into an excel spreadsheet. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Get tough on environmental crimes

Texas law requires that the our state environmental agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), consider a facility’s past compliance when making decisions regarding permits or inspections.  In fact, a facility’s Compliance History score affects every bit of its business with the TCEQ.

New rules currently proposed by the TCEQ to the Compliance History program would possibly bump up thousands of previously categorized “poor” performers to an “average” classification without having removed an ounce of pollution from our air and water.  The TCEQ has introduced even more limitations which will only further serve to keep every facility average.  These changes include increasing the score by which a performer falls into the poor category, separating repeat violations by media (i.e. administrative violations vs specific emissions violations), giving the TCEQ Executive Director extraordinary authority to change a facility’s classification, and handing out bonus points for ill-defined and unregulated voluntary measures that a facility can implement.

If the Compliance History program reforms go forward as currently written, we will be missing out on two major opportunities by continuing to pretend that all facilities in this state are average.

  • First, we miss a chance to implement the type of regulation that a lot of people in our state prefer.
  • Second, and most importantly, we miss a huge opportunity to try to clean up the air and water around our state in a business friendly manner.

At a time when the challenge of grappling with an increasing array of environmental and health threats to our state and its population gets harder every day, we cannot afford to let such opportunities pass us by.  We urge the TCEQ to reconsider its Compliance History rules, and deliver a program that works to the people of the state of Texas.

The public has a chance to weigh in on these rules and we ask you to consider coming to the public hearing on March 6th or sending comments to the TCEQ by March 12th.  Tell them:

  • Don’t pardon the polluters by increasing the threshold for being declared a poor performer
  • Don’t give the executive director the right to pardon polluters
  • Don’t give polluters a get out of jail free card for signing up for “defensive polluting” classes

As we know from our criminal justice system, swift sure and certain punishment deters crime.  We should apply these lessons to environmental crime too

Public Hearing : TCEQ will hold a public hearing on this proposal in Austin on March 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Building E, Room 201S, at the commission’s central office located at 12100 Park 35 Circle.

Comments can be submitted  by March 12, 2012.

Tips on Commenting Effectively

You will be providing comments for the rulemaking – 2011-032-060-CE: HB 2694 (4.01 and Article 4): Compliance History

  • Identify who you are and why the regulation affects you;
  • Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed rulemaking;
  • Be direct in your comment; and
  • Offer alternatives, compromise solutions, and specific language for your suggested changes.

Read Full Post »

TCEQ will soon be making some big decisions on how to implement reforms passed during the last legislative session, especially on its penalty policy–and your input is needed quickly:

  • Comments are due on August 30th

Last session, Public Citizen worked with a partnership, The Alliance for a Clean Texas (ACT), and thanks to the efforts of thousands of citizens who joined forces with ACT, the Texas Legislature made some very important improvements to TCEQ’s laws regarding enforcement policies and penalties for polluters.

Lawmakers raised penalties to $25,000 per violation and told TCEQ to minimize the economic benefit to polluters of breaking the law. Now, to make these new policies work, TCEQ commissioners must adopt rules that address:

  • The economic impact of decisions to pollute (The state auditor has previously found that fines are 1/8 of the economic value gained by violating the law.)
  • How to assess fines for repeat violators.
  • Whether to assess a separate fine to each permit violation or just one per overall incident, called speciation. (This can make a huge difference in the size of the fines and the incentive for companies to not pollute.)
  • Whether to put TCEQ’s enforcement policies into the rules or just adopt them as general guidelines. (Putting the policies into rule makes them stronger and harder for the TCEQ to let polluters off with inadequate penalties.)

Comments are due August 30th on these rules. To sign on to ACT’s draft comments, go here. You may also use them to develop for your own comments. You can find tips about writing comments here. Go here for the TCEQ Sunset Process hub on the ACT website.

