Travis County Commissioners Court
November 21, 2006
Items 12 & 13
We did announce this morning that at roughly 10:30 we would try to call up 12 and 13 as they are related to air quality. 12 it to consider and take appropriate action on proand comen to the tceq regarding the lake creek permit number 78751, a coal burning power plant and related issues.
>> adell noel from Travis County. I'm here this morning, I need to make a correction on this. This is actually to consider a permit for trading health permit number 78762. The comment period ends tomorrow on November 23rd, lake creek scheme due to scheduling changes has already ended.
>> so this permit number is 78762?
>> yes, sir.
>> so without reading the letter, what are the reasons that we think tceq ought to be mighty careful with this permit?
>> the cumulative impact, there are currently 17 proposed coal fired plant units that are going to be built. We believe that the cumulative impact of these 17 facilities will bump Austin into non-attainment at that status. Tceq is not considering the cumulative impact of all of these facilities. Modeling shows that with just three of these cole coal-fired plants, three at oak grove, one, two and twin oaks will bump Austin up into non-attainment. We do not know the modeling results of the others and their impact. In order to become an interested party to the hearing, we have to file comments to that effect.
>> I was just wondering with this comment letter that is to go for tceq, I'm wondering the information that we have here, and it is within the letters referring to the federal air quality standards why this particular information -- maybe it would be a good suggestion that if it does go across jurisdictional lines and also involve other governmental entities, especially when you say federal air quality standards, why this letter should not be sent to congressional representatives here of Travis County, congressman doggett and mccaul and also smith, lamar smith? I think it would be good for them to understand that we with the cumulative air emissions that may be dwun the done be done with the proposed coal burning plants to non-attainment status that. Should maybe be of interest to our congressional will representation here within Travis County. Is did anyone mention this at all to the three representatives that we have representing Travis County? Congressional representatives since it is involving also federal air quality standards?
>> they are aware of this. A letter has been signed on behalf of representative donna howard and jerry madden was stoant Commissioners yesterday -- was stoant the Commissioners yesterday getting comment on these. We will be happy to comment the rest of the Austin delegation on our comment letter.
>> but not only the state, but the federal united states congress folks, congressman doggett, congressman mccaul and congressman lamar smith, who also represent Travis County, which will be impacted significantly if the -- if this is the law to take place with the prevailing winds and taking place of just within 100 some-odd mile range of what we're dealing with here.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> maybe the first couple of sentences, photo chemical modeling impact analysis is currently under28. And then the next sentence is we expect that the results will demonstrate that the start-up will have some negative effect. And then if we go to the next -- actually the last paragraph if you take away for the additional information and you go to the middle of that and it says based on the photo chemical modeling analysis by sur which demonstrates the probability of exceed exceedances. I have a bit of a problem with just seeming to know that this is going to have the -- not that it's not going to have negative impact, but what is going to happen to our area with regards to non-attainment? In the last 10 to 12 years we have seen our parts per billion move down from in the '90's to the now -- from the 90's to the now 82. And in the last few years we have really seen the decrease in that. As a matter of fact, I think what this past year, '06, coupled with '05, might have been the only two years where you had a little bit of a bump up from the preceding year. I don't think there's any question that we are on the bubble. And we can't take three parts per billion unless, of course, you were to look at the graph because the graph is going -- the parts per billion is going down. By the time we get to 2009, we may very well be below 82. Maybe we won't be below 82 enough that we still should be concerned about if we really do get three parts per billion. I'll give you that. But my problem in all of this continues to be unless there is a scare tactic for our area that says you need to always be concerned about becoming non-attainment because I do think that becoming in a non-attainment status does have severe consequences and I for one am willing to admit that that is not something that we need to move towards. But we are going down in our ozone emission days and -- in keeping our levels below 85, and it's moving one drefnlghts it's not going -- one direction. It's not going up, it is going down. I don't know where we'll be in 2009. Will 82 in 2009 be 78? Will it be 81? If we accept the fact that this is three parts per billion, then we still may not want to move that direction. I think that in these kinds of letters we just assume that we know what this is going to be. I'd like to have the study done. You're saying that what we need to do is that we need to have something like this in. I don't mind letting the authorities know that we do have some concerns, and if you're saying that this is what we've got to do in order to have a spot at the table, then fine, but I sure hope that we have the ability to come back to this public and say, do you know what? We are moving in the right direction and we all know that these coal-fired plants all have created a stir in the state and quite frankly I still don't know where we need to be with this thing. I do know that the likelihood of emissions from coal power plants can have a negative effect in some areas. But I still have not been -- and some people will tell you, ooefn if we continue on -- even if we continue on with these 16 plants that we are going to exceed capacity by 50%. That's one of the thing that I've read. Good god, can you read things that's all over the board with this stuff. Like I said whenever laura miller was here, I'm not necessarily against being part of the program, which is the reason I voted for us to put the 10 grand into the thing, but there's more story to tell than the sky is always falling. And that's what bothers me. It seems like -- and I hate for this thing to move along the lines of partisanship, which is how some people -- well, if you're a republican you don't give a flip. Well, that's the fartherrest thing from the truth that there is. Nobody wants to be -- my god, if you're a democrat, then, you know, you're doing the right thing for us. I mean, I don't think it's a democrat or a republican deal, and I just want to see us centered. And, hey, science mean something to me. If someone says, you know what, science shows this. It seems like we only get science when it benefits the side of, do you know, what the sky is falling and this is what you've got to do. We have spent tremendous amount of dollars in this community on all of this auto emissions controls. And quite frankly, when you start talking about spending the tens of millions of dollars that we have basically gotten in people's pockets in this community with auto emissions, tail pipe controls, I'm not so sure that I would be able to look somebody in the eye and say, do you know what, with all of these things that we've done, all we've been able to do reductionwise is .8 parts per billion. So I'm happy if this is what we need to have is standing, but I do want this community to know that we are moving in -- and frem auto emissions. Point source is something that we all know and I guess it's a double-edged sword. Thank goodness we don't have a lot of point source issues in Austin, but we surely have point source issues from people outside of Austin that we end up being the recipient of those things. So maybe that's the reason -- that is the reason as far as I'm concerned that we vawlz -- we vawlz to stay somewhat vigilant. There are some things in here that say we're going to assume you have the worst thing, so given the fact that we're assuming that, then that's what actually is going to be the truth.
