Travis County Commissioners Court
October 24, 2006
Item 14
14 is to consider presentation from Texas cities and clean air coalition regarding the following, a, mission and purpose of coalition, b, invitation for membership, c request for payment of annual membership fee, d, adoption of resolution, e, adoption of participation agreement and bylaws, and f, other related issues. As you can see, what I tried to do was be as global as possible. If you would have a seat there. We posted this for discussion today. We will have it back on the court's agenda next week. And we have with us mayor laura miller.
>> could she hand you all a notebook ?
>> certainly. This is the mayor of fort worth or one of your assistance?
>> no, this is, best of all fork me, because she is a knowledgeable person, she is our staff department director for environmental quality for the city of dallas.
>> okay. Welcome to both of you. We do have others here on this item and we will have an opportunity to hear one and all this morning.
>> would you all have another copy? Commissioner Davis is out today but he will be back next week and we'll be happy to take it upstairs to him.
>> that would be great. We'll bring it up.
>> good morning, yes.
>> thank you to the judge for putting this on the agenda and thank to you the Commissioners for letting me come to speak to you this morning. I have been going around the state talking about our clean air coalition that we formed just a few months ago to address the issue of the new coal plant that are being proposed for the state of Texas, 17 currently that are being considered by the tceq. And the reason that we pulled this organization together is because dallas was very surprised at the fast tracking of all the permits. As you all know, unlike you, who are blessed with not being a nonattainment area, dallas fort worth is a non nonattainment area, as is houston, bow mont and port arthur. We are spending an enormous amount of time in the dallas area trying to figure out a way for us to get in attain attainment. And we have been unable to date to assure ourselves that by the 2010 deadline that we would be able to complain with the federal environmental regulations. So when this came up and we suddenly realized that instead of having 18 coal fired plants across the state there were now going to be twice as many, and that the permits are being fast tracked, and that the t tceq was not looking at the cumulative impact but only the individual impacts we were very concerned. We thought as a city we might intervene in permits ourselves. We wanted to follow the process, the process set up by the state, that once the applicant applies for the permits, you can then intervene. You can get in that process formally to present whatever information and experts that you can pull together. But they are very spec about how you do that. The burden really is on the intervener to be able to show what the possible impacts are to these permits permits. We knew it was going to probably cost up to a half million dollars to hire a firm to handle it, a legal firm, and marshal all the expertrge we decided because of the fast tracking and the timetable that we would try to get other cities and counties to join us and help us defray costs and all come in together. Another big shir--big issue in the intervention, you have to have standing. You have to be able to at the get-go in the first hearings to talk about standing will be in the next few weeks, we have to be able to show the tceq that we have a right to be there, that we have impact. So I have gone around some of the key areas in the state and asked that cities and counties join our coalition. The purpose of the coalition is so that we can present information to the tceq. That's the purpose of it. It's not to stop plants from being built. You know, dallas is the ninth largest city in america and we're rapidly growing. We're a little unhappy that san antonio took us over by 20,000 and they are now the eight largest city in america and we are the ninth ninth. So we want to grow and we need electricity for that growth . But we also believe that there is probably a better portfolio of solutions for our state than just pull ver verized coal plants which is really not a very cutting edge technology at this point. As you all know, the tceq does not require an applicant to consider coal gas if I case, which we--gas fici tirks ion, which we feel is a good mix. Sinks the plants were filed there's a company cold condo which has applied to build a plant in corpus christi which is terrific news for the state. One of our goals would be to try through this process to persuade txu and the other five utility companies building plants, to make a commitment to billed some gas plants here in Texas. I know curtis silas is here, my lus was in the legislature with him for two decades, and curtis if he wants to address this will talk to you about what their concerns are about igcc technology. But our job as a coalition is to bring that information to the tceq, to say that igc igcc is working around the world, that there are other plants that are producing electricity, that it is dependable, and we want to bring that forward to the tc tceq for consideration . I brought you some reports in here. And the first one is one that capcog, which the judge is a member of, and by the way, I want to thank the judge because the judge and his fellow members on the central Texas clean air committee join the coalition a month or six weeks ago. We appreciate that very much.
>> the clean air coalition.
>> thank you. I'm sorry.
>> that's all right.
>> and then also, since I presented to the central Texas coalition our north Texas clean air steering committee which is kind of a sister organization in our part of the world, also joined the coalition. The first report that you see, capcog, actually, the group that the judge is on, actually commissioned a study to look at the effect of coal plants. Now, what's interesting is that this study that you see that was prepared in February 6, 2006, that was when only seven plants were proposed . Since this report was done, there have been another 11 plants that have been proposed. So what's interesting is that if you look in this, and I put an x, there's lot of tabs here, so when you want to go home tonight and have great reading, you can look through the whole book. I tabbed everything that touches the Austin area. If you look at the first x you see where your county is and where the proposed plants are all around you. Now, as I said, these are the plants that were proposed as of February. As of April, there were 11 more that were proposed. So these findings in here do not include those other 11. If you look at the x, not the next x but the x after that, you will see a color map. And you will see, this is the impact of just those seven plants. Not the additional 11, just those seven. This is the impact that they found if all the plants are up, this is the impact on the Austin area. And you will see your county is the one that's got some of the yellow and some of the red that is touching the --ing county. What this shows--touching the county. What this shows is you have an impact of one part per billion. As you know Austin is at 82 right now. Nonattain am is at 85. You all are working very hard, especially through the thrigs, to make sure that-- that--through the coalition, to make sure that you don't go into nonattainment. What I am wondering as a coalition member, is that if these seven an overage will increase your parts per billion by one, taking you from 82 to 83, what are yet another 11 going to do to Austin? And you don't know that. And that's why we have formed a coalition because we are hiring this modeler that the judge's group used for this report, to do a much bigger impact study on what happens to all of our cities, Austin, dallas, fort worth, houston, beanumont, w waco, all that area. What happens over a long period of time. One of the weaknesses of these reports is they take a snatch of time. It's very expensive. If you do more work it costs more money. This particular report only looked at one period of time time. It was September 13-20 of 2007 that they look at one period of time and they extrapolated forward. What we want to do is look with the same person doing the work, who has already started it for us, is look at a prolong period of time for all of these areas, the individual impacts and the cumulative impacts, and present that to the tceq. It's only one expert that we're hiring. That one expert we estimate could cost us anywhere from 150 to 200,000 for one expert. After that, we need to hire a hire toxicologist to look at the health impacts, an economies to look at the demand for the state, compare to what txek is saying, look at whether we can meet the demand with a more diverse portfolio, and stair-stepping the plans opposed to approving at one time. Those are the kinds of issues we have to bring forward to the tceq to hopefully have them make a knowledgeable decision about what to do about all these plans. The second report that I gave you is the environ report commissioned by the t tceq. And what was most interesting is that they really focused on the Austin area. If you look on page 51 toward the back of the report, page 51 shows you that on one day that they modeled, that the waco area would be hit up to 13.33 parts per billion. Now, if 13 part per billion hit dallas, it's a tsunami that emissions that we would never recover from. If that's the kind of impacts that we're talking about there's no way that wa waco is going to be able to stay in attainment if that's the kind of emissions that are coming. Again, the environ report only looked at four episodes of time as opposed to a prolonged period of time to get a good picture about what this is going to look like. So that's why I'm here am I'm here to ask Travis County to join the coalition coalition. We ask every city and county that joins for h?ds 10,000 for all the expert work we're doing. We are lucking because when we started the coalition the law if you recall of susman godfrey in houston agreed to take this on probono. They are going to be presenting our case to the t tceq. Luckily none of the money that we're raising goes towards legal fees. It will go towards they are expenses to put on a case. But the lion's share of the money is going to the expert testimony that we need to be able to show what the impacts are to our communities. So that's why I'm here.
