Travis County Commssioners Court
July 29, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 29
29 is to discuss draft Travis County comments regarding the u.s. Environmental protection agency's proposed rule to implement the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards and take appropriate action.
>> good morning, [inaudible] with Travis County t.n.r. You have in your backup a draft of some proposed comments to a recently produced environmental protection agency proposed rule to implement the 8--hour ozone national ambient air quality standards. This is the proposed rules. Staff from the [inaudible] task force of which Travis County staff is a member have been going over the proposed rules. This document is a little different in that e.p.a. Presented not really its final proposed regulatory language but a series of questions, a series of options and asked stakeholders to weighn on those options. They were trying to get some feedback about which direction to go, so therefore we felt that it would be appropriate to send them some feedback and that is what that document reflects.
>> any way to take a couple minutes to summarize the highlights of our draft response?
>> yes, sir. Basically there are seven issues that the draft comments address, and I will go over them briefly. Item number 1, the e.p.a. Specifically asked stakeholders to weigh in on whether or not they thought they should per sue option 1 or option 2. Option 1 basically would classify all areas as non-attainment of the 8-hour standard under subpart 1 and triggers the mandated measures that we would have to basically implement through the state. Option 2 would allow for some more flexibility considering the fact that all the elected officials in this region chose to voluntarily enter into an early action compact for the express purpose of maintaining as much flexibility and cleaner air standards, we felt the region would prefer to go under option 2, which would allow for more flexibility. Item number 2, early action compact, this is the most alarming part of that language. There's conflicting language in the proposed rule that basically would undo the agreement that we signed with tceq and e.p.a. Where they agreed that if we entered into an early action compact, our non-attainment designation would be defeared throughout the life of that agreement. There's actually language in there that undoes that agreement and we are told it was a mistake, we are told it was meant to address another area of the nation. We would like the language removed so there is no confusion about what exactly tceq and e.p.a. Commitment to our region is after signing that agreement. The comment number 3 has to do with conducting [inaudible] air quality funds. We do not qualify to receive those federal funds due to our deferred non-attainment designation. We have been saying for several months if not years that we feel like because we volunteered to enter into this agreement and clean up our air earlier, we would like to get some of those federal funds because we need to do some of the same things tpho rpb attainment areas need to do. We sent a delegation to washington, d.c. To ask for that so we're asking that that be brought up in the proposed rules. The fourth --
>> can I ask a question? I recall getting several e-mails, I guess a few weeks back when we had a similar item on the court's agenda. And in the e-mail the recommendation was that we basically allow the non-attainment status so that we could access federal dollars to assist with remediation.
>> that we not be deferred? That we go ahead and be declared non-attainment?
>> yes. I hadn't thought about it a whole lot, but that's not the wildest idea i've heard.
>> unfortunately if we were to be declared non-attainment without being in the e.a.c., The clean air act has very specific mandates that come with that that we would suddenly have to adhere to, and that's the reason we entered into the early action compact, which is a new concept, part of the [inaudible] act, but the semantics, as the lawyers can tell you carry very specific mandates that come with them. And so yes, we would no doubt be able to access some funds. The concern is that I can't remember the exact number, but currently there are only a certain number of counties throughout the country that do not adhere to the 1-hour standard. Under this 8-hour standard that number is going to triple or quadruple and we're not sure that the pot of federal money that's available to regions who don't meet attainment status is going to agree any bigger. So yes, if we were declared non-attainment, we would definitely be able to access funds. We're not sure that tpaoeu is getting any -- pie is getting any bigger, so we don't want to have definite mandates on us. That's the only reason we entered into the early action compact.
>> the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of being able to access federal dollars.
>> oh, yes. And we took that into consideration. That was something that was discussed before we entered into the early action compact. That was right there. At the same time, we feel like we have been -- these local regions are shouldering the burdens of a lot of monetary expenses to enter into the early action compact, and this is one pot of money that we feel like we should have access to.
