Travis County Commissioners Court
October 31, 2006
Item 30
30. Consider and take appropriate action on request from Texas cities for clean air coalition for the following: 1. Travis County's participation as a member; 2. Payment of annual membership fee; 3. Adoption of resolution; that's c. D is adoption of participation agreement and by-laws; and e, other related issues. We did have a discussion of this item last week, this week we have representative from txu here as well as the -- the mayor's environmental person who was here last week. Mr. Stephens, mr. Gill, our own staff available. Everybody seems to be a little shy this morning. Why don't we have a seat at the table there. Txu rep, also. Last week we did hear presentations and asked questions. Any additional comments that you think we may not remember from last week.
>> I'm here representing the mayor of dallas today. I want to follow up on a couple of items that came up last week.
>> last name?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay. Basically as the mayor stated the purpose of the coalition is to -- is to do the modeling, get the study, have the experts, reports from an academic organization that's third party to present the information to the tceq during the permit process. We think that it's important that the cities have a voice in the process. This is the method that the tceq has told us to go through. That's by intervening in the permits. The permit process does only look at the individual permits. The sid process.
>> what kind of.
>> state implementation plan process, the sip.
>> if a region isn't meeting its air quality goals the state come up with a plan looking at the sources in a region and determining what appropriate controls can be put into place to -- to allow the region to come into attainment with the standards. I think it's important to know right now there is not a sip process in the state that's going to impact these plans. Tceq implemented staff in the dallas area not to look at controls on these types of sources outside of the nine county region. Last week the north Texas clean air steering committee very similar to your committee at the capcog voted to -- to send a resolution to tceq asking that the controls that are put in place in the dfw region for power plants are also considered for central Texas and east Texas as well.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] zip
>> specifically for Travis County, if you look at the environ report it shows up to a three-part ber billion impact to the Austin region. My understanding is you all stood at 82 parts per billion right now, three part per billion impact could push you into non-attainment. It shows a 4.5 part per billion impact just north of the region. So if the winds are blowing in the right direction, you could be pushed into non-attainment as a result of these plans so that's why the report is so important for your region. Also I wanted to point out on the environ report it states that it has little to no effect on this region and that's because of the location of the commitments for the 20% that txu has given to the state. To right now what the report says is about 20% is not going to help you guys. Again, that's why the modeling is so important. It's so important that we have an input into the permit process to make sure that the at a time knows what the impacts are to all the cities in the coalition so we can have clean air and meet our sip requirements. And I'm available to answer any questions.
>> I've got a couple of questions. You mentioned maybe being pushed into non-attainment if certain conditions occur. We're right on the verge. In fact, I think we're on the verge of being almost in non-attainment status now. And of course rltd the , the county, Travis County, has been working real diligently on trying to ensure that we stay in attainment status with certain programs that we have initiated, early action impact, analysis, emissions, inspections on vehicles, a lot of other things that we looked at and put forth as far as trying to make sure that our quality here in Travis County is something that will keep us out of non-attainment status and hopefully be preferably in a position to move forward to ensure that we reduce the harmful air emissions here within Travis County. My question is these programs that we already have worked so hard on over the years, what impact will any of this have or is there any impact on what we're doing now and with other cities that are involved and other governmental entities with Travis County partnering together to make sure that we do not cross the line as far as the federal government standards are concerned. What impact or what's being suggested here will continue to support what we have already done here in Travis County with all of the other partnering persons that we are dealing with? Is is there an answer for that? Because we've done a lot, Travis County has.
>> I think that's probably a good question for mr. Gill.
>> all right. Whoever want to answer it --
>> well, --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> for those who don't know you, give us your full name.
>> I'll bill gill with capital area council of governments. I do planning for that agency. I've worked on this for several years. It was a unique endeavor on the part of the central Texas. I think we set the standard for areas in the rest of the country to do proactive planning to try to come up with things that we could do locally to prevent us from going into non-attainment. And based on the monitoring results over the last couple of years, I think we've been successful. The problem is that we don't have any control over things that happen outside of our five-county area, and dealing with eight-hour ozone standard you see a lot of transport, not just in our area. We see 60 to 70 percent of high ozone days can be transported emission frz outside. Dallas can see 40 to 50 percent. So weesh in a unique situation. We're close to nobl attainment, but we've managed to stay under the standard and we're doing everything we can locally to prevent going to non-attainment. But when we do the modeling we look at a future case and these plans are not going to be built for several years, so we're looking at 2009, 10, 11, down the road, emissions from large sources can have an impact on us. And unfortunately there's not a lot we can do locally because we've already implemented a vehicle inspection plan and other thing. We don't have a lot of refineries and chemical plants, so if we go non-attainment, there's not much we can do. And that I guess points out what laura has already talked about, the state implementation plan has been posed as the way that tceq evaluates cumulative impact. You don't do that until you go non-attainment. And the whole process that we set out was to avoid being non-attainment. It's a stigma for an area we don't want to get into non-attainment so then the state does a sip for us.