>> we think that the cumulative impact will be much greater than looking at each plant separately. And to our knowledge, tceq does in the factor that in today.
>> that's correct.
>> and--does not factor that in today.
>> that's correct.
>> part of this data gathering is intended basically to take that to tc tceq and say, you really, we really should look at the total impact of multiple facilities, not just the impact of each one of them.
>> that the correct. I don't know. Since they have specifically said things like we are not going to consider it cumulatively, not going to consider coal gas fication, not optimistic about being able to change the process because the time is so compressed, but there are a lot of legislators very interested in the issue. We're hoping that they might be able to, while we're working in the trenches in the permit cases, they might be able to this session bring up, to present a bill that could change the process and make it a little bit easier for the public to engage in these conversations and to get really true pictures of the impacts.
>> the national environmental defense fund, I think that's close to the name, filed a lawsuit.
>> right.
>> that was not the coalition that you are part of.
>> no. We, there are several cases going on. And environmental defense obviously is working hard on it. Public citizen is organizing organizinging some of the rural communities. We are not going to be intervening in any of their cases. We are different of we are government. We are a coalition of cities and counties and elected officials. And what we are trying very hard to do is make sure that our experts are also not industry people but that as much as possible are academics that don't have a dog in the hunt, don't have any baggage on either side of the issue. At the end of the day, environmental defense and those organizations, I think they are pretty open about the fact that they don't want the plants built period period. And they have a lot of concerns about some of the alternatives like nuclear. I think for us, one of our goals would be that once we have all the information and all the modeling and all the work done that we have some open dialogue before we get to the tceq with txu and talk to them about the findings and what they may be willing to do to amend their plan to make it more palatable to the citizens. We're a little different. We don't want to join the environmental defense effort because at the end of the day, we may have very different goals. I think public, I think the public officials have a little bit different mission because they know they have to balance electricity generation with the environment.
>> okay. The name is Texas cities for clean air coalition but you are actually soliciting membership from counties.
>> it's funny. We started out with critsit and that's the name that we we--with cities and that's the name we used of when we realize we are going to start asking counties we didn't go back and change because we already started the ball rolling. You're right there are lots of counties now that we are soliciting and part of the clean air steering commit committees obviously have a lot of judges like yourself.
>> how important is the $10 $10,000?
>> it's important because I am the only person raising money for the effort. And I have promised that we won't, we won't run out of money. So if we need to hire a certain expert or run an extra model for a part of the state that really want to see those numbers, that we're going to get the money money. So just from a personal point of view, I would appreciate the $10,000.
>> okay. Questions. Yes, sir.
>> laura.
>> laura is great.
>> or mayor.
>> laura is great.
>> what is the major reason that the dallas area is non nonattain. Is the point south or auto emissions?
>> it's a combination. The largest mix is off-road and onroad. We also have power in the region. Ander plants coming in affecting our ability to attain the standard. It's a combination of sources.
>> how effective have you been, laura, you know, given isn't steve your husband ?
>> uh-huh.
>> with your legislators in the dallas area, dallas fort worth area, I guess you all collectively between senators and representatives you all would have to have, what, 12 or 15.
>> right.
>> that would touch you. Are they supportive of this effort? I mean, obviously, you know, legislation is something that we certainly need to look at. I mean, I just hate it, the fact that government has got to go out and raise money against industry when government ought to be able to go to the source, being t tceq, and saying, you know, this puts us in a very onerous position. I mean, why are you making us go out and do this? Let find a way, you know-- know--let's find a way, you know , obviously industry is going to, you know, be supportive of producing the least costly energy that they can. And given the fact that the major metropolitan areas in the state of Texas are always looking for what is the cheapest way that I can do something . And you're right, I mean, if you go to the alternative, you start talking about nuclear. People get nuclear on you.
>> right.
>> and it is amazing that we do want to grow although growth is one of those things that is kind of a double-edged sword for us all. I would hope, and I'm certainly willing to work with our legislators out of the Austin region, to say we need some help. Because this is not the first time that we have thought we needed help with tceq.
>> right.
>> you know, and what I hate what I would hate to see us do, or you, all the effort and time that you're going to put into this thing, go out and raise a million bucks, which quite frankly will be pitance compared to what the industry can throw against you. So I guess my biggest concern is that, is it throw do we just do a gratuitous, you know, laura is a nice lady and working hard, let's give her $10,000 because we might need to go to dallas sole and need some help out of dallas--sometime and need some help out of dallas for somethinglve but if we really think that we can do something with this, I guess I'm not, and I for one in this community, have always been interested in, whenever you start talking about clean air, because I think there are a lot of myths that even though they were and they are of concern that we all need to be aware of and we need to be trying to help with, I think the sky is falling kind of a deal with clean air is one of those things that at least in our region, people go crazy over and we're not in, you know, a nonattainment, albeit we're not very far from it. Probably a lot of communities are not very far from it given the way that they judge these things. But I just want to know, I want to feel comfortable, if I'm going to be supportive of given $10,000, that number one I think there probably is, maybe not a likelihood that this organization would sue, because I thick you're going to have organizations out there that are probably going to tee it you up in the court, albeit you're teeing it up with mega dollars because industry has the money to go out and do these things. I would hope that we would do a double tier, and that is make sure that you all are working like the dickens with your legislators, ask us to do the same thing, really monitor this thing if we're going to spend $10,000 on it. Because I quite frankly, if somebody said okay, fine, Gerald, then don't do coal, tell us what you do. Tell us what you do to handle your growth. I mean, and I don't know that I can readily tell somebody, you know, or at least sound credible in an argument that says here is what we ought to do. I'm just not familiar enough with it.
>> right.
>> so this, like you said, when you see this thing, your head starts spinning. I mean, you're going, good god, look at all these graphs. So I do, I think I'm on the same page with you insofar as what you are trying to get done and accomplished and I'm somewhat supportive of that. I just don't want to just throw $10,000 and kind of go in a year, hey, laura, what did we do with that? We got some expert witnesses and gave the law firm the support they needed but you know what, tceq, we still can't budget them. I mean, these 11 cole plants in increase has now gone to 19. And it's going to continue to go. So I want to feel a little more comfortable with giving $10,000 and getting something for it and knowing what we really think that the end goal really could be versus just getting our hat handed to us by industry and saying, you're million dollars is not going to do anything because we are just going to bury you with this.
>> righti'm pretty frustrated with trying to deal with tceq myself on a number of things that we have to deal with. But I would hope that legislative-wise, that somebody's attention could be gotten over there with, you know what, the cities and counties, all the different regions of this state need some help. Let's not just allow fast- fast-tracking of things if we know that what it's going to do is put our major metropolitan areas in harm's way . I'm sure that the non nonattainment deal, I mean, is there a figure that you would have that you say, yeah, Gerald, because we have been in nonattainment, for how many years have you all been in nonattainment ?
>> I think since the cities were first designated as non nonattainment.
>> in the '90s?
>> something like that.
>> do you know how many dollars you could equate that to, laura? If dallas weren't in, you know, a nonattainment area, that here is how many dollars that we have lost be it through grants, because that is that's what they do. The feds are the ones that come down on you and dis disallow you to go aft certain monies and this and that. Is that how -- is there a thought here?
>> clearly by 2010 if we're not in attainment the consequences with hundreds of millions of dollars because literally all the economic monies and transportation monies that we get from the federal government we're not allowed to take because we're in non nonattainment. We have been so frustrated trying to find a way to get point five parts per billion which we consider a huge victory if we we can lower but that amount. If you look at these kinds of studies, which are flawed because no one has had the money to say go do it right. I think that's the biggest thing that I can say about our effort, is that we're going to do this thing right right. In the past, usually the permits have been, you know, the environmental groups at a local level will go in. They ner had have enough money to do--never have enough money to hire the kinds of folks to make an impression on the tceq. They come with baggage because everyone knows that, oh, yeah, of course they are going to sue, that's the environmental group. What makes us different that is this is the first time in the history of Texas that we have mobilized as a state elected officials coming together and saying, we are serious about this, we are going to give you the information to make a better decision. And I agree with you about the tceq. Their standard is that if any of these plants, any one plant being permitted, harms someone's air quality, then you can't do it. You can't make someone's air quality worse if they are grappling with pollution problems. You can't make it worse for them. So why then, if that's the standard, doesn't the tceq insist that the applicant do modeling that shows the impact to all these communities from their plant plant?
>> and they don't. So it is a shame that we as elected official v?z to go out and raise money to do this work. Very frustrating. But steve susman would not fool with this if he didn't want to be successful. And we have a conference call every Friday morning with about 30 people on the feen. And we talk about the progress that we're making and the timetable and which permit is coming out what day and what time we think the hearing is going to be and who is going to do what. It's very serious. Very serious effort. And I believe when you start representing seven or eight million people in the state, this group, that that catches people's attention.
>> what are the different amounts that are being asked asked?
>> is it according to population?
>> we agreed up front that everybody would put in 10 10,000. What I'm doing is raising money beyond that. So for example, done henly, who--don henly who is the head of the eggles r?ck group who saved wall done pond in massachusetts, involved in saving cato lake he lives in dallas and gave us $630,000 to hire experts and--$630,000 to hire experts and we -- $60,000 the and we took that money. I am going to foundations, people who look at wind power, and asking them to con trib we think in the next week that we are going to have about a quarter of a million that's going to be offered for experts from some energy foundations, which will be great.
>> I don't know if you find any unbiased people in this thing. I mean, as soon as you open your mouth , somebody says, well, you're on that side. But I'd like to really, is there anything, laura, that you know that we can read? I mean, link up to or whatever. That would kind of say, well here is what you need to do, state of Texas, if you're going to have enough energy to grow for your population, you know, in the next 25 years, double your population, here is, I mean, the choices. I mean, it's coal, it's nuclear, I mean, yada yada, all of these things. Obviously, I mean, in Austin we are very familiar with mr. Henly. And because of all of the wind and everything that we are trying to do, green-wise from western, from the state in western Texas. But I'd love to be able to go and say, okay, if you want to fight this, because that really is what this is. This is fighting the coal industry. I mean, fighting, you know, the process of creating energy via coal, is it not?
>> quite frankly, if there were one or two coal plants proposed for the state, we would not have formed a coalition. But when you proposed 17 and then you fast-track them, and you've got that bullet headed toward you and you're nonattainment or close to nonattainment, we would love to slow the process down. We can't. So the best thing that we can do is try to get answers to those kinds of questions and present it to the tceq and say, this is an alternative. This is how it's going to impact our areas. This is not good for the health of our citizens of this is not good for attract attracting economic development to our cities. The more cities become non nonattainment. You know, houston and there is are two of the most polluted cities in the country now. Dallas used to be as recently as or six years ago the 14th most polluted. Now we are the eight most polluted. Houston is the fourth most polluted city in the country country. Okay. So I'm running to get to number one. I've gone from 14 to eight and where am I headed? To number one. How is that good for economic development and growth of our state? State?. So the burden is on us. We have a very short time to do it. And I am determined that we do it. I think that the citizens are ready for this conversation. They are ready to see both sides of the story.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> I find it interesting that every week in cities around the state of Texas, if somebody want to do a development, you have to do a traffic impact analysis, a tia. It basically says you are not allowed to simply look at just the cars that are happening from your little piece of the development. Have you to take into account the cumulative impact. Here we do this all the time for traffic and yet we don't do this with air. And I absolutely agree with you. If this were one or two it would seem to be a very-- very--plants it would seem to be an isolated kind of thing. As we have seen with all our efforts on clean air, air absolutely disregards county lines. It just disregards them. And I am generally not in favor of things that seem to be more of coalitions for a lobbying effort. Those are the words I did not hear here at all. It has 20--to do with gathering the unbiased facts on behalf of government. Kind of the same efforts we try to do with the conference of urban counties to try to win our position based on facts and not on based on lobbying or opinion opinion. What was so frustrating when we were going through our clean air discussions here is that we were bordering on the edge of nonattainment and it wasn't because of anything specifically going on in our five-county region region. It was what was blowing in from harris county and down from jefferson county, belmont. What was happening in the petro chemical industry on the coast, and things out of so we didn't have any bad actors within our five- five-county area to go, you ought not be doing that. It was blowing in here. And yet we had to do some very expensive fixes to this this. We signed a proactive pact, ironically, with tceq, to try and be on the proactive side of this so we would not reach nontaken am. I think people--non people--nonattainment. I think people would be un unbelieve bring disappointed after having to pay for extra emissions tests and most expensive fuels in terms of what we use in our midst, to find out that all of these proactive efforts could literally go down the tubes if we do not join together and act as one and with one voice. And that one voice needs to be one of facts, not opinions. I think it is also relevant that Travis County get involved because txu is a service provider within Travis County . While the plant may not be within the county there are consumers of that utility here in Travis County and I think we ought to get involved in this. Normally I'm not one to do this, but this is not lobbying, this is arming the folks with facts and I think the standing of the crits--t crits--t--of the cities and the counties involved here ault ought to stand for something.
>> mr. Silage is here, curtis, who has had a slightly different perspective. Let's hear from him. Afterwards we have some of our capcog and campo reps and probably other citizens who have come to chat with us also. Mr. Silas, if would you have a seat of the any one of those three chairs would be fine. Just get real comfortable give us your full name for the record.
>> good morning, my name is curtis silitz. I have the distinct pleasure of representing a company headquartered in dallas Texas called txu. We have about 7,000 employees and have been serving this state for over 100 years. I also get the pleasure of being able to live in Travis County here in west Austin. So I appreciate your concerns. I cannot be a txu customer yet because the city of Austin energy company has not yet chosen the competitive route to move downlve but I appreciate the opportunity to be here and the invitation is very kind of you. As you note, mayor miller is very articulate and very persuasive ??in her approach approachlve baw I appreciate the question--but I appreciate the questioning that came to you all because you seem to be concerned about the facts. And I think one of the times that you talk about this debate is that you forget about facts and people go ?ion emotions. Commissioner mentioned if you go and say would you like to have cleaner air? Sure, I want cleaner air. Do you also want to have air conditioning? Sure, I like air conditioning here in Texas. Texas usesel 83 thorse more electricity--texas uses 83 percent more electricity than any state in the country. We're about the 11th largest user in in the world. It's this balancing that you as policy makers, I believe, are faced with the need for more power. But let's look at the facts. Urcot, the elect trire trireliability council of Texas, ease recently issued an updated report on why we stand with the power needs in this state. Nerk, the national equivalent of that organization, issuesed a similar. Texas is not alone in the need for new power. All across the country folks are looking for new power sources. Texas is just a little bit more fortunate in that we have phenomenal growth in population and economic growth. But we have to answer to those needs. That's what our company has looked at. Rather than have as ercot and nurk has predicted unsatisfactoriry levels of reliability in 2007 and twathe, we're looking at ways to build cleaner, more efficient, cheaper production of power plants in this country. And in this state. So we look at Texas and say, what can we do here in Texas Texas? At the time we ed looking at the project there weren't too many power plants being proposed. Laura tacked about igcc, which is a coal gas ificatio ification processmpts when I listen to laura, I think she is saying that this is a well defined process through throughout the country and the world and that it's working. Let me tell you, she has will the pleasure of visiting one of those plants plants. There are two igcc plants here in the country, one in indianan and one in florida. They will inform you in florida that it is a small 3 300 something meg water plant versus what we're trying to do, build 9,000 meg watts, most of these plants about 820 meg watts. Sizeable. And that plant was down 100 days last year. Now, when constituents say what do you want, one of the things they want is reliable power. The second thing they want affordable power. The third thing, and not in any distinct order, ?rbut they want clean power. And they also want power to drive the economics of the area and the jobs. In dallas, in the dfw area, let's look where we ariup there. We have phenomenal growth, great leadership on certain issues, and economic , and we want to make sure that-- that--development, and we want to make sure that we have enough power to build the bridges in dfw across the trinity liver and power the highways a--river and power the highways around that area and the state. That's at laudable and we need to do these things. But let just take a honest look. In the dfw area studies were done of the impact of all these 17 plants in the turk report. In the turk report which is post the February 6 report. And with txu's commitment to offset reductions, making these power plants 80 percent cleaner and a 20 percent overall reduction, let me explain that. We have 5700 meg watts of coal today. We are going to add 9100 more, which makes about 14,8 14,800. The emissions level today will be reduced 20 percent. You say how can you do that? Yeah, we're doing to overset all the new emissions that come from these power plants by reducing the efficiencies to these of 80 percent cleaner and going to other existing coal plants around the state and reducing that. So just think about this logically with me. If you reduce the emissions 20 percent from today's level, what impact do we think it's going to have on the air quality in dfw? That's what we're talking about, dfw. And it shows aim improvement to the air quality. There is an improvement to the air quality. Makes logical sense. 20 percent reduction. If we required that of every other generator in the state including all forms, think how much cleaner the air would be. Think how much cleaner it air would be. If we did something in dfw about the 73 percent-plus automobile problem, which is the real problem. The point sources are about two percent in the dfw area. If we did something about the automobiles, think how much further down the road we would be.
>> and that is happening, the automobile is happening. The growth may be offsetting but--
>> that's a great point.
>> you know as well as I do, curtis, the automobile in the last ten years, it's not the culprit that it was. The more years that go by the more of the older vehicles that you get off the road. I mean.
>> I agree.
>> that's the reason I asked her the question, is the point source or is it automobile because automobile in the next ten years will probably take care of itself even with the phenomenal growth. Now, the off-road vehicles and all the things that we do have to tee it up with whenever we really get in the middle of the building industry and especially the road building industry, I mean, that's something your husband probably knows a lot about. Taking on that industry. Because they are very power powerful. But you know, you hit a chord with me I'm sure that capcog cease. I am--sees. I am such a fightner this community. The automobile is not the animal that everybody needs to be after. You take the --automobile out of this country and you have no economy because it is the way that people get to work and school. So the automobile, I'm a little defensive about that. But--
>> you make a great point because in the dfw area, if we will, if we will take older cars off the road and just the natural evolution of people retiring those older cars and buying newer cars, we'll be in attainment between 2010 and 2015. Between 2012 and 2015. Which is wonderful. And if you build 80 percent cleaner coal plants that we are talking about and a 20 percent overall reduction in the emissions, then you can only go towards cleaning up the air. That's where it is. And you bring a great point too. If you take 64 corvanirs off the street you're going to have cleaner air with the 2006 prius. Think about the new plants. These are plants with the latest of proven emission controls that are out there. People have this thought of coal as sometimes smudge on face and little miner's plants. That's not what these are about. They are the best available technology as determined by the tceq and epa. They are on the cutting edge of technology, laura. They are not coal gas ficati fication. She mentioned the tondu plant being build in corpus, the permit, application for permit. I'm not sure how many plants that group has built. But it remains to be seen. Our company is committed to spending north of ?i1.5 billion. The judge mentioned 1.6 million in one of you all's earlier discussions. 1.5 billion or more on new technologies to address these issues. There are 1100 coal plants around the country. A lot of coal plants here in Texas. Wouldn't it be better to try to figure out how to solve some of those older plants' problems as we go forward? Because you can't do away with coallve coal provides 50 percent of the energy in this country the. Currently about 50 percent of the energy, although it's only about 25 percent of the capacity, in this state. We have a high dependency on gas plants. And speaking of the gas plants, in most people's mind, the gas plants are cleaner plants. And those plants,there's about 26,000 mega watts built after the legislature passed the retail de deregulation bill and whole sale deregulation bill. All that is gas. The problem is there's a lot of older gas plants. In an iranic way, if we--in an ironic way f we don't build new cleaner efficient coal plant we're going to be forced to run older, more en enefficient gas plants. Think about that. If you delay this, what you are telling people is we want older more inefficient inefficientant plants to run to meet this 2007, 2008 proper that ercog, and ner cr?ciouscr?cious--nerc, which are experts. Not hired by us or any coalition. They are doing their job and telling us what it is. There's some discussion I'd like to make about fast tracking. The only expedited process that's out there is that once the sola judge receives the permit for consideration it's 180 days.
>> the who judge ?
>> I'm sorry, the state office of administrative hearings. It's administrative proceeding. The public participation is still there. You show you're a faked party, you're--affected party, you're still there. There are studies from every side. There are public meeting held before. There are public hearings. The public is not out of it. And let me tell you, one other thing that comes to mind, , crit cities and counties have all kinds of involvement in any of these projects. Somebody said something about from all regions of the state. I tell you, there are some regions of the state that want these plants and want them right now. Robertson county for one, there's 45 to 50 cities and counties and school district that want a $11 billion investment that's cleaner for the air.
>> where is that ?
>> right north of college station.
>> okay.
>> do you do the modeling now?
>> do we do the modeling?
>> why yes, for the new facilitis.
>> we go through a process, and the terc group, what is it, Texas emissions consortium. We don't do that modeling.
>> it seems to me that now we look at one plant at a time instead of the cumulative impact of say 11 more.
>> great question.
>> so what's your position on that?
>> there are two processes here in place.
>> okay.
>> one, the granting of a permit on a particular site. Whether it be on power plant whether it be a toyota plant whether it be a new chip manufacturer plant. Those are on a permit by permit basis. On the other hand we have a state implementation plan that is the process by which you address cumulative effects. In compliance with the clean air act, we have to, we, everybody in the state, has to comply with the clean air act. And that's where they look at the holistic picture of the impacts of plants or automobiles or printing presses or university of action as generatings stations or city of Austin or whatever it is. That's why they look at them them. And they are in various regions.
>> is there agreement between mayor miller and the coalitions position and txu txu's? Measuring the cumulative impact.
>> on measuring the cumulative impact, yes, there is. There is a process in place on the permits. Thinkrch of it as one process over here on the permits. Where you address the cumulative effect, which I would invite them to be involved in the state implementation process. I'm sure they talk to the environmental protection agency and richard green and everybody else of that's the process where you go through and show the cumulative effects. Always has been.
>> okay. Coalition is saying that now tce qurk does not measure, evaluation--
>> that's correct.
>> so she is right on that.
>> that's correct.
>> and you were saying tceq may not but epa does.
>> eye, and which tceq works w and there is a process to look at.
>> I raise the question, if epa does it then, when does epa do it?
>> they will do it to determine whether or not you're in attainment or non nonattainment. And if you're in non nonattainment they will give you a target on how many parts per billion you can hit. Then they determine where those reductions need to be made. They have already--
>> after construction of the 11 new plants or before they are constructed?
>> they are in the process of looking at it right now by June or July of 2007.
>> before construction?
>> uh-huh.
>> here is one of my issues with this.
>> yes.
>> with the mixing of facts and opinions. If you were, if you had 17 old technology plants and you were taking them down and replacing them with a newer generation whatever.
>> we are.
>> --then you can say, instead, that, you know, it's better than what we had had. The problem is this. You are replacing certain plants with something brand new in its place but you are adding plants in counties where there never were plants. And therefore, our impact is changing.
>> yes.
>> counties that never were part of mix because we weren't near something that was a bad actor plant, and now all of a sudden, the brand new plant, it's not coming out of zero. Are you saying that there's zero impact from the new technology coal plants?
>> the overall emissions reductions, in our situation situation. I can only speak for txu. I don't know about the other six. There would be a negative impact on emissions, a 20 percent reduction of emissions. Now, all these plants are built at where other plant have been located except for robertson county. Robertson county will be a lig nite. It's about a point 08 nox. And the terk modeling showed a minimal impact on this area, around Round Rock to george town, bill gill is here and he can answer better than I can, but a very small impact. And that's on the regulated pollutants of the nox is what you all are concerned about, becauu make up the ozone. It's a minimal impact on it. These are 80 percent cleaner plants than those other cole plants. The fact of the matter is, if you look in the waco area it has some old gas plants. If we don't build these plants and nobody builds plants and we put a moratorium on all the building of power plants in the state, then we're going to have to run those gas plants. They are about ten times more emitters than a new coal plant being scheduled up there. So in effect, you can run those, but is that the best thing to do? Or is it the best thing to do to say, hey, why don't we take this offer of 80 percent cleaner plants and a 20 percent reduction, and why don't we take it a step forward. Why don't we get facts and persuade or lobby, whatever term you want to get it of it, to put this type of standard on every one else in the country. And the state.
>> can't worry about the rest of the country but the state we can. The obvious question is why don't we all get together, do the necessary modeling, go to tceq together and say, hey, we ought to measure cumulative impact and we have kind of taken a preliminary look at it, and there's good news and we all want to you start doing that.
>> a great point, a great question. And it's been done.
>> answer that one.
>> it's been done.
>> and then, tom smith, if you sit on in there, bill gill, if the you sit on this end right here, we need to hear you allve at 12 noon-- noon--all. At 12 noon we turn into something a whole lot different or we go to lunch.
>> judge, if the I may interject one thing, my friend laura miller talks about working together on this. This is her press release. She opposes these coal plants. This is a vote to oppose new power plant reduction. I just want you all to know what we're talking about.
>> we only oppose negative impacts in the communities. That's all. That's why we are doing the modeling.
>> let her answer this one for us. Laura, on the tceq modeling through terc, doesn't it show with txu offsets that there is a betterment of the air quality in dallas fort worth?
>> yes or no.
>> curtis, the environ report that you're citing was done with very few episodes on days when the winds were not blowing as they normally do through dallas fort worth and it was also done but by a consult consultant that stood up at the oak grove hearing and testified on your behalf. What we want to do, that's also the same report that shows 12 parts per billion hitting waco and dramatic dramatically putting them into nonattainment. What we want to do is make sure all of the community do not have an adverse impact on the sep. One of the big problems with the tceq, yes, the sip process is here, permitting here, tceq has ruled they will not allow a sip to include emissions that come in fromming on areas. Just like you mentioned earlier, Commissioner. So we have cement kilns of us, power plants east and south of that. But yet the tceq will not allow us to consider those emissions in terms of our sip. So you're right. The legislature has to go and fix the . In the meantime as we're under the gun with fast tracking, we have to bring the modeling that they are not doing and that tceq is not doing to show the impacts on all of us cumulatively.
>> we will come right back to you in a few minutes. Let's go to tom smith right now. Then bill gil.
>> all right.
>> in the back of your minds think of this question. Do I have more to say that I need to say today? If you do, my recommendation will be that we can take this matter back up at two this afternoon. There's a housing matter we need to take up at 1:30.
>> I'm director of public citizens office. We're one of the environmental groups here in Texas. I'm honored to be with you all today. We're here in support of the resolution that you are debating as to whether to join this coalition for a variety of reasons. All together there are now 19 coal plants. Plants.. One recently ruled by a federal judge has 20 go through the permitting-- permitting--through the permitting process. 11 of them will be brought to you by txu. Our main reason for being here, if these plants are built as proposed, that it will push the Austin Travis County area over the edge into nonattainment. Curtis and I have had row debates over 20 odd years I believe now about a variety of different things and this is one where the data is relatively clear. I gave you a sheet here that summarizes what the problem is. When you look at the emissions coming in from the north and the east, from the proposed 17 coal plants that were modeled, what you see is that on the worse day that we found, and there are several like this, there is a net increase of about four parts per billion in the amount of ozone in the Travis County area or the areas in the nonattainment area. And that's what's going to push you over the edge. Doesn't matter whether it's Travis County, it's whether it's in william son or the other areas. As you know it's not the average that matters, it's the worse day that pushes you into violation. The study that curtis is referring to is a study that is remarkable in what it doesn't say. What it really focuses on is the averages over ten days, the averages over five days, the average over a three-day episode. And averages tends to depress the net effect on the worse days of these air pollutants . And that's what you have to keep your eyes on. The four worse days and what would happen. What I'm here to tell you, you all have spent hundreds rf millions of dollars in meeting to come up with strategies to clear your air air. All of your good work may be for naught. I will acknowledge that txu is making massive reductions in their existing plants and using relatively clean power plants for their new models. I don't think they are as clean as they could be and I'll get to that in just a minute. But even if their emission reduction on the chart on the far, I guess it would be right side, you still see that you guys have a significant impact on air pollution coming in from the north and east.
>> what's the number on that one?
>> curtis, I'll let you look at it here.
>> one part per billion or less.
>> no, 4.45.
>> it's 43 in your books. It's also in my book.
>> 3.69 even with the clean cleanups in there. The numbers up in the upper right-hand corner are the ones that are critical. Now, what you have heard from mayor miller and curtis is accurate. There is a process at the tc tceq where they are supposed to look in permitting as to whether or not these emissions are going to cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution. But in the way our rules were set up years ago, back before we really understood the way air pollution traveled, we thought if we look out 50 kilometers that would be enough. The ep as has revise the had a estimate because we figure figures out that the pollution comes as far away as from mexico into Travis County and certainly within 200 kilometers. And the bad news is within 2 200 kilometers you have ten new coal plants been proposed. Those emissions whether from the north or northeast or south could well push you further into nontaken am. They also say--nontaken am. They also say we will look at the cumulative impact again within 50 kilometers. That's 37 miles, folks. That's what they are looking at. Last thing they do, they look at what is best available control technology technology. But as mr. Siletz has pointed out, one of the new technologies that we think has tremendous metro and is being used worldwide, goal gas fication is not being looked at at part of that analysis. I'll get into the study we recently had completed I think you will find interesting in talking about what the emissions reductions were to be using that technology. Nor is it looking at global warming gasses. Whatever your position is on global warming, whether you think it's happening or how fast, it is clear that a majority of the people in the united states now think that the senate has recently passed a resolution in congress saying we're going to look at global warmingen, and if you look at who is likely to become president, five out of eight of the candidates are committed to doing something about global warming including the person I expect is going to be our next person, john mccain. And if that happens, those companies that have a large global warming emissions are going to be significantly ized and will have--penel have--penelized and will have a detrimental impact on the economies that are supplied powr from those plants. Right now one of these plants has been permitted and under construction down in san antonio. Another has been permitted and is on appeal. The issue is about whether they cause or contribute on whether they use best available control technologies, are the key issues in that appeal and that is being heard here in the district court court in Travis County. There are two lawsuits being filed and in process. One is the 60 day notice, a group of folks taking txu to court over whether or not they are interpreting the clean air act right and modeling right and doing all these other things right that we have just outlined. And one filed just recently in Travis County district court asking for an in injunction prohibiting the permitting of any of these plants until the critical questions about air quality are being resolved. In the meantime, the permitting of these plants is going forward without adequate data, without a cumulative impact analysis that really tells us what the imimpact is going to be and without a full analysis of whether there are cleaner alternatives . Those decisions about who gets party status and who has an opportunity to play and be part of the negotiations, and there will be probably be a negotiated settlement on this deal, are going to be made in the next 30 days. We're down to about 26 days as I'm counting now. That the why we're here today urging you to take action, to be part of the solution, to be part of the team that comes up with a list of those solutions. There are cheaper, cleaner and ways to provide--cooler ways to provide important energy needs. Austin has led the station and nation in many ways by developing energy efficiencies as alternative to a coal plant. They never build the one on the drawing boards in 1983 and to date we have not immediated that because of remarkable energy efficiency programs. We think that doing renew renewable energy, we could meet half of our needs in the state with energy efficiency. We think we could meet a quarter of it using renew renewable engist and beginning to develop those on the coast and others that provide us electricity on peak as well as the west Texas winds and our so lar resources and we think would develop coal gas ficatio, in that could provide power with far less pollution. Commissioner Daugherty, as you mentioned, this is a complex solution. Our cars today are 99 percent cleaner than in the '70s. I worked with laura miller's husband and many others in the legislature to clean up diesel, and new diesel will be 90 percent cleaner. We have an incentive program to clean up existing diesel engist. We are going to have to figure out ways to go after a wide variety of other sources of as those people around the table know I am a nonpartisan all-party clean up the act kind of guy. I have been there talking about cars, diesel, power plants, and ip I am doing everything we can to clean up our own individual homes. Think we all have our responsibilities. When you look at emission reductions at existing power plants and compare to the kinds of reductions are you getting from cars today, they don't compare. That's where coal gas ficati fication offers a solution. There's a study in here I'm providing for you that ambition shows that if we did that, we could provide that power with about 80 percent less pollution. To put it in terms of tons of nox, all the new power plants would emit about 33 33,000 tons of nox in the east Texas area if we replace all with coal gas fi fication we can provide the same power, significantly reducing the threat to your air quality here in the Austin area. What is is all going to come down on to is making sure we do have the best data, that we do a full analysis, that we do the cumulative impacts and take a look at how the power plants are going to cause or condition tribute to the air pollution in your air and in dallas and in wac waco and in longview. And without the data, without the muscles, without the experts, you are going to be up against the third largest utility in the united statesmpts there are millions and millions and millions of dollars of lawyers and experts. The ch?dge you have as policy makers is getting the data out for the public and doing the job that our friends at tceq have failed to do. And to fully analyze the data publicly available in the records and come to the best decision possible. You're joining this coalition sends a significant tall that to the state--signal to the state and legislatures that the folks in Travis County are not going to take incoming pollution from other counties without a fight and are are going to stand up and say let's protect our citizens, the investment we maderb, and let's not threaten the health of the people living in our cities by allowing pollution where we don't need to. Thank you very much for your time.
>> any questions for mr. Smith? Mr. Gil, let's give you a opportunity. And we'll be right back to you, mr. Siletz.
>> I really didn't have any prepared comments.
>> okay.
>> I was here more for questions. But a couple of things that came out that I'd like to point out. My years experience at tceq permitting process never has evaluating impact on the ozone. It was too difficult to, too expensive, and they didn't require it. Neither has epa. It's a unique situation that we're in here now with the new eight-hour ozone standard we have all recognize the impact of transport. Used to we would look at a nonattainment area, four or five counties, and that's where the solution came from from. But with eight-hour ozone there's much larger influence of regional sources. And I think we maybe came on to this fact before tceq did because of our earlier action compact and the modeling that saw how much of an impact that alcoa could have on our area and that the why we commissioned ut to look at the power complaints and found out that indeed they could. Yes, the pack or the--the impact or the emissions from these facilities, they have to travel a long way. The ozone when they get here is not, tens of parts per billion but for us, all of our control strategy, which has been pointed out very expensive, have only given us less than one part per billion reduction. When we are talking about an impact of one to three parts per billion from the power plants, for us that the very significant. It does wipe out all the gains that we have made. That's why we have been trying to do this modeling and trying to encourage tceq to start doing that. The other fact that the unique is they have never faced a situation, with 17, 18 power plant permits sitting on the front door, they are not real sure what to do with that and I don't think epan is. This is not just Texas thing this is nationwide. People are looking at coal plants and the impacts and the technology. And we are kind of in the middle of it because of our early action compact. We have already made commitments locally to reduce emissions and now that we see what kind of transport these plants could impact, our position is that needs to be evaluated . I think that's the other issue that needs to be clarified, we're not opposing coal fired power plants. Clearly in the state we need more electric generation. We are asking that we evaluate the environmental impacts and come up with a solution that gives us electricity but does not cause us to go into non nonattainment.
>> I think the real question is, if we give $10 to this cause, are you absolutely us using that to fight the coal plants. That the my apprehension. I don't know that I want to fight them. I may. I don't have enough information. I have learned more in 40 minutes this morning.
>> if you generate the data used in litigation, if seems to me that you want to go to tceq, the legislature, and say here are the facts. If the data is available, who knows to what use it will be put later on. Whoever has possession of it will use as he or she sees fit in whatever forum becomes available.
>> zudge, we're only doing the processes outlined by the state. If we could just show up and have an informal discussion about it and debate, we would do that. But we're told exactly how do this. You have to intervene or else you are not heard.
>> okay. Anybody else here who really needs to say something today today? It will be back on our agenda next week.
>> judge.
>> for mere opportunity and action. Now I will give mayor miller and mr. Siletz an opportunity and mr. Smith, for that matter, to give the equivalent of a minute and a half slowsing statement if you--closing statement if you desire to do so.
>> the two things I want to mention, he said that the ig igcc plant in tampa goes down and that's true. But what they do in tampa, they have gas and coal plants in their diverse portfolio. So on the days what the igcc plant is down they 128 are-- are--they still are providing all the electricity they need. What we are trying to do is provide the same kind of diversification and portfolio that tampa and other cities and countries have, in Texas. Number two, they mention, I'd like curtis to address this, I debated one ofous colleagues named brad jones in dallas last night. The 20 percent is so fascinated because they have not said in they are permits nor publicly, how do you get there. How do you get to the 20 percent lower. If they gave us the road map then we could evaluate it. They have not done that. Do they reduce it 20 percent by not using those two gas plants up in the waco area? All these studies are done with not running anyhow. Do they do it in the wintertime when ozone is not in crisis in the summer? Do they fire them up in the summer when we can't breathe but lower in the wintertime? Do they shout down one plant that's not near woco or Austin and keep everything else up and runing? They haven't told us. What his colleague said last night was, we're working on that. Our engineers are working on it really hard to be able to describe that. If they are working on it, how can they make the statement that they are going to give auce 20 percent reduction if they can't tell us how?
>> you support her position. You are the mover.
>> you had the question.
>> minute and a half down the toe a minute now. Somebody.
>> well, I'll take it but I'd like the full 90 seconds seconds. I appreciate you all listening to us and going beyond the time that you set for laura and i. One, that's why we're here, diversification. Diversification of our fuel sources. Lara brings up a good point. Texas is 72 percent capacity right now based on gas. Based on gas. Most volatile, one of most volatile commodities in the world besides electricity. So what we are trying to do is to look and see how to diversify that fuel by bringing other sources on. Nuclear is ten down the road road--ten years down the road at best. We have filed a commitment letter with the generally counseling at tceq to not only make this a voluntary commitment but enforceable one by the tceq and we are moving to those processes do that. I would ask schmitty or laura or anybody else up here if txu has made a commitment to reduce that we haven't followed on our reduction. I stood on the steps of the dallas change per many years ago and said we're going to do a 20 percent reduction of nox in the dfw area. I can't remember if you were there, schmitty. We did it. The legislature says you need to do 50 percent. Laura's husband, steve, asked us to do that. The whole legislature. We did it. The epa comes back through the clean air act and the sip and asks for 88 to 89 percent reduction. Schmitty, right? We have done it. I'm telling you, this is our commitment. We're making it enforceable. It will happen. And I will be happy to discuss those things. This power is needed. This is almost reminds me of let's cut our nose off to spite our face. If we sit around and don't follow the processes, the power needs are not going to be there. This isn't my saying. This is according to nerc and according to ercot. This is a way to diversify, the way to clean it you were the way to continue to-- to--clean it up, the way to power this economic energy that the state so enjoys, and to give the power to those toyotas, to build those cleaner cars, to hopefully general motors in arlington if they can stay in business, and the other companies to do those things things. Schmitty, it's amazing sometimes, I respect him a lot, but he answered chip av averet, the chairman of the natural resources, schmitty, I'm assuming you're against coal, I'm assuming you're for igcc? No, I'm assuming you're for nuclear? Well, no. We can't conserve our way out of this deal.
>> I will take the opportunity to say what we are for. Energy efficiency, renoubles renoubles. And if you do goal gas ficat fication with responsible controls on the carbon dioxide out the end, that's preferable way to do coal. When we were kids we were all told by our mamas, clean up the mess you make. Okay. We are now asking that from the power industry. We are saying, we know how to do things more responsibly without creating a mess. And that's what we are supposed to do as policy makers, look into the future and take the best available control technologies we know how to use. There are 385 I think it is coal gas fication in the world, 119 plants, 385 , 20 percent of them reproducing electricity. The one curtis is talking about in tampa yeah, down 100 days last year. Not because of the gas fyer was broken but because the jet engine kind of thing that generates the electricity broke. That is the same kind of ge technology that over 100 different plants across here in Texas and a very simple fix. It was just not fixed as rapidly as it could have otherwise been because this isn't considered--this is considered an experimental unit. You look at the kind of coal we have here in Texas, you have a huge plant up in north dakota operating since 1985 generating sin gas that could be used in len trigs ty gen--electricity generation, using north ca coata coals victim similar to ours--similar to ours. Because natural gas has not been particularly expensive in this country, we have never used coal for power generation very much. All gas fication does is provide gas that can be used in a variety of different ways, power generation being one of them.
>> I thought you were done.
>> I am down.
>> this item was posted for discussion this week. It will be posted for discussion and action next week. My recommendation is that if you have key point that come to mind after we recess for lunch, give us to us in had writing either by e-mail or fax late they're week so we can consider it over the weekend. And next Tuesday, maybe a brief opportunity to make some sort of statement if you are here. You certainly are not required to be here but you are welcome. Brief opportunity for an additional presentation. After that the court may have comments, questions. Then hopefully we will be able to take action. What we will do is post this in such a way that we can separate the $10,000 from the participation in the coalition in whatever manner is appropriate and any other idea that comes to mind. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your input. This is an intriguing but complicated issue.
>> thank you, judge.
>> thanks.
>> move that we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor. That passes unanimously.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 24, 2006 7:59 AM