Read Full Post »

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has agreed to close 18 coal units over the next 6 years. This is a major victory in the battle for clean air, particularly in regards to TVA, who has been sued many times for their air pollution violations as well as being responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters in history: the TVA Kingston Coal Ash spill. Hopefully this signifies a shift overall throughout the country, and throughout the world, away from coal and towards an energy system based on renewables instead of fossil fuels.

My favorite quote so far comes from this Time article:

If there is a war on coal, environmental forces may have just won the Battle of Midway.

You can also read more about this accord at The New York Times.

For those of you around Texas and throughout the United States, take this to heart: we are winning the fight against coal and we will continue to win as long as we keep up the pressure. Our best thoughts go out to all the folks gathered at Power Shift 2011 (going on all weekend) – you all have something to celebrate tonight!

###

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.

Read Full Post »

The TCEQ ruled today on the air permit for the proposed Las Brisas pet-coke plant in Corpus Christi. The good news is they didn’t grant the permit (yet), instead they remanded the permit back to the State Office of Administrative Hearings on a number of issues. However, they refused to acknowledge some of the most important aspects and requirements of the process (like a case-by-case analysis of the hazardous air pollutants) and practically ignored the recommendations of the administrative law judges and even their own staff – who have all recommended that this permit be denied.

TCEQ should have sent Las Brisas packing – they should have outright denied this joke of a permit, or at the least made them restart the permitting process from square one. Instead we have the same old story from TCEQ. They have shown once more that their primary interest is to allow industries to pollute irresponsibly and not, as it should be, to protect the people and environment of Texas from unnecessary pollution.

The video below is of the press conference held yesterday, which also talked about revisions to water quality standards – another mistake TCEQ is in the process of making. Visit Sierra Club’s website for more on that. Stay tuned to Texas Vox for more info on the Las Brisas case – the video footage of today’s proceedings will be up by tomorrow and will include responses from the protestants in the case including locals from Corpus Christi.

[vimeo 12988286]

###

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

Read Full Post »

[vimeo 10526826]

On March 16, 2010 Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Downwinders At Risk, Texas Campaign for the Environment and other concerned environmental organizations and individuals held a public meeting to submit comments to the EPA regarding their newly proposed ozone standard. State representatives and staff from Region 6 of the EPA were there to hear comments. These are the video comments that were recorded by those who did not get an opportunity to speak in front of the panel. These video comments were submitted to the EPA.

###

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.

Read Full Post »

Last Thursday Austin Energy General Manager Roger Duncan briefed Austin City Council on the utility’s Resource and Climate Protection Plan.  This plan is the culmination of 18 months of input from the public, the creation of a generation resource task force of various stakeholders to review various energy plans and make recommendations, and support and input from both the Electric Utility Commission and the Resource Management Com­mis­sion — but it still isn’t the end of the line for the plan.  The generation plan will also be the subject of a city-wide town hall meeting February 22nd, and city council is expected to vote on some version of it in March.

The energy plan that Duncan (who will be retiring soon and we wish him the very best) presented  sets Austin on a path to reduce our carbon emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and get a total of 35% of our energy from renewable resources. It will meet council’s renewable energy goals, move Austin Energy towards becoming the leading utility in the nation in terms of clean energy and global warming solutions, and re-affirm the city’s commitment to the Climate Protection Plan, which has the laudable goal to establish a cap and reduction plan for the utility’s carbon dioxide emissions.  It is a flexible, living document that will allow council to evolve and adapt as conditions change. AND it will reduce the capacity factor of our Fayette Coal Plant to 60% and gets the ball rolling on figuring out the best way to shut it down(which you know makes me happy). Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, doesn’t it?