>> and what she is saying is consistent with what we were told up in washington, d.c. I was part of the chamber trip that went up there in March. And that was the theme to every office we went no good deed goes unpunished. In terms of we're not eligible for [inaudible] because of the non-attainment, but the feedback we got from rephaol of 2 o 21 is that pot is not necessarily getting larger and in fact there are already that many more who are going to be non-attainment that will be competing, and so it was not really a pact we were going to be very successful at because the money is just not there. Let alone those trying voluntarily to put off that designation.
>> we knew all those things when we decided to take this path so we probably should continue with the same path.
>> and let me be very clear. There has been some concern that because we are commenting on these proposed rules to implement an 8-hour designation, that we are in some way saying that we are no longer going to be going down the early action compact road, which is simply not true. We are trying our best to implement the early action compact.
>> right.
>> we don't know what's going to happen and we don't know how that process is going to end, but we are doing it in good faith and we continue to do it and we have every hope we will be successful. Nevertheless, because the governor of Texas has made a recommendation only Travis County be non-attainment, we do have to keep in mind what that other path would look like if we suddenly got dumped into an 8-hour non-attainment.
>> my memory is there were 30 other communities that were pushing for the same thing in terms of access to semac before getting the designation. I know south carolina was one of them. And tennessee. There were some cities in tennessee as well.
>> a lot of the eastern sea board. There's three other regions in our state alone. Where are we? [inaudible] review. Basically this section under the proposed rules outlines a new, more flexible new source review program. Again, the language was crafted to help a certain region in the country. It doesn't really take into consideration what our region, the time lines that our region is under in the early action compact. We're simply asking in this comment that e.p.a. Don't write proposed regulations to help one region of the country without looking at its impact on the rest of the country, and we think that they haven't done that and we're just asking them to review that language and make sure that water we can qualify for that new program or we don't get slammed with some unseen consequences because they haven't looked at it. Clean air development communities, this is a really new issue that they've talked about. It basically would be a new program based on land use planning and controls. We think the concept is interesting. The language we just can't tell what they are trying to do, quite honestly, the language is very confusing. Most of the comments are just asking them to please tell us a little bit more in detail what they mean by the program. And then we do have some issues in that they are proposing to allow regions that use this program to offset -- to basically raise emissions immediately and off set them with future emission reductions that nobody can be sure will be made. We didn't think that's in the best interest want health and community to allow people to increase their emissions today for some unforeseen possible emission reductions in the future. If that's how they mean for the program to work, we do question the responsibility of that if that's how it's going to work. And finally, the -- under the headline revoking the 1-hour standard, we are not necessarily -- in this document, e.p.a. Proposes to revoke the 1-hour standard for those regions that are now under the 8-hour standard. The 8-hour standard being a more comprehensive and healthy standard. We are not weighing in on whether or not e.p.a. Should revoke that standard. All we're sayg with this comment, and there is some kopbt verse bye that you should know. All we're saying is if they are going to revoke the standard, the way they've written it is, again, reason to enter into early action compact, don't get it revoked at the same time everybody else does simply because we have different time lines and all we're asking is if you are going to revoke the 1-hour standard, revoke it for those of us who volunteered to do something early [inaudible] everybody else, and we do not -- that's all we say about that. Oh, [inaudible] again, there's controversy about e.p.a.'s proposal that in this conformity rule, all we're asking in this comment is that they recognize that right now n.p.o.s do all the transportation conforming standards in conjunction with the local txdot office if the clean air designation area is larger than the n.p.o. Boundaries, which is the case usually, which will probably be the case in our region or has been the case before. For some reason they appropriate that only n.p.o.s have the ability to do transportation conformity even if their boundaries don't conform to the larger clean air boundary. All we're saying is that doesn't make any sense. N.p.o.s have very little authority outside their boundary, you should leave it the way it is. So that's that one.
>> it wouldn't be Tuesday without my finding a typo. Usually hutchinson is misspelled. Bailey is misspelled. If you could please make that correction.