>> well, I guess my point -- I'm no, sir confused, it's just that I'm kind of concerned that it appears that we've done a lot of hard work and what the heck, we've done a lot of hard work. Especially if we have situations that will -- that we do not have control over prevailing winds, whatever blows in here we've got to deal with. But the state actually looking into the early action impact, all the things the inspection portion of our vehicles, all of these other things that they've kind of blessed us on and say hey, y'all go forward and then we come back here today with something that can crush the accomplishments that we have worked so hard for and other partners with us. I'm kind of confused about that issue, especially with the other counties in the state. You look at dallas and you look at harris county. Those particular areas and regions have been forced to, from my recollection, go into a situation where they have to deal with certain controls because of the non-attainment status. So that is an issue. And then heerp something to maybe -- and then here's something maybe to possibly come on board to further harm the air quality across the state of Texas. I'm having some real, real concerns about this, especially when the state allowed us to move forward in the direction that this central Texas region have gone forward to ensure that our air quality is what if should be. -- is what it should be. So that's my dilemma with some of this that I'm looking at today. Maybe there's not an answer for that except that what we've got to deal with here as far as trying to ensure that this region stay in non-attainment -- in the attainment status and we're just on the borderline of that right now. So I'm concerned about that. Something is not adding up here, not to me, not in my mind.
>> truly it's a partnership effort. We do what we can locally, the state does what they can, and that's our concern and our concern that has been expressed to the state environmental agency by our clean air coalition is that the state needs to look at those sources outside of our area. State is a partner in our early action compact and we expect them to do their share in helping us to obtain our attainment status.
>> that's the point I was making, just the partnering aspect whaf you just meanted on. So judge, I'm a little concerned about some things here. I wasn't here I guess when they brought the last briefing, but that doesn't mean that my concerns have dwindled any from where we have come from to where we are now. There's been a lot of hard hurdles that we've had to deal with, so I'm kind of concerned about that. And then the money aspect of this, I think we're also paying some money also in partnering with the other entities such as city of Austin and a few others. I can't remember the others at this point, but I guess staff would know what we had to pony up as far as funds are concerned to ensure that the program that we have that we move forward with that there was a partnering aspect as far as financial support. So I'm just a little concerned about what we're dealing with here, judge. It doesn't add up.
>> the purpose of coalition is is to model number one, give that information to tceq and ask tceq basically to start looking at the cumulative impact of multiple plans. That's what I heard last time.
>> and I believe it's broader than that as well. It's not just modeling but experts at toxicology, human health. Then it's actually to go to all of the permit hearings and participate in the permit process and provide the information to the administrative law judge showing what the the impacts of these plans would be on the cities that are part of the coalition.
>> last time we talked about the money, you were asking members for $10,000. The commitment by mayor miller was to try to raise half a million that's necessary to get the job done.
>> that's correct.
>> and there's litigation underway. The immediate goal is not to participate in that, but the door is open, and I guess a lot depends on where the administrative processes go, etcetera.
>> that's correct. The coalition's purpose right now is is to participate in the permit process. That's the process the tceq has set up for us to have a voice. So we have a law firm that is pro bono right now, who is going to represent the city at these hearings.
>> we have a counter point.