As we’ve come to expect over the years from our award winning utility, Austin Energy is taking an especially responsible and forward-thinking role with this new plan.  I’ve formed this opinion for a few reasons:

  1. They’re adopting aggressive renewable energy and efficiency goals as part of a larger, smart business plan.  Austin doesn’t need a new generation plan because we’re going to be strapped for energy by 2020; Austin Energy could rest on their laurels and do nothing for the next ten years and we’d be fine buying up excess energy on the open market as its power purchase agreements expire and gas plants age.  But if they did that, by the time 2020 rolled around Austin would be way behind the technological curve and very likely be stuck with higher rates as a result.  Austin Energy has picked up on the national trend that the traditional fuels we rely upon, such as coal, are quickly becoming financial liabilities even as solar and wind are becoming more and more cost effective.  This plan will allow the utility to reposition itself  for 2020 going forward so that in ten years we will have made the preparations necessary to take full advantage of the coming clean tech boom rather than be left scrambling and dependent on outdated energy sources.
  2. Austin Energy and the task force that helped formulate this plan were very careful to balance considerations of reliability, affordability, and clean (in terms of the environment and human health).  The city has the responsibility to make sure that everyone who lives here can afford their utility bills.  It doesn’t do any good to make the switch to a new clean economy if we do so on the backs of those that can least afford it.  But that couldn’t be farther from the case with this plan; this isn’t green for some, this is green for all.  Compared to other options, this plan will minimize the impact for those least able to pay their electricity bill, supports in-house economic development and the hiring of local contractors, and ensures that everyone will have a chance to play a role in moving our city and economy forward.  There’s been a lot of focus and attention on the utility’s estimate that the plan will raise rates in 2020 by approximately 22% or $21 a month, but what’s missing from that discussion is that even if Austin Energy doesn’t do anything between now and 2020 rates will go up by 15% or about $14 a month.  So do the math — for an extra $7 a month in ten years, we can build up a clean local economy that minimizes impacts on low-income consumers and creates avenues to new employment opportunities, improves public health, AND puts Austin in a prime position to start lowering rates by taking advantage of cheap renewable energy. OR we can save families $7 a month compared to today on their utility bills but lose out on new jobs and leave every citizen in the city of Austin at the mercy of high fossil fuel costs and coming federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.  Austin Energy is not only looking at what is most affordable now, but what is most affordable in the long term. Coal may be cheap and reliable energy now, but depending on it in the long term will get us into trouble in terms of cheap and affordable in 2020.
  3. Austin Energy is not only reaching for the low fruit of emissions reductions and energy efficiency, they’re building high-tech ladders to get at the really juicy stuff at the top of the tree. Let me explain. There are a number of ways Austin Energy could go about reducing emissions.  The easiest of these would be to buy renewable energy credits, or RECs. RECs and offsets are in essence a mechanism for utilities, businesses, and governmental bodies to pay someone else to clean up and still get the credit for it.  They’re a good and have a positive influence on society at large because they do encourage clean energy investment and development, but not necessarily in a nearby community (in fact almost certainly not).  It might be easier in the short run to pay someone else to be clean up, but then we miss out on all the delicious creamy gravy that comes along with renewable energy development.  If you buy RECs you don’t get new jobs and businesses in your community.  If you buy RECs your own people are still breathing the same amount of pollution.  But Austin Energy is taking the initiative to really get at the heart of the problem by cutting the amount of pollution coming out of the smokestacks we own.  For that, they should be applauded.

This is just my own personal take-away from listening to various people discuss the recommendation plan and hearing Roger Duncan’s presentation to council. You can learn a lot more about the process and final recommended plan by visiting AustinSmartEnergy.com or CleanEnergyforAustin.org. Join us after the jump for some fast facts on the various components of the plan, but for the real nitty gritty check out Duncan’s own powerpoint presentation.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Austin is not alone in preparing for clean and affordable energy.

When good news like this comes across the internet like this, we have to share. From the cloudy northwest:

Portland General Electric Co. would shut down the state’s only coal-fired power plant 20 years earlier than planned under a proposal it hopes to finalize with state and federal regulators in the coming months.