>> should we send the governor a copy of this one? I know it's an e.p.a. Regular, but so they will know. This draft is from joe geiselman. Should it come fm joe or the court?
>> it's up to you. I didn't know if you felt like the language in there is pretty long and I didn't know if you wanted to -- frankly, it's just fine coming from joe. It's a technical document and --
>> what do our regional partners think about the e.p.a. Regular or proposed r eg? Do we know?
>> the clean air coalition?
>> right.
>> the clean air coalition is considering, and I have not heard a definitive word that a shorter version that only deals with the early action compact issues explicitly. And that's because there are several members of that group who represent obviously a wider range of -- there's the environmental groups as well as industry groups, and they just felt like they wanted to keep it as short and sweet as possible. The san antonio region, they are a similar group as the c.a.c., Did send all these comments as well as an additional comment on transport. The city of Austin is, I understand, considering sending all of these comments.
>> we at least need the part as to the early action compact to send something basically saying we reached an agreement and think you all ought to stick to it.
>> yes, that's the one comment they have chosen to definitely send is what I heard, and yet I have not actually seen and determined [inaudible] signature on that.
>> how many signed the compact?
>> 12. Well, 12 along with e.p.a.
>> I think the Commissioners court ought to ask those 12 basically just to send comments urging that the compact be left in place.
>> sure.
>> we worked --
>> right, that early action compact.
>> let them say what they want to say. Tell them what we're saying and basically the deadlines is the first, which is sooner than I thought, but they still have time to put together comments. I mean, I would think that since we worked so hard on that compact and since we're supposed to be living by it, at least the others would notify the feds, hey, we have an agreement we reached with you all and we think it ought to be honored until breached.
>> that is the plan. Ly call and confirm that is what the chairman is planning on sending and stress to him it's the will of the court.
>> but my motion is that the Commissioners court of Travis County [inaudible] all the departments to the compact to send comments at least covering the early action compact language in the regulation.
>> individually or as the clean air coalition?
>> well, are 12 letters better than one?
>> I would say at this point do it by August 1st. The clean air coalition represents all 12 of those entities, and they have letterhead that has all 12 of those representatives, which includes judge [inaudible].
>> we can't control what they do. I have in mind one page that says reminder from blank, blank place, wherever it is, we have reached an agreement with your staff on so and so that we call the early action compact. We notice on page so and so of the proposed regs that you propose to do away with this agreement. We believe this is unfair. We have lived by the agreement since the date of signing and believe you should too. Of course, the wording doesn't have to be that, but I'm saying I have in mind a page or less, not --
>> when we're just -- one more procedural --
>> what I'm asking is that they just state the obvious.
>> procedural --
>> is there a second to that motion?
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We'll take 1, but 12 would be better, I'm thinking.
>> yes, sir.
>> procedural?
>> procedurally, Commissioners court, for example, meets today and doesn't have time to meet again before August 1st to comply with that request. Just like you, they would likely need to bring it up on their agenda.
>> but if you came to me and asked me to state the obvious and said there's not time for the Commissioners court to meet, I would send a letter out and ask the court to ratify that at the next meeting. Really you can simply say, I mean if in fact this Commissioners court signed the document at a certain time, I think anybody on this court can say the Commissioners court of Travis County approved the early action compact in Commissioners court on so and so date. We have been living by it and hope that you would honor it.
>> okay.
>> see what I'm saying?
>> it could be a letter from their county judge.
>> okay.
>> it's not contrary to what they've already signed over at tceq.
>> I wouldn't make it a real big deal, but I would make sticking to the original agreement a big deal.
>> no problem. I'll send that out today. And i'll report back to you all what I hear back.
>> anything further?
>> well, and the letter.
>> do you all want to send --
>> that's what I was going to do.
>> I'm gathering you are authorizing me to send these comments.
>> I was about to make a motion to approve the draft with your signing us and us authorizing sending this to the appropriate federal person as official comments from Travis County.
>> second.
>> adding the governor's office and doing the old spell check. Thank you.
>> right.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:31 PM