>> I do, judge. And I appreciated Commissioner Davis' comments. I'm sorry you couldn't have been here the other day. I did pass out some information. I believe your colleague on your right, Karen, was giving it to you. And iels have some other information here. Let me just briefly respond, judge. One, I think we can all be comforted by the fact that there are established processes in place to address your concerns, judge, and Commissioner. There are processes in place at the tceq that have been well defined by the legislature and by rules and regulations on how a permit is applied. Whether it's for a new industry, whether it's for a county sponsored landfill, whether it's for a new power plant, but those processes are well-defined. And if I have standing to show the court or show the commission that I can intervene in a manner as an affected party -- and tom can tell you they're affected parties' definitions are out there. And if the city of dallas, if the city of dallas wants to come down and try to be a party in one of these cases, they certainly have that right of intervention. They also have a right in the sip process to talk to the e.p.a., to talk to the tceq. They're very actively involved in dallas, very actively involved in dallas in all of these venues and forums. There are rules established procedure. There's been a lot of talk about cumulative impacts. Judge, already the tceq pursuant to request from folks in dallas -- from folks in dallas have done cumulative impact modeling, have already done this. The process is down the road. And the point that I would want to bring to y'all is that because of txu's commitment, our commitment to lower overall emissions by 20%, by 20%, 80% cleaner plants than any before, the dfw air is actually better, is actually better. Now, I don't know their comparisons, Commissioner Davis, of what they've done early on as far as the -- as far as any compacts. I know they've tried to take steps. I know that we have taken great steps to lower nox in the dfw area. We have a big airport up there that's very, very important, unfortunately you can't touch the airplanes under the federal rules. There are a lot of hurdles that they face, but for dallas to come down and ask the rest of the state to come in and to-- I'm not quite sure what they're asking because their air quality is going to be improved.
>> they're asking us to join the coalition.
>> that's right. Now, why would that be when this -- when the program that txu is advancing actually improves the air quality up there? It actually improves the air quality in the dfw area because we're lowering and making reductions. We're making reductions. We're using best available control technology. It may be be --
>> the modeling will not show adverse impact on central Texas by the power plants that you're asking tceq to permit. Is.
>> I'm saying there is -- I have seen from the modeling -- bill knows it much better than i, a small impact on the Travis County area in northern Williamson county between Round Rock and georgetown. That's the impact that's come out of this modeling.
>> this is what could tip us over, that tipping point in terms of non-attainment. And I'm respectful of that, but I have is to keep clear in my mind of what this is today and what this is not. This is not a hearings examiner session before the tceq. Appropriately many of the things you all are talking about appropriately will make their way to tceq. And I will tell you I am not comforted by the idea that there is an established and well defined process. It puts those who are not prepared at a disadvantage and you can only articulate arguments that are more the letter of the law of what's in there about whether you follow process or not. I think what we are being asked for today is whether as a county, a county that will be impacted because the air is not respecting county lines and activities that are going on outside of our area, but will be impacted because the breeze is crossing over into Austin and Travis County, Williamson county, caldwell county, bastrop county, the five counties that make up the early action compact. The question is whether we want to collaborate and cooperate and act regionally as government as stakeholders on behalf of the citizens who live here and to add to the efforts, the millions of dollars that have been put into the i.d.e.a. That we do not want to -- the idea that we do not topt slip into non-attainment or whether we act on our own or owe act collaboratively with other cities and counties to say, do you know what, we ought not be be afraid of good information. And that's where we're at. It's just saying do you want to participate in on the collection of data and we would be equally armed with information. Because I have no doubt txu is ready for this hearing. But I don't think that all of us can say the same kind of thing, and whether we like it or not, we are being dragged naz a stakeholder because the air will not stop at the county line. Before it's always been a single plant, a single plant, a single plant. We've never had a situation where we've had a cumulative impact of all of these plants happening at the same time. And again, this is not in our jurisdiction, but because of prevailing winds, it's getting here. And that's how perplexed and frustrating it was when we did the clean air compact that things that were happening down in jefferson county, down in harris county, that because of the prevailing winds were impacting all of our clean air efforts here and we didn't have the quick and dirty things to lower those kinds of emissions because they weren't happening in our jurisdiction. So we had to do much more painful things related to the kinds of gasolines we use, off road impact and certainly we're now having very expensive extra inspections that have to occur because those are the drastic steps we had to take. So I appreciate your definition of small is small. The stakes are huge, so it's like do we want information or do we not want information? Do we want to collaborate with other jurisdictioned and other governments or not collaborate? Do we want to be a part of this or not a part of this? And the answer to me is yes, yes and yes. And I think that 10,000 is quite modest and other decisions can be made when it's appropriate about what further investments need to be made to protect the air quality and to protect the commerce and to protect the business that is going on in this county and not have it shut down because somebody else's dirty air came over here. That's where I'm at.