Essentially, the new plan to shut the Boardman plant down 20 years earlier than planned is to avoid extra costs for pollution controls (more than $500 million by 2017) and avoid carbon risks.  PGE still owes $125 million on the plant, and replacing the 500 MW of power will have its costs too, but read on…

Based on its analysis of carbon and natural gas prices, however, PGE maintains that a 2020 shutdown would be the low-cost, least-risk plan for utility ratepayers and shareholders [emphasis mine]. Under the existing plan, both face the risk of making the huge investment to control haze causing pollution – which does nothing to control the plant’s carbon emissions — then seeing the plant close anyway if global warming legislation or a carbon tax makes its output prohibitively expensive.

Read the full article here. Coal represents about a quarter of PGE’s generation mix. (Los Angeles also has a goal to get out of coal by 2020.)

Austin Energy has similar plans to get out of its only coal plant, the Fayette Power Project. No target date is set yet, but the utility’s 2020 generation plan would reduce Austin’s dependence on it by 20-30%. The next two years will be important as Austin works with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas  (the grid operator for most of Texas) and the Lower Colorado River Authority (co-owner of Fayette) to see what the most practical and fair way out. Learn more about the resource plan and some excellent additional recommendations at www.cleanenergyforaustin.org. You can also learn a lot from AE’s website www.austinsmartenergy.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.

Read Full Post »

Great editorial in the Dallas Morning News this weekend. We couldn’t agree more 🙂

Editorial: Texas, a state of denial on pollution rules

To the surprise of no one, the Environmental Protection Agency announced tougher ozone limits this week. The move to tighten pollution standards had long been anticipated as evidence mounted to illustrate the serious health risks associated with smog exposure.

In Texas, a state with notoriously dirty air, the appropriate response from leaders would be to get to work. Significant changes must be made to comply with federal rules – not to mention, to protect the people who live here.

But instead of getting started, too many state leaders just got angry. They seemed shocked – shocked! – that the EPA would dare abide by the science showing significant consequences of allowing a less stringent standard.

Gov. Rick Perry stuck with his three-pronged approach to environmental regulations: deny, deflect, pout.

In his statement, the governor denied the need for tougher ozone limits, somehow conflating smog rules with carbon dioxide regulations and suggesting that flawed science spurred this week’s announcement.

In fact, scientists have found that ozone exposure damages our lungs and is linked to heart and respiratory illnesses. Smog can be deadly. By lumping ozone standards in with climate change legislation, Perry only confuses the issue.

The governor also deflected suggestions that the state has less than pristine air. He focused on Texas’ modest anti-pollution efforts, ignoring the fact that our skies are still dangerously dirty.

And Perry pouted, arguing that the EPA has made Texas workers and taxpayers a target. Some of Perry’s allies have echoed that idea, asserting that the new administration has been hostile to the state.

The EPA is not picking on Texas.

The same pollution standards will apply to every state. Inhaling smog-choked air is a dicey proposition, no matter where folks live.

Admittedly, complying with the new rules will be tougher for Texas than many other states. That’s because years of plugging our ears, closing our eyes and pretending that new pollution rules weren’t looming did not leave Texas in a state of preparedness.

Implementing the lower ozone limits will come at a cost. But, the EPA notes, the new rules should yield comparable savings by reducing illnesses, emergency room visits and lost work days resulting from ozone-related symptoms.

The state now must get started on a serious ozone reduction strategy. Deny, deflect, pout doesn’t seem to be working.

###

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.

Read Full Post »

imagesThis week Public Citizen Texas and the Sierra Club are launching a statewide media tour of Texas coal plants.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently rejected key aspects of the air permitting plan of Texas’ regulatory agency — the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and called for proper enforcement of the Clean Air Act in Texas.

That’s why we’re launching a TEXAS STATE-WIDE COAL PLANT TOUR to visit communities that have been negatively impacted by the TCEQ’s failure to enforce the law and control pollution.  We’ll be collecting postcards from citizens at the tour stops across Texas to deliver the messages to the EPA in support of the EPA’s recent announcement — and will have an action center here on the blog so that you can get involved as well.

