Travis County Commssioners Court
May 11, 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 15
Item number 15, receive update regarding clean air action plan implementation issues being considered at Texas commission on environmental quality and take appropriate action.
>> good morning. I just wanted to bring to your attention some recent actions at the Texas commission on environmental quality with regard to the clean air action plan that the court and 11 other local jurisdictions approved in the latter part of March. We were asked to attend a work session discuss all of the documents that have been turned in to the state. There are three of those from our region and also from tyler longview. The Commissioners at that work session basically indicated that they had some second thoughts about implementing state rule to implement these clean air action plans, which is a bit of a new development from our perspective. We have been working with the state and with the eta for over a year and a half to put together these plans and they've been involved very intimately in that process. And we have been including proposed rules in our plan this entire time. So the Commissioners simply -- there's a couple of new Commissioners that have come on board since this whole process has happened. They have asked for some more information. It's in your backup, some of it. Judge Biscoe did send a letter that I took to the work session to convey basically the actions that this court had taken on that clean air action plan. That's attachment one of your backup. Attachment two is a letter of support from our legislative delegation as of yesterday, all but three members of the entire five-county legislative delegation had signed that letter supporting our proposed state rules. And you will continue to gather signatures from that. It takes awhile there. They're a little bit busy up there right now as you may know. Attachment 3 basically is some of the information that Commissioners had asked us to provide. A lot of it centers on the legal authority. There's some questions that the tceq Commissioners have raised about their legal authority to apply state rules in what are known as attainment areas, areas that are not violating the federal standards, which are very -- i've worked with the county attorney to get a lot of information to answer their questions. We simply disagree -- we believe and we think have shown that they clearly have the authority to do that. So that's what we'll be discussing with them over the next week or so. We have asked for and they have indicated that they will meet with us individually as an area to go over these issues in more detail. There are four main reduction areas that they are raising questions about. Those are outlined in the backup mexican-american row. These are the heavy duty diesel idling restrictions, the stage one vapor recovery requirement that is an existing rule that we're asking that the threshold be lowered on it to bring in more stations. And what we're trying to bring forth a balancing measure, which would be a new measure. The reduction emission program is new as well. I can go into an explanation about those measures if you'd like or if you have any questions about those. Those are basically the issues that we're talking about right now. And we just wanted to make sure that you were aware. One of the main things that they're worried about is enforcement. And i've you've probably seen in the papers lately, enforcement is a big issue. It is a big issue and we understand that. For that very reason, the clean air action plan that we turned in indicated that the local -- we're willing to look at enforcing at least two of the measures, the heavy duty diesel idling rule and the community reduction program. Again, the heavy duty diesel idling rule which limit idling for heavy duty diesel trucks and buses to five minutes in most cases, and clearly if there is a state rule that is passed, our local jurisdiction would then have the ability to enforce that. The community reduction program is like one that others have already put in place. They've got a tracking system. They have been -- we have been talking with capco about administering that program. They have indicated a willingness to do that. They have told tceq that. So we have indicated to them that we feel like we could enforce those two. The other two --
>> right now there is no rule, state rule.
>> exactly.
>> so no enforcement, even if we --
>> we can't.
>> if there was a state rule, it could help the state enforce its rules. And this is the one that we get the most complaints from residents about, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> the trucks with engines sort of running hours and hours.
>> and it is a large source of emissions in this area, and it is the one measure that consistently when we went out to the public generally and said what would you like to see in this plan, that was the one measure that always rose to the top. So we do feel very -- and there is a rule in place in the houston-galveston area, and all we're asking is that the state apply that same rule. They don't have to write a new rule to our region. The other two, the point source emission balancing, we can go into legal discussions about that. It would be almost impossible for us to implement those at the local region and implement them locally. Those are done with a permit that the state requires. Frankly, we've been a little surprised that they've thought it was so difficult, so we hope to discuss these issues with them more, but we just wanted to make you aware that in case you had seen some information, exactly where we are. They have not indicated necessarily that they aren't going to implement these rules. They have indicated that they have questions and we understand that and we're continuing to talk with them about that.
>> do we think that tceq staff was a little surprised also? Did they see this coming?
>> yes. The work session was meant to be just a -- just as your work sessions are, an opportunity for the staff that we have been working on on a daily basis to really sit down with the tceq Commissioners and go over some of these issues. They work with a lot of different issues and they're very busy, so, yeah, I think they had started to get some ideas that they had some questions about some of these measures, and that was the first opportunity that the Commissioners' feelings on this issue were expressed. And honestly, it's unknown. One Commissioner did indicate that he did not think that early action compacts were supposed to be -- that any state rules were supposed to be used to implement early action come packets. That's not at all the way we understood that process, nor the people who originally put that process together, who are no longer at tceq. However, I do know that environmental defense was intimately involved in the creation of the interaction compact process. They sent a letter I believe to judge Biscoe, and I got a copy, which I am happy to pass out to everybody. They are one of the few players still in the region still around and they indicated that it was their understanding that the state would work with the local governments to put together a plan and then help implement it because in Texas counties don't have ordinance making authority, so it's very difficult to do regional five-county wide plan without having some state rules in place. And that was their understanding.
>> so the composition of the commission has changed how much?
>> two-thirds. To only one of the original three Commissioners is still at tceq that was there when this process started.
>> and is there a new executive director there now also?
>> there is a new acting executive director, yes. So there is a little bit of fluidity over there at tceq at the moment.
>> the last meeting I attended there was an epa representative on the telephone. E.p.a. Is aware of this development?
>> e.p.a. Is very aware of the development. Attachment 4 of your backup contains an initial e-mail that we got from that same individual, michael morton. And e.p.a. Region 6, who was intimately involved in putting together the early action compact process, they have told us numerous times that they believe this plan is a solid one, that it is actually -- they're holding it up as an example of how to do an nac properly throughout the country, and they are concerned that the state is looking like that they may not be holding up end of the bargain. I know the e.p.a. Is discussing with tceq their concerns and we're all trying to work together. And again, I have no indication at this point that tceq is going to say no, we are not going to implement this plan. We just know they have some major concerns. We're trying to get them the information they need. We're trying to make sure that it's not a program that is unenforceable. Nobody wants to put together a plan that doesn't get enforced, so we want to make sure that we're working together.
>> I don't know that I thought they were -- there were unexpected comments made. After I read the newspaper accounting and -- we have no way of knowing what the ultimate action tceq commission will be. So our position, I guess the other partners' position is to proceed as we had been going. And I guess to the extent that we can provide additional information and answer questions, etcetera, we will do that.
>> yes, sir. And the commission should make some final decisions over the next few weeks. In order to get these state rules in place by the deadline hoos laid out in the early action compact that's at the end of the year, they really need to have the rules drafted and put out as proposed rules by the end of July. So we should be hearing more. But I just wanted the court to be aware that everything is a little fluid at the moment and we may be back to you depending on how much they change the plan. Back for further action.
>> we have will have to take additional steps ourselves then or do additional work.
>> we tried to make it very clear that the overriding principle behind this early action compact in our region was the concept of fair share. And this plan was put together with numerous stakeholders from all emission pieces of the pie coming together and saying, okay, here's how we're going to do our part. So it really is one big pie that's meant to work together.
>> the mixed signals on this are just incredibly frustrating. One of the speakers who came to our final luncheon was john howard, who was with several -- I specifically told him the question of some of us need a little bit of shoring up here of being brave and doing all these things related to inm and need to get some reassurance from the federal level ta we're doing the right thing. And he clearly said, you're doing the right thing. And in fact, there are going to be counties all over the united states who will be knocking on your door and asking how did your region pull this off. Because they are non-attainment and they are fixing to face this. So you get that kind of assurance from the federal level. We did everything we were supposed to do and we changed memberships on our courts probably as many times as they've done their Commissioners and other kinds of executives there. And at the same time the state all of a sudden now is getting flip-flopping and wish shi washy on this stuff. They are allowing other entities that are clearly non-attainment to get out of their deadlines that were established to clean up the air. So it's like we need to reward people that are saying we get it up front. We don't need to wait until we get there before we start doing anything. We don't want to go there. So I?m incredibly frustrated by this that everybody did this giant chant together on working together on this, including the state of Texas and now also the state of Texas, the one in the middle seems to be the one that's flaking out on us, and that's very disappointing.
>> but we should just keep the faith, right?
>> we have gotten indications from e.p.a. That this is a good plan. I know that all the local -- your counterparts on the clean air coalition have indicated they plan to stay the course. And we continue to hope that there's a misunderstanding somewhat and that we can work with you -- with tceq to implement this plan.
>> judge, can I add one thing? In terms of what signals tceq may be sending us, the one Commissioner that is still on the commission has been there all along and is really sort of the subject matter expert on air issues, ralph marquis. And when the Commissioners were each laying out their list of questions and concerns, he made a very interesting statement and I just wanted to point out again in terms of what signals they may be sending and what may be on the horizon and what issues y'all may need to be thinking about, he expressed a willingness to go ahead and adopt all of these rules at the state level, but on the condition that they would not go into effect until the local governments in this area signed an agreement with tceq stating that the local governments would be responsible for the enforcement. And my read on that is he's very concerned that the state rules go into effect in this area when there are complaint about violations, people will call tceq and tceq will have to find ret sources to go and enforce it. And I think where he's headed is since we're still in attainment area and from his perspective we may not have reached the level where the state feels a need to come in and do this since they're doing this at the behest of the local governments, they want some sort of reassurance that local government resources will be tapped to do the enforcement. I think basically he wants there to be an understanding at the local government level that if the state adopts these rules, the state will not also have to follow up with extra manpower and resources and requests for additional appropriations at the legislature to do the enforcement. That it be done at the local level instead. And I know Commissioner sours also voiced concerns about what it was going to cost tceq to implement this program.
>> god forbid they actually be forced to do their job. I was looking back on this and it was like when it was their job to enforce on landfills, they don't seem to want to do it. When it's their possibility even on a proactive way, it comes down to money. This is once again a dereliction of duty by people at the state of Texas who want to gouge it to -- to gouge it to everybody but us.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:23 AM