>> I appreciate your comments. And I salute Travis County for what they've done thus far. It's very admirable. I also want to you know we've been a partner with clean air also with the city of dallas, dfw area and that whole nine county non-attainment '. We've probably been the largest reducers of nox emissions in the dpw area. I would also point out that other folks, other counties are sitting around here today. 'I loved it when the Commissioner was talking about the jobs discussion. We've kind of come away here. There's a little county out in west Texas, mitchell county, where one of these plants is is going to be built. And when y'all sign fowp this, when you sign fowp this, you're stating your opposition to the power plants. You're stating your opposition to the power plants because that's what laura miller has said in her press releases. I had it last week. Ask her if they're not opposing. They're opposing the power plants. 2500 people in mitchell county. What does the city of dallas have is to do with mitchell county? Nothing. Nothing. This has the potential of bringing 40 something thousand jobs. 2500 jobs with multipliers. But just remember other counties around the state look upon this as a wonderful opportunity, a wonderful opportunity for jobs, a wonderful opportunity to keep this economy growing, and a wonderful opportunity to keep the air clean. If these plants are not built, dirty air will continue at a greater rate if these clean pants are not built. And this will all be argued, you're right, at the permit phase and appropriately at that point. But I just want to tell you what you're voting on is to oppose, and their stated intent of lit gaismghts yes, sir?
>> you brought some points up, but I'd like to maybe go back a little bit as far as where we have been trying to place ourselves as far as dealing with air quality. Number one, how many of these is coal fire burning generating plants are we talking about for the state of Texas?
>> there are currently I believe -- we have 11. , but there's 17 that are currently over there being permitted. And I think the city of san antonio has already come -- has already been permitted.
>> okay. And I guess -- the question being from the dallas folks, even the time when we're looking at our early action compact initiative, of course we want as many folks that could come on board because we understand what prevailing winds can do. See, the point is that you are -- if my recollection serve me correctly today, you are penalized on things that sometimes you have no control over, like prevailing winds. If you are brought into a non-attainment status because of the impact of dirty air coming in via prevailing winds. So you can be also brought into non-attainment status because of that. So I can understand what dallas is saying. I can understand what anybody else is probably saying as far as being involved in that type of status. Again, we're on borderline. I can also remember a few years back when you talked about jobs that brought up another point that may need to be brought up. There was another air emission type of situation from alcoa up the street came here to this Commissioners court and of course didn't want us to support a resolution to go against what they were doing there as far as air emissions were concerned. However, we end up supporting the resolution to ensure that we make sure that the air here in Travis County is acceptable where people can actually breathe and live. To so I'm trying to get this point across that because of prevailing winds can tilt us over and any other county or region that is experiencing non-attainment and also now just being penalized because of being in non-attainment situations is a continuing effort and a continuing struggle here in the state of Texas, here in Travis County. It's all across the state. So I hear what you're saying, but you haven't -- I don't think you've addressed how you will guarantee us that your emissions will not cross county lines and cause 'air emission problems.
>> what I can tell you is we've made a commitment to lower our emissions and if that type of plan were applied to others throughout the state and probably in this region, it would benefit y'all too. I can tell you that we're making a commitment to lower these emissions.
>> I'm here and I'm duly bound to protect the air of the residents of Travis County and I will do what I have to do to ensure that we get that type of protection. No offense, nothing intended personally against you or anybody be else, but I have to do what I'm duly bond to do and that's to make sure that the health and well-being of Travis County residents are attained. And I'm going to have to clean in that direction, whatever it takes to do that. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
>> I understand. I hope you understand our position. We want to provide reliable, affordable and clean energy to as many texans as we can and that's what we're trying to accomplish.
>> it's a cumulative thing here. No one can control prevailing winds. I haven't seen anybody do it yet.
>> judge, commission ers, john kuhl. Through the e-mail traffic in the last few days we have made it clear from the staff's perspective that our recommendation is to join the coalition. We have a draft we've passed out to you and we'd be be happy to entertain any editing or what have you throughout the day that you would like to do on that and work with your office, judge, to finalize it if you seek to move in that direction.
>> okay. Any questions from john or adell?
>> let me ask, just point-blank. I see you say one thing, I see laura shaking her head that's not the case. Is giving money to this cause a statement that we are against getting good information? I'm not looking for information to support dallas, I'm not looking for information to support industry I'm looking for information. But I fear that giving $10,000 to this case cause puts you on the side of the page where you go, you're just against this. And I don't know that I'm against it. I'm against anything that is going to create harm to our air quality and I probably feel different than a number be of people in this room about how close we arable how much farther away we're getting. If we want to do something, we may need to look be at what we drive. I will tell you that what we personally drive may have some effect on that. That is obviously the thing that we heard last week, the thing that drives most of the emission issues in the dallas fort worth area. I don't think that dallas-fort worth -- I'm sure they have a great amount of point source, scwor industry pliewlt pollute ant causing folks, but I don't think they're much greater than us. And we are not known for that. Unfortunately, prevailing wind, you've got two prevailing Wednesdays. You've got a cold front that blows in from the north or you've got during the rest of the -- most of the parts of the year you've got something southeast coming in from the gulf. And we all know that nobody questions why houston has an air quality problem. It's not the automobile, it just happens to be an industry that this country and this world lives off of. And that's the unfortunate thing that we have. I always have an eye towards what do with you do with the increase with energy needs that we have. So I want to beogin a sent of that as well. It doesn't make any difference to me whether it gives us a slight bit more or whether it gives somebody else. I'm not any more interested in a neighbor getting a slight bit more. I can see where dallas is is like, hey, we're not even thr now, so we can't take anything. But I am entertained by the notion that all of these new facilities really do have the ability to produce less pollution than we have today and that is entertain to go me because I know that the majority of the old plants, the old cars, the old everything is where we get our pollution. Is that not the case? Is that not where we get most -- wherever we get it from, wherever it blows in from, isn't it industry's ability to enhance the ability to produce energy at a much less pollution. Isn't that really where industry is headed? I'm familiar with the bottom line. And we're interested in producing clean things, if it's not just killing us to get there.
>> there's no doubt that they can produce cleaner plants than they have in the past and I believe that they certainly should be held accountable to do that. I think really you've got to step back and realize that fundamentally there are hard decisions that are going to have to be made globally for us as a human race in the next -- it's really in our lifetime. There are vast reserves of relatively inexpensive coal that we will have to step away from and ignore in the future if you want to get to point to turn around some of the global effects that are happening. So they can do that. They could have done it in the past and it's just a case of what are the risks at this time and do have you the facts at your fingertips. This is a pretty simple question as to whether or not you want to have a stake in the broad coalition that has many members and many different agendas. You just have to keep focused on what is Travis County's focus, what are we in this for and how much affect can we have on a coalition if we're a member or if we're not. I don't think it's as black and white as we oppose or we don't oppose it. I think that the honest truth is that we need a neutral analysis that we feel confident in.
>> and I'm -- you just said a mouthful. I am right there. But I'm afraid that by signing fowp $10,000 puts us in a non-neutral state. It's kind of -- you're choosing sides on this thing. I don't know how you do that without choosing sides where you want just good information given to you. Unless I'm missing something here, giving $10,000 to this cause puts us on a side. And I don't think it's a neutral side. Is that not the case?
>> I think the coalition said that they recognize the need for more power. We're a growing state. The cities are saying we need to look at how the power source, how many plants, the timing, looking at igcc technology. The state -- to have a say in this permit process, which is moving on. We've got the first hearing coming up in the next three weeks. For cities to have a stake in it and to get their voices heard, this is the process the state has set up, which is you intervene in the permit process. And if we want to have a voice, that's where we have to have it.
>> the answer is that it is beyond just informational gathering for modeling. It's an intent to intervene into the permits and oppose the power plants. Is that true?
>> that's true.
>> I think you need to separate that. The intervention does not necessarily mean opposition. Intervention says that there are stakes -- there is a situation present that says we need to make sure our voices and our concerns are heard. And believe me, this court has been involved in many an intervention over at tceq. And times it is act exactly as you stated. It is intervention and hell no opposition. We've had those situations, but a lot of times we understand that it's going to happen, but you want to make sure that it happens in the most responsible way and to make sure that the concerns are addressed as you go through the permitting process. Intervention can be used successfully to ask the tceq to require them to use better technology . And better technology is always right around the corner. So this is to make sure that the intervention is not so much about opposing, but to make sure concerns are heard and that I appreciate your concern saying we're going to lower it. Grvment maybe it can be lowered even further. How much further can we go to get cleaner air? Also, in terms of intervention, it is very standard over at tceq that when you intervene that tceq sends you to mediation. And when you're in mediation that is again where your voice is heard and you can try and get a better deal worked into the process. So this idea that it has to be opposition, that it has to be black/white norks. It's called you want your voices to be be heard and towpt have your seat at the table. And I go back to the resolution presented to us. It doesn't say will adversely impact air quality, will adversely affect local governments, will adversely affect. It says may. We don't know the answer. Information will tell us what that situation is. It goes on to say the coalition is committed to ensuring that said plants use generation methods best calculated to minimize air pollution while still providing sufficient electrical generation capacity for coalition members' needs at reasonable prices. And basically the next paragraph, seeks to ensure that the federal and state governmental agencies that are responsible for permitting said construction provide full and fair consideration of the coalition's concerns. That doesn't say we oppose anything.
>> that's the unfortunate thing, Karen. As a governmental entity here, we ought to be asking the governmental entity that is taking care of this, that is responsible for taking care of this, to be an honor 'est broker and for themselves to go out and find -- they have the opportunities. They've got a lot more resources than Travis County to go out and say we're going to do a fair assessment of this and come down on something where that's why we're here. That's the reason that we are a state agency. Those are our guidelines. I mean, it just is offensive to me that I've got to go out and get on a side to where all we're asking for -- because I do realize that if you just let industry be the only person with a sticks and the dollars that you can probably justify what you want. But I think that is the reason that you have tceq to say we don't need to be -- we're going to listen to them. We're not going to be swayed. We have the ability to go out and maybe what we ought to be doing is appealing to tceq to say, you guys, y'all need to be honest reasonable accommodation brokers here and tell us what we need to be be doing here and tell us why.
>> does it help any if we were to add the following language to the draft resolution? Where it says remitting an amount equal to $10,000, due and payable on the date yet to be determined... To said coalition, these words, to help cover the cost of modeling necessary to compile data relating to cumulative impact. Our $10,000 is is to help cover the cost of modeling necessary to compile data relating to cumulative impact. Think about that while I ask that we vacant three chairs. For those who have connell to give comments and -- who have come to give comments and who can keep their comments to two minutes or less, this is your opportunity to come and share them with us. Morning. Full name, please.
>> scott johnson.
>> Karen haden. I'm the director of the sustainable energy and economic development coalition. We work statewide on clean air and clean energy. I'm very pleased to hear the comments today by judge Biscoe and Karen Sonleitner and Ron Davis. I understand the concerns of Commissioner Daugherty and I'd like to add a few comments for this decision. I hope that you will move forward with this resolution, that you will move forward with joining this dallas initiative, the city's campaign, because it does protect our health. It does protect our economy. We cannot afford to go into non-attainment. This is a good approach to finding out. One of the plants that recently came up for permitting, a txu planlt in robertson county, that plant alone risks us going into non-attainment. That permit was the recommendation by state office of administrative hearings judges was to deny that permit because the judges felt that plant couldn't even meet the standards. And it's a huge, incredibly polluting lignite plant, two units --
>> where is that located?
>> robert be son county near franklin, 100 miles from here that. One would especially impact us. It would put 1400 pounds of toxic mercury into our air. So the judges recommended denying that permit. I think we need to look carefully. That plant would equal 350,000 350,000 cars, so while it is good and I agree that we should be driving clean air vehicles and using other means of transportation, certainly when you've got a plant that equals 350,000 cars' worth, you should be using the best available control technology. None of the txu proposed plants would use grassfication. That -- gasification. That is being used in many states and plants. In fact, nrg has a permit submitted in Texas be and one submitted elsewhere. In the other state they plan to use igcc, but not in Texas because they don't have to. While I agree with going the tceq, they are not requiring the best control technology, which is gasification or igcc, they are not requiring cumulative impacts, but they're permitting plants on a case-by-case basis. That's why I think it's so very important that you move forward. These permits are being fast tracked. The first will be held, two of them simultaneously in the same region. There are people living there that would be be impacted by both plants, and I can't believe that it's been allowed to move forward this way where they can't be a party in both plants because of this outrage in scheduling. There's been an attempt to cut citizens out by cutting short the time frame for hearings a year and a half down to six months. So I greatly respect the fact that you are trying to protect us here it's not good for our economy to have dirty air. New business bes can't come in. So I do thank you very much and I appreciate this opportunity.
>> any questions?
>> Karen, you said igcc?