If you live in Waco, Dallas, Abilene, College Station, Corpus Christi, Bay City, or Houston, keep an eye out for our clean energy trailer!  You’ll find us in the following locations at these times:

Week One Tour Stops

Monday, Sept. 21, WACO, 10:00 am, Heritage Park, 3rd Street & Austin Avenue

Tuesday, Sept. 22 , DALLAS, 10:00 am, The 500 Block of Reunion Blvd East, across the street from the Dallas Morning News (32.774975,-96.807328 on google maps)

Wednesday, Sept. 23, ABILENE, 10:00 am, Lake Fort Phantom Hill, Sweetwater, Texas

Week Two Tour Stops

Monday, Sept. 28, COLLEGE STATION, 10:00 am, Location TBA

Tuesday, Sept. 29, CORPUS CHRISTI, 10:00 am, Location TBA

Tuesday, Sept. 29, BAY CITY, 4:00 pm, Steps of the Court House (1700 7th Street)

Wednesday, Sept. 30, HOUSTON, 10:00 am, Tranquility Park, 515 Rusk, across from the federal courthouse

To learn more about proposed and existing coal plants in Texas and the negative impacts that they bring to our state, check out The Threat from Coal is Far From Over.

Read Full Post »

Maybe I am underestimating the reach of this blog, but I am guessing that if your are reading this you probably a pretty well- educated American (if not, you certainly are an English speaker, and are probably from a western country — but most likely yer from Texas), who has the ability to access a computer. You’re a likely to be concerned about the environment and consumer protections, or are at least interested in what Public Citizen Texas is doing in this area.

That is why today’s blog post is interactive. Instead of just sharing my opinions with you and updating you on Public Citizen activities, I want to talk about things we can do as consumers to address some of our biggest environmental problems. As the educated westerner that I am assuming you are, your consumption is the engine driving the modern economy. Much of the greenhouse gases and other pollutants that are emitted these days have been done so to make our lifestyle possible. But  many people in the developing world are also aspiring to live our lifestyle, putting us in a great position to lead by example.

I know that some will say that I am trying to guilt trip our readers into feeling bad about their success or their consumption. That is not the case at all. If anything, I am simply trying inform you of the influence you have in the global economy as consumers and the ability you have to shape the modern economy into a more sustainable version of its current self. Let’s face it: our country has not exactly taken a proactive stance on global warming, so it is up to us to be proactive while our government gets its act together. Our influence as consumers will also influence countries like China and India, who produce a lot of pollution making and shipping consumer goods for American consumers.

There are a lot of things consumers can do to reduce their impact on the environment. For example, my concern about pollution caused by confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) has led my giving up industrially produced meat. Since CAFO-style operations are also a cause of much deforestation and emissions from shipping from refrigeration, this measure alone can make a huge impact. I’ve also, like many other Americans, chosen to buy a smaller more efficient car — or use no car at all when I get the opportunity. I personally advocate and support public transportation measures where I live and have chosen to use them instead of using my car multiple times.  I avoid using Styrofoam and disposable products, often at great inconveniences to my self. Since discovering the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement I will now make a point to influence the city governments of any city I live in to join if they have not already.

Not all of these measures are doable for all of us, and some people will be able to do things others will not. The point is that we the consumers have the power to shift the global economy into a more sustainable direction and influence our local governments to take more environmental initiatives. Fortunately there are numerous books and websites dedicated to differentiating between products and practices that are environmentally friendly and those which are not.

Consumer activism works: the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group subsidiary Eco-pledge (an environmentally motivated consumer boycott group), was successfully able to influence Apple into recycling ipods, and Dell into better management of its E-waste. They also contributed to Conoco-Phillips and BPs withdrawl from Artic Power, an industry group set on opening the Artic Wildlife Refuge for drilling.

Economists tell us that for markets to function properly buyers need to be fully informed to make rational decisions. What could be more rational than making purchase decisions that will preserve our environment? Hopefully we will see more people willing to fight for environmental justice in their communities and with their purchasing decisions.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »