Travis County Commssioners Court
March 16, 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 19
19. Consider and take appropriate action on the following clean air action plan requests: a. Adoption of the clean air action plan for the early action compact; b. Resolution requesting Travis County to participate in the state's vehicle inspection and maintenance program as part of the clean air action plan for the early action compact; and. C. Resolution requesting the authorization of low-income vehicle repair assistance, retrofit and accelerated vehicle retirement program (lirap) in Travis County.
>> good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. I知 shalene walker with Travis County transportation and natural resources department. With me today are [indiscernible] dernburger with u.t., Kathy stephens with campo who heads the early action compact task force, [indiscernible], with clean air force, working on our public involvement component of the plan. Bill gill with capco, also on the early action compact task force, the contractor for all of the modeling work. We have several documents in your backup. I will just go over briefly a summary of some of that. On January 20th, the court did approve the draft clean air action plan which we are reviewing again today the final version of. 11 other local jurisdictions. There are 12 total. Also approved that draft plan. On January 26th, however, the city of san marcos voted 4 cash 2 against participating in the proposed vehicle inspection and maintenance program. As a result, the mayor sent a letter last week, which I believe you all got a copy of it. If you didn't I have some more here, indicating that the city of san marcos plans to pursue some alternatives emissions to take place of that program in hays county. But by voting not to participate in the program san marcos has prevented I and m -- would prevent I and m from being implemented in hays county as it requires both the hays county Commissioners court to who voted to participate in the program and the city to opt in. So as the plan stands before you now, we -- we do not include I and m in hays county. The attached clean air action plan does include all of the same emission reduction measures that you looked at the first time in January that we -- that you saw. There is an addendum, with some changes that have been made. Most of those are summarized in your backup memo. There's a coupl more minor word changes that I can go over if you would like. Attachment 3 is -- well, there's attachment 2 are the two resolutions that you would need to pass if you indeed adopt the final plan. In order to implement the I and m, they have to adopt a resolution asking the state to implement it in our county. Also a lirap that you would need to pass in order to have the low income repair assistance program implemented in this county as well. We would actually operate that program either ourselves or through a third party. We are looking at doing that with Williamson county who also indicated their desire to implement a low income repair assistance program. Two resolutions. Attachment 3 has a summary of most of the public comments we received. We held the public comment period open until February 18th. We have received several comments suns that time. The document -- since that time. The document that you have has all of the documents that we have received up to that point. We have received several. Tried to respond to them since then. I have some additional information that we can go over at your will. You have received lower -- some letters, I believe, on your own. If you have any question abouts any of that feel free to ask. Attachment 4 is the preliminary analysis of the budget impacts to Travis County alone. All of the divisions in the plan that would contact our -- impact our budget, which I also had included the last time that you considered the draft plan. As of today, basically seven of the 12 jurisdictions have approved the plan that you see before you today. Yesterday bastrop county approved it and this morning Williamson county approved it. They passed their resolution to implement I and m in that county. The only remaining jurisdictions that need to take action beside you are the city council of Austin and city council of Round Rock, both have it scheduled for Thursday. The 25th. We do have to have the plan turned in no later than March 31st or else the early action compact is null and void.
>> I知 sorry, repeat that, that was very significant those last comments that you made.
>> the plan needs to be turned in no later than March 31st, 2004, next week. It needs to be turned into tceq, the state and feds for their review, for later than that date or else the whole entire early action compact is voided. [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> I知 sorry, if I didn't catch it. Caldwell county is doing what?
>> they have already taken action in support. Basically the only jurisdictions that have not taken final action are Travis County, Williamson county and city of Austin and the city of Round Rock. All of the other 12 jurisdictions have taken action in support of the current plan.
>> bastrop and caldwell [indiscernible]
>> yes, that's right.
>> Williamson county did take action this morning.
>> they did.
>> they approved the I and m part also.
>> yes, sir. And passed a resolution which is the official request for I and m to be implement understand that county. The city of Round Rock must do the same on Thursday in order for that to actually occur. If the Commissioners approve it today, the city of Austin must approve it.
>> as far as we know, we expect favorable action by Round Rock?
>> we have -- yes, been told by staff that they expect it to pass.
>> okay.
>> I have three or four basic questions after you get done.
>> okay.
>> I am done.
>> these are basic I guess because they came to me through e-mail from those who oppose the I and m part. Can we for the record explain the importance of the inspection and maintenance components of the plan.
>> yes.
>> why it's important.
>> the I and m program as proposed in the plan before you was a program that was put together, it's a little bit different than the standard program that the state would implement, which is the whole reason that we entered into the early action compact to begin with is to try to craft emission reduction measures appropriate for our region. After a year of stakeholder involvement, working on this plan, the I and m measure included in this plan is the largest emission ozone emission or nox emission reduction in the plan. It comes from the source of emissions that is the largest source of emissions in our region, which is on road mobile sources, basically cars and light duty vehicles. There are point source emissions that are almost equivalent and those are important as well. But when we started this process, the -- the local jurisdictions that signed on to the early action compact made it very clear that they wanted to treat every emission, sector fairly as well as every geographic area fairly. And the I and m program is the one measure in the plan that adds the largest single emissions sector, which is on road mobile omissions.
>> how large is it?
>> on road mobile emissions? In 1999 there were about 40-tons per day of nox emissions. In 2007 there are projected to be somewhere close to 30 I believe. The last that I saw. Just for nox, to step back, we have nox and voc, our modeling indicates in this region, you reduce ozone quicker by reducing nox. That's why we have tried concentrate on reducing nox emissions. Now, there will be two speed idle test that we propose for the older vehicles does not test for nox. This is true. Asm that they use in dallas and houston does. The reason we decided to go with it is because equipment is required to run those tests, $40,000 for the asm, $15,000 for the two speed idle. We do not need to get anywhere near the emission reductions that dallas and houston have to get. If you notice in your backup we are actually currently monitoring attainment of the standard and we are projected to continue to monitor attainment of the standard, but just barely. And it changes year by year just because we monitored attainment this year, doesn't mean that we are going to monitor it next year. In fact we probably will not. But time will tell. We decided we needed to get about one part per billion reduction in ozone. That's the standard that we were looking at. Houston and dallas have to get 10 times that much. We chose to go with the cheaper test in order to make the program cheaper for everybody. That's again with why we entered into the early action compact was so that we could do things differently.
>> one e-mail that I got, sam, if your model shows you in attainment without I and m in place, next year and the year after, why would you implement I and m?
>> the model shows that we could be in attainment in 2007. The model is silent on next year and the year after. Indeed the emission that's we have are not going to be reduced next year and the year after that in order we believe to bring us into attainment. I can let the two others tell you more about that. The eac covers a period from now through 2007. What we committed to do is clean up our air and assure that we are in attainment by 2007. In order to do that, as you recall, it takes three years of data that you have to average. That means our 2005 and 2006 emissions need to be low enough to keep that three year average below 85.
>> okay. I think the e-mail focused on 2007 because that's really the milestone year for e.p.a. And us.
>> uh-huh.
>> so the e-mail showed no model shows you to be in at tapement in 2007s what the big deal, in attainment without I and m. I should have told this person, I haven't answered that yet, but I should have told themwhat?
>> I知 ceril durnburger in 2007 we are right on the cusp. To have a margin of safety to not exceed the standard, it's my opinion, our opinion that we need to have some controls put in place that will guarantee that we will continue to attain the standard. We attained the standard for 1984. The first year we obtained the standard since 1988. Since 1998. We did some analysis, we think very much it's very likely that next year or this year and next year we will exceed the standard because of those exceptionally low value that's occurred in 2001.
>> okay. So the answer then is that we may be in non-attainment in 2007 but we may not unless we take certain actions.
>> yes, sir.
>> the reason we want to be sure we are in non-at tapement is because of the possible loss I guess of transportation dollars in the feds? Other transportation -- other sanction that's may come into play?
>> yes, sir. That's correct. If you become a non-attainment area, there is the possibility that you can't prove that the emissions estimated from your transportation plan or less than the level needed to show at obtainment, then ur transportation funds can be withheld until you remedy that situation. So that is one aspect of non-attainment. Also additional requirements from businesses, called new source review, two 10 year maintenance plans that even once you got back into attainment of the standard, you still have 20 more years of bureaucratic requirements to go through. There's also the stigma that's associated with non-attainment as far as it can have auto negative impact on economic development and the health issues are the most important.
>> okay. Another e-mail asked me, sam, the other jurisdictions not in entertainment have not been burdened by the sanctions that you fear.
>> as in houston and dallas?
>> I believe that's what they were referring to.
>> they deal with these sanctions on on a regular basis. I know houston has gone through a conformity lapse which is when their federal transportation funding is withheld. As have 48 other areas in the country, just since 1999. We have also heard about the toyota plant that did not consider houston or dallas for their location because they were in non-attainment and then me mentioned another company this morning in Williamson county, I didn't catch the name of it, that also is not looking at houston and dallas for the same reasons. So there are impacts. Also the companies that they have to offset their emissions by a greater than a one to one ratio so they have that, factors into their operational costs as well.
>> some action is being taken against those in non-attainment.
>> absolutely.
>> beaumont port arthur is currently in a conformity lapse as well.
>> they just got downgraded this morning from serious air to moderate.
>> so they will have additional requirements.
>> but why those cities compared to us on the coast have more the issue with the point source than the automobile. When you start talking about the golden triangle we are a lot different --
>> however dallas/fort worth is a lot like us. They are more of a mobile dominated.
>> you said something about san antonio. San antonio they are not in compliance, are they?
>> their monitors showed non-attainment as of this year.
>> yet toyota went there.
>> but they have entered into the early action compact which defers the effective date of any non-at tapement requirements and allows them time to work that out and get back into attainment without any requirements against the industry is that went there. Toyota was well aware of that when they went there. They support the eac. San antonio has letters from toyota indicating that.
>> I thought they took their I and m out of --
>> they did. They believe that they can get there without it.
>> well, that's a pretty big issue. You have san antonio that's not in compliance. And we are saying that if you do this, this is the thing to get you in compliance, san antonio, if you use toyota, use the industry as an example, they elected to go there, knew they weren't in compliance, in the early action san antonio elected to not do the I and m. Something is not right there.
>> well, they seem to be comfortable with a much narrower safety March gibb margin than what we are recommending here. Their modeling shows, they are just barely in attainment. Right on the kusc in -- cusp, they are going forward with a very narrow margin of safety. It remains to be seen whether or not they will be successful. We are recommending a larger margin of safety to be before you dents and make sure that we get -- prudent and make sure we get to where we want to be.
>> that again was the point of the early action compacts. Each local region gets to decide for themselves what they think is the best measure to put in place. Because san antonio decides one thing doesn't mean that the Austin region has to decide the same thing. San antonio works just as hard as we have been working. Their stakeholder input process resulted in differences. That's what was expected through the early action compact process. That's where we are today. We have a very different plan. There's no doubt about it.
>> what is the -- Gerald, I知 sorry.
>> I have several more.
>> okay. Can you tell me what -- of the other counties that have been mandated by epa to follow certain rules and regulations because they were not in compliance, gotten into a non-attainment status, in dealing with the inspection maintenance program there, how did they address the poor and the senior citizens in those communities? Is there some example of what they do to deal with the senior citizens in this community and also the poor? Am I --
>> in terms of the inspection and maintain program?
>> yes.
>> yes, sir, there is --
>> I知 sorry, go ahead.
>> hazel is here with tceq who is here as a resource witness who can maybe answer. Just very briefly the low income repair assistance program has all of the counties to date in the state of Texas, I believe, have omented to join into that program when they implemented an I and m program except for el paso. But basically there are about 15 or more other counties in the state who are -- who have implemented the low income repair assistance program, which basically it's part of the fee that everybody pays, goes into this fund to help folks who are at double the federal poverty rate. Access money to help with repairs. Also a low income waiver. Just as part of the program, if you can if you show up and fail and ask hazel to spend more time on that if you want more details. You can get a one year waiver from making the repairs if you are -- if you are at the poverty level, which is an extremely tight case. But you can get a waiver. Then if you are -- have more money than that, for your family income, you can also qualify for the low income repair assistance program. It's a very important part of the program. There are some people who need help getting these repairs made. The repairs hopefully will help them with their automobile costs further down the road as well. But that is part of the program.
>> because I know this -- it is a lot of poor folks here in this community. I know transportation is very essential for them. Their livelihood. Maybe not as much of an impact on others, but it is a very touchy, sensitive area. Along with senior citizens who may not drive as much or whatever. That may have impact on them. That's why the ask the question, I haven't seen any numbers to say this is the ratio. We have these many folks here that are -- that are impoverished. This is how we have been able to assist them and an inspection and maintain program. Number 2, if you can tell me the difference between the -- from what I understand, the -- difference between the tail pipe testing mechanism that was once employed and embraced according to the sources in dallas and also houston county, I mean harris county, end up going to another level of testing for emissions, why that particular testing was -- was not continually being employed and they went to another testing system, and we I guess maybe are looking at a tsi type of testing here as far as tail pipes. Can you tell me the difference in that?
>> that's what I alluded to earlier. Basically because dallas and houston's air pollution problem is much more severe. Than ours. We felt after looking at our rantd needs in our region, that we did not need to get the more expensive equipment that is involved with the asn test and we could rely on this cheaper two speed I would del test. It is-- idle test. It is not as effective with nox, but it does get you buc which are important as well [multiple voices]
>> my name is hazel [indiscernible] you are right we did have the two speed idle tests in harris county, dallas, tarrant counties up until 2001. When we put these programs, the two speed idle in place in 1996, we thought that voc reductions were what we needed to reduce ozone levels in houston and dallas but it became apparent with more modeling and science and research in tease areas that we had to reduce nox as well. For houston and dallas we were looking everywhere to reduce nox. Two speed idle test doesn't do that. It's specifically aimed at voc reduction. We had to find a way to be able to to identify nox from particularly the '95 and older cars and to do that you have to have the vehicle under load, the engine under load, you need to put the drive wheels on the -- that's what the acceleration simulation mode test is that we changed over to for 95 years and older cars. It's a dynometer test, you are able to identify nox. But for the '96 and newer, we do on board diagnostic testing, like here for model here 96 and newer vehicles, it's the test for the older vehicles that's different.
>> if I am understanding you correctly, if I知 not please correct me because I want to make sure that I get an understanding. Let's say that and you have brand new vehicle, some of these new vehicles coming out right now, from what I understand it they don't have to be independented for two years or something like that.