>> it's a technology that is available today. It is affordable. And --
>> what does it do?
>> what it does is it sorts out the pollute pollutants on the front end and all of these plants could be 60 to 90% cleaner on the various pollutants if this was required.
>> that technology was?
>> that technology is out here. While you often hear from txu that it can't be done, that's simply not true. It's being done, it has been done and it should be done. That should be the bottom line for any coal plant permit in our state.
>> any reduction as far as the remissions are concerned in that technology?
>> yes, absolutely. It would be be 60 to 90% cleaner than existing permits. And the data has been compiled by rich furman. He's a chemical engineer who has been testifying in some of these cases. He's mit trained and he has looked at some of these plants specifically and I'll be glad to get that exact data to you.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> it's typically considered to be present% more expensive and I think that that money would be well worth spending on the front end. Later if a plant gets built in that form and fashion, later when carbon is regulated they will be actually more economically viable because they will be be ford it if they go the igcc route. Any one of these plants can do it. The most recent permit submitted to the tceq was for an icgg plant in corpus christi. This technology is ready to go.
>> good morning. My name is scott johnson. I work on air quality issues both as an activist and as a paid consultant. In this case I'm speaking on my own behalf aiz did earlier this morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Air quality is a very complex issue. We've talked about ozone transport. One issue that's not well-known is is that on half or more of the predicted high ozone days the winds coming from the northeast and that's taking pollutants from a lot of the coal fired power plants which are between Austin and the tyler, longview area and bringing that air down into our area. Granted there are other air masses even as far as the mid ohio valley and the tennessee area that get drawn down into the Texas area. So it's not just the gulf coast that makes our air quality worse. Commissioner Daugherty speaking to your issue about older plants and older vehicles, under the air act of 1970 plants were grandfathered at that time and some of those including some of the txu plants have been grandfathered until this very day, this year and next queer they're degrandfathering several hundred plants in the Texas air, and that pollution alone is incredibly high. So we're already suffering from decisions that were made in the past. It's quite an effort by activists, citizens group and environmental groups to finally get the legislature to figure out how important it was to degrandfather these plants, bringing them up to modern day equivalent. Part of it is just economics. It's that the companies didn't want to spend the money, but when you do spend the money to upgrade the plants often you have greater efficiencies and you can regain some of that money that's spent. All this issue boils down is to health, the health of citizens of Travis County and the other counties in the five-county region. We do know that the pollution generated locally and also from outside the region from the east, northeast and southeast contributes to increases in asthma attacks. There's also studies that show that the fine particulates that are made when diesel is burned cause deaths in our county and 'also nationwide. Nationwide 30 to 40,000 feekz folks each year die prematurely due to particulate matter. All in all one issue not being addressed in this dialogue is how much carbon doks be side will be increased if these plants come online. 'I've never heard the representative from txu answer a question like that. I urge the clean air coalition to ask those questions when I was at your meeting about six weeks ago. The amount of carbon dioxide cr these plants, even the ground level pollution is reduced by 20%, that amount will increase substantially. Texas already leads the Texas in carbon dioxide emissions. If we were a country unto ourselves we would be be among the top 10 in the world in carbon dioxide emissions. No credible scientist is going to put their name at risk to say that man is not 'helping change the climate, meaning make weather events more extreme, not necessarily always warming. Sometime it's cooling, sometimes it's drought, sometime it's rain. That question has to be asked by elected officials. What are you doing to contain carbon dioxide emissions. They are a measure of efficiency. The plant is is more efficient they will burn -- the less carbon will be emitted into the air. Other issues in total make it a situation that we need the state modeling to make informed decisions. I encourage you to vote yes on this particular resolution. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> questions?
>> so both of y'all is see this $10,000 being used as a beneficial tool to stop these plants. Is that bottom line what you're saying? You see the $10,000 being used as an instrument to stop the plants from being built?
>> I see the $10,000 as a very proactive step to help protect the health of texans. This may or may not stop plants. The judges will make decision oz these permits, but certainly this is a proactive step and we encourage you to move forward with it.
>> thank you. Now, john kuhl was bold enough to come up with language better than the judges. John recommends the following language, which is broader than mine. It says to help cover the cost of modeling and other studies necessary to fully assess it direct and cumulative impacts to air quality and human health and safety. The whole thrust there really is information gathering for these broader purposes, right, john?
>> yes, sir.
>> which is fine with me.
>> now, I assume that we had the option of voting to be a member, a non-paying member, although last week we did get a request for $10,000. Thrifer move approval of a, which is participation as a member be. A separate motion will be that 10 thoi dollar annual membership -- 10,000-dollar annual membership fee. Any discussion of that motion? Any additional discussion. All in favor? Nan. My second motion is for Travis County to pay the 10,000-dollar annual membership fee with the john kuhl language.
>> second.
>> could you read that one more time?
>> to help cover the cost of modeling and other studies necessary to fully assess direct and cumulative I am impacts to air quality and human health and safety.
>> judge, do you anticipate that this is -- maybe I need to ask laura. Do you anticipate this may be be an ongoing 10,000-dollar a year next year in because I would imagine that this thing could ratchet up quickly given that you're looking for this kind of information, or do you think that this will really going to be be all that you're going to ask for?
>> right now we're just asking for $10,000 for the coalition. This whole thing will probably be over in the permitting process before the year is over. It's really just the initial $10,000.
>> judge, I'm much more comfortable with that. It's good language, john. Because that's what I'm after. I can take whatever information you give me.
>> we have done a lot in Travis County and a number of things has drug me along kicking and screaming, but I realize that we've got to be ever vigilant about the environment and about our air. I mean, I'm frustrated at times because I don't think good news travels as fast as bad news. And I do sthi we're headed in the right direction. Sometimes have you to use a pretty big club with industry.
>> not about mr. Saddlist.
>> with that in mind I'm glad that the language came about.
>> any more questions?
>> judge, there are two minor edits that I would like to advise you before you vote. I.
>> we're not approving the resolution.
>> weebl to that next time.
>> this is the money vote. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now, john, you were saying about the resolution.
>> judge, I need to go back there. Do we need to indicate a source of those dollars? Does tnr have those dollars available or do we need for say is that's from allocated?
>> I would say allocated reserve.
>> that would be be friend 'ly.
>> thaibl asking that question next week if we don't tell them this week. Thanks.
>> yes. And under the county, the second sentence, somehow or another we missed the actual name of the coalition. We need to insert the word for between air and city. So it would be the Texas clean air for cities coalition. The second one, mr. Knuckles pointed out to me at the top of the second page, second line after it says respective tax, you would strike out franchise, right-of-way, right-of-way compensation. Those words there that apply more to cities and counties. Is that correct?
>> I see right-of-way.
>> yes, sir.
>> comma?
>> franchise, right-of-way compensation would be struck.
>> we would insert the language we visited about. I'm assuming you would like that in the therefores. A little further down.
>> the $10,000 is is mentioned in the --
>> it's in two places. It's your call. We'll find the best place for it.
>> I wanted to make sure that Commissioner Davis gets the friendly that Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned.
>> c is the adoption with the recommendations john kuhl recommended.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote '. D is the participation agreement and bylaws. We haven't given those much attention during this meeting. I did look at those closely two or three weeks ago. Anything hidden there that we ought to know about, ms. Noel?
>> judge, I have a question. Could you possibly tell me, are the bylaws going to be consistent with all the entities that the coalition will come up under? All the participants, I guess the member participants, paying members, the paying membership of the coalition, are they going to have the same similar structure as far as bylaws are concerned or will there be deviation of variations of the bylaws?
>> that's really a good question for our attorney's office buttive not heard of any deviations from the bylaws. We're asking each city to pass the same bylaws.
>> secondly, has there been any other governmental entities other than Travis County that has entertained this particular agenda item that we are experiencing here today?
>> yes, Commissioner. We have I believe be 20 governmental entities.
>> Travis County?
>> in Travis County?
>> in Travis County, the entity in Travis County that's passed so far has been the capcog clean air steering committee.
>> but no other governmental entities?
>> the clean air coalition.
>> just that, which is-- okay. Thank you.
>> that's made up of hays, Williamson, bastrop, travis, city of Austin.
>> do you intend to separately go to see the city of Austin? I think that would be be helpful.
>> good point.
>> it's my understanding that mayor miller has been in contact with the mayor of Austin, yes.
>> that would be great to put them on the agenda.
>> thank you.
>> move 30-d. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Any other issues, related issue that we need to discuss?
>> no, sir.
>> thank you very much. Thanks the others who came down to participate on this item also.
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, November 1, 2006 11:30 AM