Travis County Commssioners Court
March 9, 2004
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 3
3. Review and approve requests regarding grant proposals, applications, contracts and permissions to continue: a. A grant application to the Texas commission on environmental quality for a Texas emissions reduction program grant in transportation and natural resources. A new grant program that provides funds to purchase Texas low emissions diesel fuel;
>> good morning,.
>> aim shaline worker, with me is nicole bashham the grant coordinator. As you know Travis County s entered into the early acon compact and 03 flex agreement and has indicated a commitment to purchase Texas low emission diesel as we did last year at a minimum, which was for three and a half months. In looking at our options, we have also committed as a region to get a certain number of nox emix reductions from the state grant program in this region and we are encouraging both public and private entities to participate in the Texas emission plan program which is the state grant program. This application would basically apply for grant funding to purchase Texas low emission diesel year round for the Travis County fleet. That is one of the most cost efficient things that you can do to reduce nox emissions is to purchase cleaner fuels. There are a few unknowns at this point about the exact grant that we would be receiving as well as the price of the fuel. As you recall, last year we purchased the fuel off of a texdot contract, which is the state right contract that any public entity can piggyback o. We basically get a good deal through that. They go through the bidding process for us. They have not renewed that yet. They are in the process, it expires April 13th the old one, 2004, the new one is being renegotiated. So we don't know exactly how much the fuel is going to cost. We assume that it's going to be generally about the same as it was last year. Fuel prices fluctuate. So there's a few unknowns in the addendum that I passed out reflects some of the changing information that we've had thus far. The bottom line is if we don't submit a grant application, we have no hope of getting any grant fund to help cover the incremental costs of purchasing this fuel. Basically we are just getting an application in and tceq has been very open and very willing to sit down and go over in detail all of the issues as they continue to unfold once the applications are turned in. The main thing about the -- about the addendum that I just handed out is that in order to receive grant funding, in order to have a competitive grant application, the bottom line is that figure in the cost ter per ton on the very last page of that five-page handout that I gave you, cost per ton is not to exceed $13,000 per ton of nox emissions reduced. In order to do that, based on fleet that the county has and the fuel use that we have on an annual basis, we can only probably expect to get about 8 and a half cents per gallon. In grant funding to cover the costs of that fuel. And -- and let me remind you that this fuel, the reason that we are applying for grant fund, we can't get via the pipeline in our region. We are unusual in the state because we only have one supplier and that supplier is not going to be supplying this fuel and -- and so we have to truck it in from -- from san antonio region. Which other regions are doing as well. But we have to do it entirely. So that is the bottom line. And there are some -- some incremental costs that will probably be above that. Last year the county spent approximately $10,000 without the federal tax if you don't include the federal Texas that you have to pay any time that you buy fuel. To purchase this fuel for two and a half months. We are estimating that in order to purchase it year round, you would have to spend an additional $15,000 or so. And we probably will not get the full $15,000 covered. But this grant application covers two fiscal years, so we will be able to budget for that in the 2005 if that turns out to be the case. I -- if you have any other question, I'm happy to answer them. With this grant application, we are basically telling the state that we plan to purchase the fuel for a year.
>> this is an application, though?
>> this is just an application and if --
>> we decide later on we don't want to accept the money --
>> that is no problem.
>> thanks but no thanks.
>> right.
>> the explanation was basically to tell us at this time we don't know what price the gasoline would be, but in our clean air program this is what we ought to do.
>> yes. This is what we have indicated that we would do. To the best of our ability. And if that means in the end that we can't do for it for a year due to fiscal constraints and we need to do it for less than a year, it has the discretion to revisit that issue.
>> I'm not joe gieselman, but I'm trying to remain real positive and optimistic about the pgram --
>> I know you are.
>> second.
>> anything further?
>> let me ask something.
>> yes, sir. Participating in this alternative fuel, it removes 1.71-tons a year of nox emission, just sort ever of a -- of a guesstimate?
>> that is a calculation, that spread sheet that you have that you are looking at is a shed sheet that tceq put together. That is using our existing fleet and our estimates of how much fuel they use during what months and that sort of thing. So it's a pretty -- it's an estimate, but it's based on some facts.
>> facts.
>> yes.
>> right behind the spread sheet is actually several other tabs which have very in depth calculations based on the tonnage of the vehicles and the amount of fuel that they use. What percentage is 1.71 --
>> to give you a perspective, what this region, the five counties have indicated that they are working on the early action compact have agreed to do is two tops of nox emission reductions a day. Us alone gets you 1 pony 71-ton -- 1.71-tons a year, if you divide that by 365, you can see that everybody needs to get involved here. Travis County is certainly not going to do it by themselves. Now, this is one of the measures. There's a whole lot of other things that you get terp grant funding for. You can replace whole motor graders, locomotives, there's a whole bunch of other things that you can do, buses, I mean, capital metro is doing several things that are going to be participating, texdot has applied for a lot. We plan to when we do the evaluation of our fleet, to next round of terp grand funding we hope to replace some of our dirtier equipment with cleaner equipment. This is just a baby step in that direction. We are going to be asking private construction firms to consider using terp -- [indisernible] I mean, there is some contract provisions that the Texas clean air working group is working on that will encourage public entities to put into their contracts incentives when the legislature passed us to, allowed us to do, use cleaner burning fuel and equipment. We are working with other public and private entities to help us take these baby steps, that's how the terp program was meant to work. It was supposed to be everybody doing a little bit to reach this bigger goal.
>> I just think that everybody really needs to understand that. I mean it's -- I mean really what it is, we are trying to lead by some example. But -- the effect that we have on this for spending additional dollars out of the county is -- is insignificant. I mean, really. I mean if you really get down to the it is like --, I mean, if we didn't do it, not saying we shouldn't, because it's always nice to stand up and say well, I mean, we are trying to contribute to this. But that's -- that's always my biggest issue with these things. It's just so, you know, small with what we're doing. Of course I guess the total dollars that we are spending is pretty small, too, compared to -- I mean considering our budget. I mean so it's not like it's something that is a large line item that anybody says well, I mean,, you know, if you weren't doing that you could do this.
>> in the grand scheme of things it is -- using cleaner fuels is more cost efficient than a lot of other things that you can do. The air quality issue is the sum of a whole bunch of small parts. That's why it's important that everybody take the baby steps together. That's -- every individual in this room can take a baby step to do something, that's what has to happen.
>> what can we do as a court to get this kind of petroleum pipe in here, would you say that the supplier to our area refuses to pipe that in here? I mean that is a big because the cost of carrying that into here is probably our largest thing. Is there anything that we can do as a governmental entity, sit down with the city, with whoever, and say "you know what? , I mean, we're bound to be able to help regulate some of that, give somebody some enticement to say you know what, we want this pipe in here.
>> to be fair koch industries is the supplier in our area, texshred is mandated in the whole eastern half of the state. Unless you have an alternative plan, all oil suppliers, all fuel suppliers are supposed to be manufacturing and supplying tex shred in this region unless you have an alternative plan approved by esac and e.p.a. That would do something different to get equivalent. Koch started supplying us in may in last of year with low sulfur gasoline earlier than was required by federal law. That was their alternative plan. We actually started getting benefits from that fuel last year when we wouldn't normally have gotten them until 2005. We have a little disagreement with koch whether that is give leapt to what we would have been getting if we had been getting tex sled through the pipeline. They are not the same. According to tceq we just got a response on that. They are saying that equivalent reduction mandate in order to approve an amount active plan only applied to the dallas/fort worth region which is not at all how we read the state reg, but that's what they are arguing. We have been talking with them. They continue to talk with us, they are looking at alternative cleaner diesel additives that themight be able to add to the diesel fuel that we are getting that will not produce as many nox emissions as Texas sled but will help. They are working with a group out of california to see if there's something that they can do, so we are continuing -- the answer to that question, Commissioner court will work with you maybe so tceq can see the light.