>> that's what the proposal is here.
>> I知 sorry.
>> the proposal in the Austin area is the first two years they wouldn't be emission tested which is the same as in dallas and houston.
>> right. But I知 trying to decipher in my mind how far -- in other words the very vehicle having to go through the inspection, going through the inspection maintenance program, what would be the cutoff point as far as those vehicles that would not have to be inspected per se? Or is it required that every vehicle go through the im inspection maintenance program, even though they have a -- an inspection vehicle that goes for two years.
>> they are not emissions tested until they are two years old. When they need that new safety inspection sticker, when that sticker runs out, you want to renew the safety inspection sticker in the I and m program areas, you have to have the emissions test.
>> they are done at the same time. You go, just like now, you go to get your safety inspection, you also get an emissions inspection at the same time. You pay more, it's one sticker that says you passed now both a safety and emissions inspection.
>> okay. I got a little better understanding. That's basically what I wanted to get a clarification on. I have other question, my colleagues do, too.
>> the emissions part costs how much.
>> we don't know for sure because tceq will have to set that rate. They do that, once we turn in these resolutions, they go through an analysis. Initial analysis indicates that it will likely be no more than $20. On top of the 12.50 that you currently pay.
>> 32.50.
>> 32.50 total. No more than that. Again we don't know the total.
>> that would include whatever fee or whatever fee we are going to take to fund the low income repair assistance programs. When she talk abouts a maximum of $20 for the emissions fee, that would include possibly two or three dollars --
>> every two years, every year or two years.
>> every year.
>> every year.
>> so we jump from 12.50 to 32.50 basically.
>> approximately.
>> if you don't pass the test, then we would expect you to fix whatever the problem is.
>> that is the goal of the program. Basically if you don't pass the test, it means your automobile is not functioning and you need to get it repaired.
>> okay. And the counties that have I and m in place now, see the failure rate to be 10 to 15%, is that what I read.
>> I have data from the dallas and hughes region that shows -- houston region that shows it to be about 10 percent fail. Initially fail yes.
>> first time.
>> pardon me.
>> that's for the asm test. The average is about 10%. It's obviously higher. The older the vehicles are the failure rate is higher. The newer failure rate is lower.
>> another question that I just remembered was a person asked why aren't we covering trucks which in their view pollute a lot more than passenger cars. And what's the answer for the exclusion of say 16 wheelers, 18 wheelers.
>> diesel trucks? They don't have the emission controls on them. Up until the new standards that are coming out this year, the emission controls on diesels are nothing like the emission controls require odd gasoline vehicles. So so even though we could in theory test a diesel truck, there's nothing we can fix to reduce the nox in that vehicle. Basically they are high in nox, low voc vehicle diesels florks emission controls yet on the diesels to bring the nox down. That's what the new heavy duty diesel standards are. The e.p.a. Is bringing out is to try to control the nox of diesels. Even if we could test the nox coming up. You need an awfully large heavy duty diesel dynoo millions deter meter to do that, they don't have cats, traps, most of them don't have an egr on them, exhaust gas recirculation systems or anything like that on them yet, they will in the very near future.
>> there are federal standards in place that are going to mandate that these diesel engines get cleaner. Unfortunately for our region, on the cusp of not having at obtainment, it's not happening as quickly as we would like. We do have an idling restriction measure in here that would limit in our five county region and we are asking the state to help us implement a rule that we would then have at least some recourse to get some of those emissions.
>> 16, 18 wheelers covered by the idling part if tceq approves our request.
>> yes. Commissioner Daugherty.
>>
>> obviously I have a number of things, appear hex wise on -- apprehension wise on this, number one we really don't have an ability to educate the general public about this. There's not enough money in it. People are going to know this whenever they roll into the service station. That's whether you live in east Austin, west Austin, whatever. When you are going to know about this is when you roll in say by the way, you have got another test, the other test is 20 bucks. I think we also know the overwhelming majority of our vehicles that are 99 and newer are almost -- some of them can be problems. What we really want is those people's 20 bucks, that's all it is. We want those dollars, some of those dollars are going to go for the low income assistance repair programs, all of those kinds of things, that's fine. But we are -- I would be much more comfortable if we were to say take your 1999 cars and newer and don't have to do anything. Given that it's 2007, each of the cars, when we get to 2007, that the reason why we don't have much of an issue because we have removed so many of those older vehicles. We are creating an authority, not an authority, authority is already there I suppose with tceq. But it's the typical thing that we sometimes do as governments where we go out and convince people when we say stakeholder, I知 tell you, what you can scare stakeholders to living death if you talk to somebody about not being only accident get federal -- not being account get federal dollars. So far behind and building roads in this community we can't see straight. I know that that I think is more of -- of a false accusation because I mean there are other city that's that has the not proven, maybe you can show me some where they have gotten their federal dollars limited on what's coming back to them. I don't think definitively anybody can say that. And I知 just really uncomfortable with the fact that I think somewhere between five and 600,000 cars in this community doesn't need to be under this program. You are can get up and argue all day long, are you going have some emissions from those things that we don't want? Probably. But the percentage, the saying costs too much, does too little. We are lapping it on the backs of people that can't afford it. That low income assistance repair program is not going to hit a lot of people. There's a difference between being in poverty. Just being poor doesn't get it. Just being poor means that you go down, you pay five or six hundred dollars. Do I want a car like that repaired? Yeah, I think everybody in this community wants to go to somebody and say you know what, you are a problem, you are spoiling the air that we have. But we know that some of the fights that we are not willing to take on, I mean, when half your mobile emission issues are your big industry, are your trucks, I mean I would think that the answer to the -- to the reason that you don't have diesel, it's little organizations called teamsters. It's big money organizations. It's industry. That's the reason that industry like the papers say, some of the industries have just gotten to the point of fine me because me paying the fine versus what you are telling me that I have got to do, I mean, I知 better off paying the fine.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> .
>> ... And looking at -- they already did -- exempt the first two years. If you indicated 2000 and 2001 that represents about 14% of the failures that they had. In both dallas and houston. Or 31,602 cars in houston, 32,835 cars in dallas. Just because it's a new car does not mean you will not fail the test. Failing the test means your car is not functioning. You could drive a brand new car off the lot and it could be not functioning. Oftentimes it's the people with the newer cars that have no clue their car is not functioning. That's what the test is designed to do. It's a random test designed to catch malfunctioning vehicles hopefully before they -- in the newer cars, it's designed to catch them before the problem becomes so expensive you are having to replace major parts. It's actually being caught by computer that is catching it as the very first sign of a malfunction. So those repairs should be cheaper. Do we want the money from those tests, yes. You need the money from those tests to make the program work, there's no doubt about it. That's the way the I and m works. It spreads out the cost to everybody who is contributing the problem and that's everybody who drives a vehicle. If you drive a vehicle, you are emitting n.o.x. And you are contributing to pollution.
>> then we ought to fight the fight to do the other things that we need to do and it not just be on the backs of the people because they own a vehicle. We ought to fight the fight, we ought to go to tceq, we ought to go to clean air force and we ought to say you know what, there are other people that we need to fight and everybody needs to participate in this. We need to get industry in it. We need to say we're not willing to just take one group. We know we're going to do it for five years because we're going to have those stations go out and spend $15,000 versus the $40,000, and i've got a sneaking suspicious that in five years that it will be very difficult to get tceq to say, you know what, we no longer need the program. Maybe that's just my cynical nature because I don't see many things we put into existence we go back afterwards and say you know what, we got that accomplished, let's not have it anymore. I think some people are probably going to buy the system in two years or threw years. And what are they going to do? They are going to say I just bought the thing last year. Not everybody is going to buy at one time. If you are going to be in the inspection business, you need have this apparatus. I mean there are just some pit falls that I think that as a community people are going to be highly surprised about. I知 surprised that we can take a community like the central Texas area and be, you know, different -- I mean sometimes in a lot of instances very different from other parts of Texas. But it doesn't surprise me that you can get so-called stake holders in a room and, you know, just got back from lunch. I saw a program that there was only one take out. And if you listen to peep get up and tell you why you need to be something like a i. And m. Program or why you need have a health care district, there's only one person giving it to you, you could walk away saying this is something we ought to do. We know that the community is not engaged in this. Let's all face it. This community is not engaged in I and m. They don't know what I and m is. But I知 ready --
>> but I guess --
>> where did 2007 come from?
>> the --
>> go ahead.
>> 2007 was the year that dallas and houston were both supposed to attain and so it also is the year that is required by the early action compact that that is the year you have to reach attainment. The compact actually mentioned that.
>> e.p.a.?
>> yes, sir. E.p.a. But that does mean you need 2005, 6 and 7, that average to be clean. And I could just point out one thing, one of the problems with I and m that is often -- or one of the facts that's often overlooked is the difficulty in identifying just the dirty vehicles. At this point in time there's no technical, reliable way to just identify the dirty vehicles that haven't been cleaned up. The only way is look at every vehicle out there and that's how you catch the dirty ones.
>> are we authorize to go give it to you free if you pass it and $50 few don't?
>> well, that's something tceq could mull over. There are fee settings.
>> pretty good idea, judge. [laughter] I second that.
>> Commissioner Davis, did you have a question?
>> yes, sir. Can you tell me how close dallas and harris county have come in going toward attainment with the programs that they have employed right now with their inspection maintenance? Is there any type of data that's been generated to suggest they are going in the right direction? And if so, by year 2007 if that is the bench mark year, then how close are they to reaching attainment? I want to make sure what we're doing we can stay on track to make sure that we do not get into that non-attainment status which we are kind of bordering right now. Cow answer the question for me, please?
>> both dallas and houston are struggling to demonstrate attainment --
>> I知 sorry.
>> both dallas and houston are struggling to demonstrate attainment in 2007 because it's not just the cars and trucks problem there. I think as somebody mentioned earlier particular with with houston, they have the huge problems from all of the petrochemical industry there. And so the I and m program, I mean we are estimating for example, in the dallas area that we would get 17 tons a day of n.o.x. Reductions there and about 13 or 14 tons of v.o.c. Reductions. That's helping, but they have a long way to go. You are in a much better position here in the Austin area than dallas and houston are.
>> our air is impacted by dallas and houston on various days. Sometimes by houston, sometimes by dallas, sometimes by san antonio, sometimes by ohio. Our modeling assumes dallas and houston will make their deadlines. Again because we felt it was necessary to have a margin of safety built into this plan is because that is a huge assumption.
>> I guess the final point, do we have the authority to exempt certain vehicles from inspection? Do we have that type of authority? What authority do we have or do not have, but still in the arena of complying with attainment status? So what kind of leverage do we have to the folks out there that are looking at this right now and say, well, I feel i've got a new vehicle, I don't feel i've got to go through this. Do we have any power to do this?
>> you do have authority under the legislation from the previous legislative session that allows you to choose whatever range of vehicles you wish to test in this area. I think a lot of the work that was done by the e.a.c. Task force was to look at whether they should latch two, three, four years out and they came up with the conclusions they did. But do you have the authority under statute.
>> the program as designed right now only applies to cars 2 to 24 yearsold.
>> 24?
>> 2 to 24 years old.
>> the to 24.
>> so we could take 1999 and newer and just arbitrarily say that's going to be our bench mark.
>> we could propose that to tceq and e.p.a. That would limit the number of stations that you had suddenly. That would limit the number of inspection stations have you. The fee for those people remaining in the program would go up. It would no longer be $20, it would be closer to, who knows, 27 or $30. I mean it's a matter of economics that you have to have -- that's part of the consideration that you will have.
>> what's the quick answer to the question can we really get this done without hays county? Yes because?
>> we believe that tceq and e.p.a. Would accept our plan and it would fall within the e.a.c. Guidelines that you committed to, yes.
>> and hays county, well, san marcos has made a commit toplt come up with some alternative reductions we could include in our plan. And hays county is only about 9% of the emission reductions we expected from the i. And m. Program. Most of the reductions will come from travis and Williamson so we believe we can still get there as the plan is today.
>> okay.
>> and we also immaterial late hays county by itself and most of that fell upon hays county itself and san marcos.
>> the ozone is not being reduce understand hays county as a result of san marcos' actions.
>> okay.
>> so if we were to choose something like that, if we were to say you know what, we don't want to do I and m, but we want to implement a -- I mean create a situation where we really force -- I mean because I understand gasoline might be more impact full what we use in our vehicles than even I and m. Is that -- I mean is that correct?
>> gasoline has a lot of effect. I think you have to look at all these things kind of meshing together. The standard the vehicle is certified to, how clean it stays over the years its operating, what fuels are used, they all work to have a benefit. So I and m work to have a benefit on reducing emissions from vehicles.
>> because san marcos was going to do something like the natural gas or pro paeufpblt I doubt we could do that. If we were to go to just a mandatory -- I mean this is the kind of gas that we're going to sell in this region.
>> but we already have one of those measures on our list for a mandatory lower rvp gas. The problem with any kind of mandatory fuel thing is that under the clean air act it requires a waiver from e.p.a., And under that waiver you have to prove that you have already done everything else reasonable to come into attainment. And then they will consider the fuel. And san antonio, in the san antonio paper there was already an article because they had that same measure on their list, lower, cleaner gas, lower r.v.p. Gas, and they were told by tceq that they are not going to be able to do that because they have not considered emissions testing and they have not done everything else reasonable. So they would not be able to get that waiver and there won't be any mandatory fuel.
>> the point of your early action compact was to implement locally implementable measures. There are several restrictions federally on the diesel equipment and on the gasoline and the fuels specifically. Again, we still -- if you look on page 32 and 33 of the plan, there are the 13 measures that -- those are the major measures that we are looking at, and there are a lot of measures in addition to inspection and maintenance. Inspection and maintenance is only one of more than 30 measures included in this plan. They are all meant to work together to get us a grand total of about one part per billion in ozone reduction. It takes all of that and our repb to get that amount of reduction in ozone. That's what it takes. It takes a little nickel and dime here and there from every source of emissions and that's what this plan was designed to do. We are continuing -- to be fair, clint hill resources is the only supplier of fuel in this reason. They are continuing to work with us on alternatives. We will continue to work with them. We do feel that we have pushed that measure to the limit at this date.
>> anybody else with something new? Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else to give comments that we have not heard?
>> and I think that's really important for me, something new we have not heard before in terms of questions that have been expressed. Because we have a lot of other work to get accomplished in the next three hours.
>> few give us your name, we'll be happy to give your comments.
>> my name is benson jerry mays, I live in elgin and I知 here to correct some comments or things you've already heard. One, if you sign an early action compact, you cannot lose jobs from factories being denied the right to build here. You cannot lose road funds. It will not impact your economic growth, because an early action compact is your protection card. The ozone level could reach 100 in 2007 and you are still not in non-compliance. You are only dekphraeurd in non-compliance if you don't have an early action compact in place. That's a scare threat that people are using. Remember that mr. Davis was concerned about that the last time I was here in court. He was worried about losing jobs. Of course, we're all concerned about jobs, and that's a threat that you should not consider because it's not true. And that's whether you sign an early action compact with or without an inspection and maintenance program. Now, I知 also concerned about the human impact. You are going to pass a program which is going to add another $7 to the fee so it's 39.50 total. That money is eligible to poor people to help them when they get a huge bill to fix their car and they can't pay it. Who helps the middle class people? Do you know how many thousands of people in this county living in homes right now and they are strung out on debt, maybe one of the couples has lost their job, they are close to foreclosure right now. As a matter of fact, our foreclosure rate is already high. What happens when a middle class family gets a $600 bill and they don't have the money? Do they get foreclosed? Do they lose out? Are you going to pass that program to help middle class people because there are middle class people that are unprepared to pay them. Now, one reason that you might reject i. And m. Besides it being a badrogram in general, it's overly expensive and it's ineffective, is other states have learned, other states have had inspection and maintenance for many years. California has had it 30 years, and they've gotten a little smarter along the way. California and other states have changed to a biennial testing system. And as you probably heard from the clean air force before, they know as well that here in Texas cars, once they are fixed, tend to remain in good shape for two years. So it's senseless to make them get an inspection every year. If you went to a biennial system, you would cut the price of the program in half. If you went to a biennial system, you could get the good machines, the a.s.m. Machines and really take out some n.o.x. But if you vote for I and m, you are into it for whatever the tceq wants to give you. If you reject it, let's say if they come back with a deal to make a better program, one that's more phod even, one that people around the country know is much more effective, you might be able to get a decent program. But you can't get that if you vote for it today. Now, the last reason I hear that people are supporting I and m inspection and maintenance is because they feel it's important for public health. Well, the e.p.a. Was sued to defend the 85 part per billion standard on the basis of public health, and the e.p.a. In court after five years finally admitted they had no scientific evidence that that was necessary. They won the court case because they pointed out to the judge that the clean air act gave them the authority to do what they wanted to do no matter what. Inspection and maintenance is only going to reduce n.o.x. -- or ozone by one-third of one part -- less than one-third, it's actually about .29 parts per billion. That's how much ozone is going to go down. No human being is sensitive to that amount of ozone whether it's 84 or 84.29 parts per billion, it makes no sense. It doesn't make $32 million of sense. I urge you to vote against it.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is robert howard and I spoke with you before about this issue, as you may recall, one of the things I spoke about was the fact what if hays county did not agree with that program, wouldn't our dirty cars simply go over to hays county where they suddenly become not just drive around Austin, but they become commuter cars driving in and out of Austin from hays county. Apparently that's what's going to happen. And yet we didn't hear anything about any differences in the model. I think really this computer model that they use is suspect because we see things from their own data that this model did not predict. And if this model was so good, then why do they not predict that we would be in attainment last year and that we will be in attainment potentially this entire time if one thing happens, if we don't get major fires in areas like louisiana, mexico and so forth. Remember, we're going to be reducing our fire pollution by .7 parts per billion through all the other measures besides I and m. .7. And we get another .3 by their model from the I and m program. But these fires that occur in louisiana and mexico and so forth, they can bring in about 10 parts per billion when they occur. And the only question is how often will they occur. If they occur five days out of the year, we could be in trouble. If they occur four days, we might be golden. What does spending 30 to 50 million dollars oeufplt and m have to do with preventing these fires in louisiana, mexico and so forth that are going to make the difference between whether we are attainment or not. That's -- that's what we ought to be looking at. Now, if we want to talk about a safety buffer zone to bring it down another .3% or .5%, there are much less expensive ways to do it. And mainly going after point sources is the one that I have not -- we have not been able to get a good answer from the clean air force about because we could simply shut down a few strategic point sources when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction and really have a good chance on those days where we're likely to fail to maybe nip a problem in the bud. We can really do that. And it's very inexpensive. And it's not something we have to pay for year in and year out, it's something we can do at that moment in the summertime when we have a real problem because it's all going to be -- whatever happens in the winter here is not going to make a difference. What's going to matter is the summertime, those peak days we have to worry about whether we're going to be in attainment or not. The other thing you have to care about and I知 sure you saw many of those points in the letter from forest mims, the vice chair of the environmental science section in Texas academy of science, he had a whole list of questions, and one of the most engaging of them is this question about what about the fact that the monitors that are used to tell if we're in attainment or not have been shown to have errors in up to 20% in their readings. 20% errors in their readings. And when san antonio, who is in non-attainment right now, tested these readings -- contested these readings, the tceq staff scientists said that the errors, those error ranges were acceptable and therefore the data had to be accepted. So these are issues where it really looks to me like the tceq and so forth has made up their mind, you want to do something smart like have cleaner fuels, you can't do that unless you do the I and m first. Well, who made up that rule? And what is that all about? We want to have cleaner cars. So let's test them for v.o. Examine which doesn't matter instead of using tests for no. O.x.,. What is smart about that? It just seems like there is one absurdity on top of another with this program and it doesn't hold scientific muster. That's why san marcos didn't pass it. We had some councilmembers there with scientific training and they looked at the facts and it was that simple. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> hi, my name is wes benedict, a resident of Travis County here. I知 not a university of Texas professor, but I did graduate from the university of Texas with a degree in engineering and I do think that I have a little bit of scientific understanding, and I have to suspect that it's tough for him to sit there and listen to some of these other arguments when he's only able to speak on these very narrow issues where he can state facts as they are but not where you can try and put things in perspective on everything that's happening. Now, I don't know everything about all these emissions numbers and how they work, I知 not sure how much you understand, but I can tell you that just a few years ago I owned a company here in Austin that had a permit to release 7 tons per year of v.o.c.s. Now, I don't know if you can tell me -- and that was a small company. I was a one-third owner. I went through the tnrcc permit regulation process and when they were going through their stationary change, got it renewed. Throughout the time that I owned that business, never once did anyone from the tceq or former tnrcc come and inspect the emissions at my business. We did mail them some paperwork and I did pay $2,000 to the former consultant, to the consultant who was a former employee of tceq to fill out the paperwork for me, but never once did someone come and measure the emissions or inspect our books to see that we were staying within our levels. Now, we were, we were about half of it, but no one ever looked at those numbers. So if you think you are voting on something you understand and you understand how much is tailpipe -- this tailpipe test hr-g have an effect versus the business who are legally polluting, I知 asking you how many cars would you have to tailpipe test that are year 1998, for example, how many wow have to tailpipe test and take the actions that are in their plan to equal the reduction of emissions of one business that lets out 7 tons per year? If you have no idea what the number might be, you probably have no idea the true magnitude of the emissions from cars versus point sources andes sell vehicles. All -- and diesel vehicles. That's all have I to say.
>> good afternoon.
>> are you with us today?
>> yes, I am.
>> he's next in line.
>> let's have you. We need these two chairs in case there is somebody else.
>> my name is steve adams. I知 also a Travis County resident. And the people basically spoke about el paso and different places around the border that were caught with or basically close to or in non-and I takenment and I was station understand the military in el paso for several years and we would have problems in the military by not meeting the requirements because all the bad air that was over in juarez would float over and we would have to have people go inside because the air was so bad. Obviously there is nothing the base could do about it, there's nothing the city could do about it and obviously we can't control mexico. So I mean you know, using el paso as an example, you know, I thought was in pretty bad taste. The estimated amount for this per year is supposed to be $32 million estimated. Now, if 90% of the vehicles are not -- are in attainment, don't have any problems like the '96 and above, that's $28.8 million a year that they are basically either putting in their pocket for regulations, et cetera, or their using it for, you know, some type of -- the poor people, as they keep saying, repair their vehicles. It would make a lot more sense just to buy the poor people more vehicles and save the taxpayers all this money. If you bought them efficient cars, it would be a lot cheaper than it would be on these emission controls, just thinking common sense-wise. Austin is the highest taxed or highest cost of living in this state. Now, I知 sure toyota when they were looking at areas to move to, they were probably realizing that was way too much, so they went to san antonio which is one of the lowest. If we're the 10th highest in the country and the highest in the state, why are we adding another $25 on -- another $20 tax every year that we're looking to I guess just stick on to the taxpayer. Plus, we're looking to do more school taxes, more property taxes. It's skwr-sz getting so bad that everybody lives outside of Austin and outside of Travis County. So I mean, you know, just common sense-wise, if we take a look at this and try to fix -- like the gentlemen was speaking before about point source and find out where the bad substance is really coming from rather than jumping the gun and start taxing everybody, I think we would actually find a better solution. And I got this and I figure you all might want to take a look at this big sign. It kind of I will will you tell us straeutsz, most of the carbon monoxide comes from natural sources. And "-i'm rambling, I知 soefrplt it phroes my mind everybody time somebody wants to do a pet project and they want hundreds of millions of dollars to basically chase after something so small it could be taken care of without beating the taxpayer to death. Being I知 one of the people being beaten on I wanted to say my peace.
>> your recommendations would be going after the businesses basically polluting?
>> yes. If that's the largest problem, go after the largest problem. But they are in compliance, 85 to 90% of people are in compliance. Why make them suffer for the people basically polluting legally.
>> you would be supportive of going after the vehicles that we know, the older vehicles that we do know.
>> yes, sir. I don't know if you listen to morning radio, but you made a joke. You've got the people driving around in the '69 bug with the keep Austin weird and clean on their bumper stickers while these big piles of smoke are coming out of the back of their car. I don't know, I知 just -- it just gets so bad and it juts hits you so many times you just are slap happy from being hit. So i'll let the next person in board.
>> > good afternoon, my name is c. Riley. I live in Pflugerville. I would like to talk about a few of the things the people that went before us talked about. They say I and m is the largest component of this early action compact and addresses the largest source of pollutants. It is the largest component of the plan in terms of cost, it's by far the most expensive item in the plan, but it does not address the largest source of pollution because they exempt cars 24 years old and older which are the most likely class of polluting cars and exempts diesel, construction equipment, 18-wheelers. Those guys contribute over half of the on-road mobile pollution we have in in area and they are not going to be subject to any kind of fixing. Instead they focus on older cars that are going to pass. We know that 90% or more of these cars are going to pass the tests so while they say it's aimed at this group of polluters, in fact they are missing all of the vehicles that are actually polluting. They said if you don't pass the test, it means your car is malfunctioning. That's also not true. In denver they use the l.b.d. Test we're going to be adopting for 1996 and newer cars but abandoned it because they found in out of 7 -- it had a 70% pauls fail rate. 70% of the cars that failed did not have increased emissions. There are all kinds of computer glitches that have nothing to do with emissions but will still cause your car to fail. The dallas journal printed an article where several manufacturers oh, mercedes, b.m. B.m.w., All had problem with the software in the car's compute thaers would keep them from passing the tests. These could have been brand new cars and they would not pass the test even though they did not have problems with the emissions, it was just a glitch with the computer. We've talked quite a bit about poor people. The [inaudible] program is not going to help anybody buy a car when the car they have is refused registration tore needs repairs. You are talking about putting poor people -- about taeug their cars away. Who is going to take those people to the car or the grocery store or work when the car can't be registered or is unfixable. And economic growth, I don't think anybody is really going to seriously suggest that houston or dallas or phoenix or el paso or any of those cities are actually suffering economically. All of those cities are enjoying robust growth despite their air pollution problems, despite their attainment or non-attainment status. I don't think anyone can say there's an issue there. As far as highway dollars go, being found in non-attainment means you get more federal highway money. Campo told some people in their August 20th meeting there would be millions of federal dollars available for road congestion projects, but that money would only be available if we were found in non-attainment. So the threat of highway money and economic growth I don't believe is really a valid one. They made the point we can't fix diesel, we could test them, but there was nothing we could do to fix them. That's not exactly true. There is a low emissions diesel fuel that's part of the early action compact. That's one of the good ideas and that alone will help fix the emission rate from dieselings, but this new disease will gasoline was not taken into account when they did their modeling and that could provide the margin of error. That's an issue that does tackle the polluting cars unlike the i. And m. Car which is only aimed at clean cars. The low emissions fuel is going to hit the heavy equipment and 18-wheelers. But that was not taken into account whether they did their modeling that showed we were on the cusp of non-and takenment. The last one is the supposed difficulty of identifying just the dirty vehicles and forcing them to come fixed. There is remote fencing technology and the Texas d.p.s. Owns some of this I want request and they've used it on occasion in houston and some of the other areas dirty areas of the state, it uses a laser beam and can analyze vehicles as they drive by. If it finds a dirty one, it takes a picture. If we were to adopt that, only the dirty cars have to be repaired thunderstorm kind of plan. You don't have to test everybody to find the dirty cars. I guess that's all have I so I would encourage the Commissioners court to vote against the I and m proposal and adopt the rest of the remaining early action compact. Thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much. Yes, sir.