>> what if I added right after those sentences, based on oak grove one, two, and twin oaks modeling shows something to the effect that the modeling of these three facilities shows that Austin alone will be impacted by three parts per billion? We do not know the results of the cumulative impact. And this is all we're doing here is putting a voice, showing an interest. We can withdraw our voice as an interested party at any given time. We expect to have all of the modeling results and the health impact studies by mid January. And if for some reason --
>> it's more important than that right now. The tceq looks at each facility one one way or the other. They don't look at the cumulative impact and that's the problem. What we're saying is you've really got to look at the cumulative impact. And if do you something close to that, we will be adversely affected here in central Texas by many of these plants that are located elsewhere. And because of our precarious status relative to nearing non-attainment, then we are worried and we need to change out howe we look at these plants is what we're saying, I think. And by the way, we believe that modeling will show significant adverse impact on us is what we're saying.
>> correct.
>> unless do you the modeling and unless do you the cumulative impact, then we won't know and probably won't care.
>> correct.
>> it's changing that fleech we need to be -- that approach that we need to be argue fog it. It's about that you really can't look at a plant in north Texas and the paim impact on north Texas. Have you to look at that plant's impact on Texas. And other areas are as vulnerable as we are when it comes to adverse impact. If tceq keeps using the same standard that's used historically, then one by one we don't reach what we're asking them to do.
>> judge, I talked with the Commissioner up in mcclennan county and he has similar concerns and they're really concerned about -- the plants are really located in there. Got three of them in there proposed. And the concern is not only here in Travis County, but we're look at this as the whole regional impact. It's not only us, we have other local elected officials just as close as waco because those up in waco, which is a 100 some-odd mile radius, is something that is really a concern to all of us. They're looking at this too and I guess going do what they need to do to provide the necessary comments to the tceq just based on the ones that are right there in mcclennan county. So this is a far reaching deal and I know the modeling had to be done. I didn't see anything the way the letter was written except the fact thaipted to make sure -- and Commissioner Daugherty, you brought up reports about the republican and the democrats. And of course we've all got to breetsd the air. -- breets the air. And the point is by saying that that's why I wanted to make sure that representative mccaul and also representative lamar smith is included in this process when it comes to federal air quality standards. That's why I mentioned that. It's an you will encompassing thing with congressman lloyd doggett. We all have to breathe this air and it's -- it's not something that we can ignore. We've got to deal with it. So the point is do we stay in a non--- an attainment status or do we look at thing that will take us out of a non-attainment and where we have other challenge if we're getting to that status? I really don't want to go there. With the non-attainment status situation. Thank you.
>> I would also suggest that we add congressman john carter to the list of federal contacts because the early action compact includes Williamson county, and that's judge carter's district. And I think we need to be specific rather than the name lake creek station, that we ought to add a city because depending on where that specifically is located, whichever way 100 miles northeast, that's either going to be in judge carter's district or potentially that's in chet edward's district. And where I don't want to get caught up is the conversation that we had when we were talking about joining the coalition, and that is that we are pitting one area's economic interests about having available electricity against the negative impact on our economic well-being if we hit non-attainment. So I think we all need to know who it is we're dealing with in terms of where is that plant physically located and who also is the congressional representative there, but also know who is the state senator and the local delegation for that area as well. We need to know who our allies are in this and not inappropriately not know who is potentially not our ally on this.
>> I have no idea. Which city is there th?
>> it's near waco. It's like Pflugerville --
>> that would be congressman edwards' district.
>> move that we approve the proposed letter, that we notify the Travis County legislation delegation as well as our congressional delegation plus john carter. That we urge the other numbers members of the clean cities coalition to do the same. The point there is that if you contact your local legislative delegation and congressional delegation, you have made a lot of impact.
>> absolutely.
>> and if we -- if all of the members do that, the impact is even greater. I do have one other word change that I would like to recommend. That was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any more discussion? We need to get this signed today so we can hand deliver it to the chief clerk.
>> actually, they will accept a faxed copy and follow up with a mailed copy. So it does not have to be hand delivered unless you would like for me to.
>> we thought you were looking for that opportunity to visit some of our state officials.
>> get the staff in and make sure they officially got it and all this other stuff.
>> I will do that.
>> all right.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
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 22, 2006 10:29 AM