>> the clean air coalition has indicated to them that -- that we want to continue working on this issue, so --
>> my understanding was not that the early action compact will put outside equal footing with dallas, but if it was it would put us very, very close in terms of getting the remedies implemented it would seem to me they awghtd to be able to work with us on this. Is it at the staff level or is it at the Commissioner or --
>> I would say that the Commissioners are becoming aware of the problem. And any assistance that the Commissionerers court would like to provide and -- in making sure that they understand the full effects of the problem we would appreciate it.
>> it ought to be more of a formal strategy than -- than that I think.
>> would I like a resolution? Would you like a --
>> I would like some brainstorming, putting together strategy and action plans.
>> okay.
>> asking us to help. We will asked that four or five times before this meeting is over. That's what I'm thinking. What I had in mind a meeting where we basically make sure that we understand what the problem is, trying to figure out what it is that we want as a solution, whether the -- what are the best steps for us to take to get that done and then basically do them.
>> yes, sir. We have -- we have offered a number of alternatives that we thought that might help in this problem, so i'll be happy to sit down and --
>> okay.
>> well, we adopted a total of about how many measures?
>> for the early action compact?
>> right.
>> there were 14 measures that the region as a whole was asking the state to assist us in implementing, then Travis County adopted another 10 or so measures. Including [multiple voices] including inspection and maintenance.
>> 25 or 30. If we do all 25 or 30 the impact would be much greater than this. This may be a little baby, but if you got 25 or 30 babies --
>> yes, sir.
>> you could have some impact. Throw the other entities in and they act similarly, in other words we don't do all of this together and we do all of our measures, then we will be non-compliant, basically.
>> right. Right that's the goal here is that we all work for one gigantic reduction. So far everybody has been playing together, working really well for the most part. We are encouraged and we have gotten good feedback from e.p.a. That our plan is -- takes a look at all of those baby steps required, doesn't pick on one sector too much. That's really the goal of the plan, everybody does their fair share, construction equipment, people who drive cars and businesses all do their fair share. Just doing it by yourself doesn't get you anywhere. When everybody does the same thing or something together that's when it all builds up.
>> if we want to see a staggering cost for this county government, it will be if we fail in our efforts to do what we need to do because that will cost this community a lot. And this government in particular. Because we are in the road building business, in the construction business. We have vehicles that are on the road 25/7. It could be very costly if failure occurs.
>> the reason we do not want 3 a on consent was that this discussion was appropriate, but there are no issues was to whether or not we ought to apply for the grant.
>> no, sir. It's just that we -- we had some different fiscal impact information that went through p.b.o. And we just wanted you to understand that it's a little bit of a fluid situation at the moment.
>> recommendation still is to -- to file the application, hope we get the grant and if we do put it to good use. In the meantime, try to work out the petroleum issue with the state I guess [indiscernible] if the state says absolutely no way do you get credit for this, has koch indicated the willingness to go to the other one or are they saying basically this is your kind for us.
>> what koch at the moment, I believe, their position is that they spent a lot of money putting in the infrastructure they needed to produce the kind of low sulfur gasoline that we are currently receiving. And at the time they thought that they were making those investments and that they would not be required to make additional investments to produce this other kind of low sulfur diesel. Now, there are other things that they might be able to do to the diesel that they do provide to us again that is less than this Texas low emissions.
>> when we meet with the state -- are they there also koch.
>> I believe.
>> have they been there in the past.
>> yes.
>> seems to me that they would have as much or more at stake than we. We would be one customer, but several others purchasing from them if -- if we are getting credit for it.
>> yeah, their pipeline basically goes from corpus christi up through us and into the dallas/fort worth region.
>> right in the heart of precinct 1. [laughter] anything further on this item today? Commissioner Davis will be here next time we have this discuss. All in favor? Do we get a motion to approve.
>> yes.
>> I think we made you the maker of the motion, judge.
>> that passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 9, 2004 6:57 PM