>> hello, my name is [inaudible] and I live in northeast Travis County. For starters, I want to thank you for listening to us today. I think it's important you hearing our comments and I appreciate that. I知 going ask you to vote no to the I and m program today. Before I tell you why, I want to tell you that I知 not somebody who doesn't care about the potential health impacts of unclean air. As a child I grew up with asthma and I face several times where my mother would have to rush me to the emergency room at night so I understand the potential health impacts because as children as empty eubgs are the worst affected by ozone. But I知 also a realist, and if we think one part per billion is going to make a difference to an as matic or child, we're not being real. That's not going to make a difference. Let's start by brushing aside health concerns and be real. We're doing this simply to placate the e.p.a. I wanted to hit on a couple points. I have an older sports car and I知 a member of several ought auto enthusiasts clubs. And one of the things, I知 talking to people very much into their automobiles and recently I sent out some e-mails over the forms. These are people heavily involved in their cars and heavily concerned. Like mr. Daugherty said, none of these people knew anything about the I and m program, but they were all very unpleased. But something uls is very interesting, some of the responses I got. One of them said well, if they bring it here, i'll just get an older car I won't have to worry about because if they are older than 24 years you don't have to worry about it. That's one of the unfair parts of this program, and there are going to be people who have sports cars, modified cars who don't care about emissions because all they want is performance, they are going to get older vehicles. One of the other things relating to this, I was on -- there was some people from outside of this area on the forum who have been in regions with inspection maintenance programs and they said don't worry about it because if you go in and get a failure, all you have to do is go in, reprogram your computer, go back for the free test afterwards and you pass it. When you are done, you go back and reprogram your computer. They mention add lot of times there are people who fail and then get their vehicles repaired and go back and pass. Well, that's what some of it is. People with performance modifications, for example, catalytic kw-rters removed, programs on computers modified, these people go back, undo their mods and go back home and put the emissions destroying modifications back in. They don't care about emissions. This program isn't going to get them. I want to hit again on the unfairness of this program. If you are exempting diesels and cars over 24 years old because you know they are not going to pass, that's not a fair prafplt you are hitting the people with cars who have emission systems that are designed to kee emissions cleaned because you can do something about those when the others are polluting much worse and there's nothing you can do about it. That's not a fair program and I think the Commissioners court would vote against. That I thank you for your time and urge you to vote no to the I and m program. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> judge, Commissioners, good afternoon. I知 sandy hinches. You've seen our missions statement. It was passed on to you a month ago t chamber is in support of the plan and specifically inclusion of a I and m program t reason being when our members took a look at the entire project of the early action compact, evaluated all the issues that are part of it, they decided that little very important that we go after emissions where they are happening. And the largest, as you have heard, the largest part of emissions are from your vehicles, the first 55%. There was some discussion of businesses out there polluting. Depending on the industry that is correct is the case. They are at 20% of -- point sources are 20% of n.o.x. Reductions and those point sources are being addressed through tceq requirement and also additional measures that are in the cleaner action plan. The business community is participating, larger companies in commute reduction plans to address the commutes the employees take as an additional way as another part of the pie can be addressed. We have a plan that has been put together that addresses all of the pieces of the pee within the situation we're in. We have certain constraints by e.p.a. That we are required to work within and we are doing the best we can within those and it is extremely important for economic development that we as a community are doing -- being proactive at maintaining positive air quality or good air quality here for quality of life reasons as well as for those reasons outlined earlier with companies such as toyota that do take into consideration are we going to have to have additional restrictions on manufacturing because of the air quality in your region. Those are just some of the reasons the greater Austin chamber is supportive of the plan.
>> good afternoon, judge. Commissioners, my name is ramone alvarez. I知 a scientist with the Austin office of environmental defense. Toeupd say a few things from a couple of perspectives. First of all, environmental defense worked with tceq and with e.p.a. To help develop the early -- what ultimately became the early action compact, and I want to just remind you because day d.a. Is a great day to be here -- today is a great day to be adopting something that's going to get us ahead of the curve and to reward Austin and central Texas for cleaning up its air ahead of federal mandates. There's going to be regulatory benefits, there's going to be health benefits, economic benefits to our region for doing that. This early action compact was put together to reward good actors like central Texas is doing right now. We've taken a look at the programs, at the drafts of programs from around the country and the Austin plan is clearly among the best if not the best. And so the rewards that come from that will be felt for years to come. At the same time, the early action compact contains fail safe provisions to prevent bad actors from abusing the program. I got to tell you when san antonio submits a plan that has two or three measures to reduce v.o.x. Emissions, they do so at their own peril. E.p.a. May not approve the plan, they may be bunched with everybody else that's going to be a standard tpho rpb attainment area and face all the regulatory restriction. So central Texas for a number of years probably going back to the late 90s has been trying to put together a plan, today is the culmination of those efforts to come into compliance earlier than it has to in a way that's locally appropriate and I think we do that with this plan. So I commend you for all your efforts in looking at. This I want to praise the process that got us here, the clean air coalition, the early action compact task force chaired by indicate stevens really opened and cast a wide knelt to let anybody that wanted to come in and take parted in identifying possible measures, critiquing measures. I would say that it was very broad based group. I personally facilitated the point source working group. We had participation from all the major point sources in the region. We got reductions from all of the power plant operators in the region. And while those things are good, I pushed as hard as I could to get those reductions in there. At the end of the day the point source reductions are not as effective in reducing ozone as the mobile sources. We've got individual industrial sources that put emissions out versus lots of cars throughout the region. Those dispersed emissions have more of an impact than point sorts. We need to look at both and we are looking at both. Finally with regards to the reason for adopting all these measures, whether or not we comply or not, it is all about public health. The model is a good planning tool for us to figure out how much we need to do. We've put together something that we believe is going to get us one part per billion of reductions. That's a reasonable margin of safety to put into a plan for a region like ours which is right on the cusp of non-attainment. I think you have a good plan and I support your adoption of all the measures in the plan and thank you for all of your support for clean air in this region.
>> thank you very much. Yes, sir.
>> again, I知 bill [inaudible] and i've been up here before but I didn't get to say anything. [laughter]
>> but your silence was eloquent.
>> there are just a couple of little things that I wanted to point out in the modeling process, there was some statement made that we didn't consider the cleaner fuels, but we did. In the modeling we looked at the low emission diesel and the low sulphur gasoline and that's what we have in our 2007 model. We did not conclude the low emission diesel for this local area because we have found out, as you all probably have heard, that tceq approved an alternate method that allowed our supplier to give us low sulphur gasoline rather that is Texas low emission diesel. Another point on the I and m program, the 24 years old and older cars, there are not that many and those that are out there don't travel this much. They really don't have that big an impact. But there's another thing that I don't know has really been clarified and part of the I and m program that we're talking about is a -- there's a remote sensing component that comes with it, the same as houston and dallas. D.p.s. Has a contract we are the operator of these systems and I was just in bastrop yesterday at the Commissioners court and they asked what happens to our commuters that drive into your area with a dirty car. Well, they could be picked up by by that remote sensing component and asked to get that car fixed. That could happen to people driving locally with cars that have been modified such they can only pass a test and then go back and change the computer. If the remote sensing component picks that vehicle up, they will be asked to repair it. So we are looking at ways to get the really dirty cars, unthe once over 24 years old off the road or get them fixed. Another point on the -- I think ramone pointed out on the point sources, the cement plant down in buda has been pointed out as why can't we ask them to shut down on a few days. Well, it takes them a couple of days to shut down. That's a huge operation. And you can't just turn a switch on and off. The other thing is because of their location, they don't have an impact on us all of the tile n fact, for this episode that we modeled for evaluating different control strategies, they have very little impact, so you could shut them down completely and we would still have ozone exceedences. We just don't have that many other point sources in this area area. That's good and I guess it's bad we don't have those jocks, but we don't have a situation like houston. We can't go out and tell the refiners and all these people to reduce emissions from sources. Our power plants have already made committedments. Lcra out at fayette county is over 50% reduction. And so the point sources that are significant have committed to reductions, even the cement plant in buda is required by tceq regulation to reduce by 30%. So, you know, we're, again, going back to our fair share, we've looked at all the kpoepb epbtsz. The non-road mobile, the turf program, we are taking aggressive steps to try to fix those diesel engines. So I think we've tried to take into consideration that all the different categories and make sure that we didn't leave anybody untouched as far takes fair share.
>> do we have the authority to exempt only cars two years old and less?
>> well, as was -- as reported previously, we do have flexibility in this area to choose those vehicles. If we only wanted to test one year of vehicles, we could do that.
>> if we -- if the car is 25, 26 years old, right now we exempt it.
>> right.
>> what if our decision is not to exempt old cars?
>> well, we'll need to go back and remodel the program, number one, and if it's going to be a multi-county program, you would have to work with Williamson county as well. But --
>> and that's a very, very small number.
>> yes, very tiny percentage and they don't typically drive very many miles.
>> I thought that was a big deal for a lot of people. It could make me start thinking. If it's not that big a deal, don't worry about it.
>> one other thing I would like to point out. 35 cents a mile is what the federal government figures to operate your vehicle.
>> you got 30 seconds, you will have one minute. Then we're done.
>> .003 cents per mile is what this I and m program costs. Compared to the cost of operating a vehicle to start with, it's a pretty small amount.
>> it will be $20 a year, they are right about that.
>> right.
>> I just wanted to briefly mention a couple things. Bill got most of them. But number one, as far as the e.a.c. Being an insurance policy where we could have ozone levels as high as we wanted, that's not true. Part of the e.a.c. Requires that you actually monitor attainment for three years, 2005, 2006, '07. If you don't do that the e.a.c. Is over. Denver in fact has had problems with their inspection maintenance program. It's a very different program than what we have. They are testing for carbon monoxide. They test every two years instead of every year. They are actually looking at as part of their e.a.c. Improving their I and m program. Any comparisons to denver need to be considered in that light.
>> 25 seconds.
>> just addressing campo, if you get non-attainment money, transportation money that's not eligible for any kind of new roadway projects [inaudible].
>> thank you. 60 seconds.
>> to rebutt her, basically I have a article from the dallas business journal that basically says the items used in dallas and houston are also failing at 40%. They are the major robert bureaus at the Texas department of public safety who basically is in charge of this program is basically indicating how bad these programs are. Quickly, the -- if you will drive around, which I知 sure everybody else is stuck in traffic just like I am, the out of state cars, the out of country cars, mexico, canada, new york, all the other -- all these other cars -- trying to be quick -- they aren't complying at all with this. There's no restrictions on them. There's nothing that we can do about it. The cars passing through Austin and through Travis County, through Williamson county. Once they are out of the county, that's it. There's nothing we can do about it. When they pollute Austin, everybody who is below Austin going up to the northern states and everybody from the upper states and in canada coming down to, they are not being held responsible. We do have cheaper gas we are use, but with the diesel gas they will just fill up out of town.
>> thank you very much, sorry to rush you, but we have several other big items. I move we approve 19-a, b and c. That is the clean air action plan, the resolution requesting -- and the resolution in c, this picks up the I and m plan also. I and m program. Seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. Any more discussion?
>> judge, I知 still very much concerned about the impact it will have on poor folks in this community and also the working poor. And senior citizens. I've really been hearing from them. And I知 trying to determine as I ask that question, any way possible that if the Commissioners court decides to approve this particular item today, 19, is there any way possible during the course of the year this particular plan can be modified where it may be able to address some of the concerns that have been brought up, especially looking at the poor and senior citizens in this community? And I would like to get an answer. Can we modify or amend this during its growth going toward -- could you answer that for me.
>> basically what happens on March 31, we turn in our proposed plan to tceq and e.p.a. The reason you are being asked to pass a resolution now is in order to get a program in place by 2005, it takes tceq almost a year to go through their very formal rule-making process which they will begin as soon as we turn in the resolution. They are looking at basically taking our plan and coming up, they have to make rules for it. So there will be a rule-making process which allows for public input, which allows for draft rules to be published, public comments to be taken, revisions to be made, and a final rule to be adopted by December 31 at the end of this year. We have been speaking with tceq about holding on work session with the Commissioners, and basically it's up to the three Commissioners at tceq, the Texas commission on environmental quality. We are trying to get a work session scheduled to with them to where we can come and talk to them about the specifics of our plan. They welcome our local elected officials especially at that point to come talk to them so we have some ability to provide input. Ultimately it will be up to them. I guess the short answer is yes, changes can be made. Again, over a year a long process of trying to work on this program, these decisions have been proposed the way they are.
>> right, and I understand, i've been a part of that. But I just wanted to make sure that we don't lock ourselves in a situation whereby maybe every two years inspection and maintenance program may be appropriate. I don't kn, but I do know it's going to cause some hardship for a lot of folks in this community, and if so then the question is can we modify it to lessen some of those hardships. Is answer you gave is sufficient for me at this time. Thank you.
>> is your motion -- does it still have in it what we did in the January with regard to the January vote with regards to that we do have the ability to look at this thing at some point in time and decide that we no longer need the I and m program, or is this -- I mean I fear what we are fixing to do today, and Commissioner Davis, that is not what's going to happen. We pass this today, I think that we will have this thing until the coming. I don't think that you can go and two years, I don't think you can modify, I don't think you can do anything to the people that it's going to affect in the pocketbook. I do not think that's going to happen.
>> the resolution that you are voting on today specifically says if after a minimum of four years the I and m program as implemented does not achieve the desired effect or is determined to be unnecessary, any participating county and the largest city in that county can petition tceq to terminate the program in that county. If the early action come pablgt for the Austin, Round Rock m.s.a. Is violated in any way, I and m program will noten implemented unless the say participate jurisdictions that vote to ask for its implementation vote to continue to do it. Those are the provisions that are specifically in the I and m resolution that not only but the other three entities that are passing this resolution.
>> do we have examples? Is there anybody in -- has tceq ever allowed somebody to opt out once they -- once they got into I and m program? Has that been asked?
>> it's a little different bows the other region ins the state are non-attainment regions so they were required to implement it under strict rules.
>> that's more of the question. Has anybody achieved clean air and therefore it's not necessary, and that is quite a different question from has anybody been able to get out of I and m.
>> would you like to ask that question for me.
>> and therefore could petition to get out of I and m because it's no longer yes, sir.
>> you can only petition to get out of I and m if you petition to get in in the first place. If it was voluntary. We have five counties in the dallas area in addition to dallas, tarrant, denton and collins who volley taylor opted and just like you are being asked to do here. They've only been in it for two years. They are not ready to even think about whether or not they would stay in it or not. The area we've had the most success in to date is el paso in fact because of the nature in which air quality is dealt with their. They have a waiver about the air that comes over from juarez. But with the two speed program and the low rvp program and the oxygenated gasoline they are now able to demonstrate attainment with the one-hour standard. But because they didn't opt into the program, they aren't allowed to opt out. They have a maintenance plan they have to put together and they can choose what to mutt in that plan and -- put in that plan and to date -- what i've heard is they are going to urge to keep the two speed idle program in place. But that's their choice.
>> so the long is in there and we can get that done but we have to petition tceq. Tceq has to agree.
>> it would be up to the three Commissioners. The plan was meant to be local and tceq has been very supportive of that and I believe that they want to hear what the local group -- what the local jurisdictions want.
>> i've always found my brothers and sisters at the tceq to be more than reasonable. [laughter] anything furthers? All in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, Sonleitner, Gomez and yours truly in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Daugherty. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:40 PM