Travis County Commissioners Court
July 3, 2007
Item 11
We have tnr here. Let's call up number 11. To consider and take appropriate action on a resolution supporting the Texas for clean air cities coalition's participation in an appeal of the oak grove power plant permits.
>> on June 13 the Texas commission on environmental quality voted to approve--
>> you are still adele noel.
>> yes, I amokay.
>> voted to approve two permits to move forward with the construction of two power plant units that are filed by lig net coal in robertson county. The two facilities together are known as oak grove facility. Tc e q approved the permits despite the recommendation by the state office for administrative hearings to deny the permits. Their request to deny the permit was based on the fact that the oak grove facility would not be incorporating the best available control technology at that time. The process at this point, there's one organization called our land our lives who plans on appealing the permit. They have standing in this case. It is the only organization that has standing at this time. They will appeal within the next 20 days. The permit was issued on June 20, and they have 20 days from that date to appeal. Tceq will either consider changing the permit or just go ahead and approve the permit as is or not take any action at all. They have 45 days to do that that. After that, the organization our land our lives, a non nonprofit made up of property owners, can appeal the decision again in district state court or federal court. The Texas cities for clean air coalition is willing to move forward and join our land our lives in this appeal process, putting their attorneys behind it and their finances behind it to continue the appeal process. However, they need the Austin area's agreement to move forward. They have asked the clean air force, clean air coalition, Travis County to vote approving their moving forward to back them on this appeal process. This comes to light, also important to note that epa is considering lowering the eight-hour ozone limit from 85 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion. They are taking comments and this they are considering. Austin's air quality is currently at 82 parts per billion and the limit is 85. Modeling shows that oak grove alone on high ozone action days to increase this area to 84 parts per billion almost two additional parts. Which would push us into non nonattainment under current standards but we could possibly be designated as nonattainment if epa lowers to 75.
>> what would that particular plant become operational if all the other things that we are talking about today, the appeals process doesn't go through as far as what we would see it go through, tceq, when would that be realized as far as the nonattainment? I guess it would be predicat predicated on when that facility may be constructed. I知 saying may be because we don't know what is going to happen at this point.
>> the facility, tctq has already billion discussion. They expect it to be completed late 2009.
>> late 2009.
>> yes, completed and operational.
>> and operational. Okay.
>> move the resolution.
>> second.
>> took the words out of my mouth coalition did not have a quorum out our meeting last week. What we are going to try to do by teleconference call get a fer and favorably response. This is one of the deals we were told it would not take additional money from us. I use think we make it clear if they think they need additional money at some point we reserve the right to say yea or nay at that time. But even if tceq does in the reverse the position and even if litigation is not successful, I think the way you keep this on the radar for the company is by continuing to apply whatever pressure you can. I don't know that we have much choice. The only good news about epa looking at lowering the standard is that they would do it not immediately, but is it 2010?
>> yes, that is the proposed date. They have taking conths. They proposed to lower before and they did no do it at that time. They kept it at 85.
>> it would impact numerous communities like us nation nationwide.
>> correct.
>> it would be a real big deal.
>> yes.
>> so does the court sign that resolution or just the county judge?
>> the court.
>> okay.
>> I had a couple other questions. I wasn't quite finished yet. I知 not opposing the motion that was made, but I had a couple other questions that I think needed to be asked. The second question that I wanted to pose to the folks, who would have to borrow the brunt of the penalties on all the things placed on you when you are in a non nonattainment status? Who is responsible for bearing that consequence? Because with a situation like this, for example, they would be partly responsible for us getting into a status that we also are dealing so hard to make sure it didn't happen. I知 looking at the other side. If that is the case, there are consequences that are assessed when you get into these different statuses. I知 just wondering, is there any part of the process to get out, to help you get out of that situation, is there any part of the process to teach folks that help you get into that situation can offer some relief to get out outout.
>> own oak grove would not be under any obligation to assist the area in meeting attainment areas. The city, the county and the residents would bear the brunt.
>> would have to bear the brunt. Okay. I wanted to make sure the public understood that it's just not a cut and dry issue you know, just not cut and dry. As we have seen there are a lot of consequences that may come out of this. Hopefully, tceq will reverse their position. Thank you.
>> as a final comment too, in this community, we have adopted, voluntarily, numerous measures to enable us to deal with air air--air.
>> yes.
>> this plant on any given day could really wipe out whatever benefits, inspection and maintenance, some of the other stuff. Right now, trying to figure out a way to better education and ence force because we know that is a big problem. All together I think we had 15 or 20 measures here and most of the other surrounding counties heavily hit by this, especially hays and william son, I think we kind of have been going above and beyond the call of to do what we can to stay in near nonattainment and prevent going into non nonattainment. So it really is kind of a big deal really.
>> statistics are wonderful and have you been able to reduce our emissions by two parts per billion, but the memo also states that, by credible source, that this oak grove is likely to be able to increase our parts per billion by 1.71 parts on any given day, which as the judge points out, would pretty much wipe out our gains.
>> exactly. Somebody ought to be -- --responsible for that.
>> for people that are oppos opposed, the organization that is opposed, have they gone in and asked, would you be willing to do this plant, you know, under the coal gas ification process? Is this a deal with people say we just don't want you to build, or we want to you build with this new technology. Because there is, you would think, some sort of cost benefit analysis. Not that any of us want to go out of nonattainment. That certainly is not good. But I don't know. I think this is is a very confusing subject for the average every day person. If you read the media, it immediately puts you in the state that you've got to be opposed to this. I think that most people probably are opposed to it if the industry is not trying to do the right thing thing. But obviously, there are at least some people that think that cost and, you know, the grid needs and everything that we have got to have, because I don't think that anybody questions whether or not we got to have ample, you know, electricity to operate. What is the, I mean is it just that particular, is oak grove just saying we are not interested in trying to use the alternative, even though it may be more expensive. I think that people in central Texas will probably say okay fine, if it's a little more expensive, then fine, but bill us for it but billed--build it so that we do not go out, at least have the potential of non nonattainment. What do you think about that that?
>> it's my understanding that oak grove is going to use lig nite coal. They have the south right there.
>> exactly.
>> they have been approached with not building the facility but building it someplace else that would not impact the central Texas area so greatly. And that was not agreeable to the company. Then it's also my an understanding they were asked could you use a different type of coal that is not quite so dirty burning. It's my understanding again that the owners of oak grove said no, we're not interested in doing that. They were also approached with using different technology, with integrated gas ification. They said no, we're going to build a facility like this.
>> where are we on any possibility either at the state or federal level for emission credit that would provide incentive to use those technologies? Any kind of emissions credit system being contemplated?
>> not specifically.
>> it really hasn't come up as a topic in this context. There are programs like that around the country. There are name of utilities all across the country taking advantage of that. In this instance, txu has moved aggressively, they proposed a large number of plants but there has been no talk, although they don't rule out the possibility that they could use potentially some kind of a credit system as part of their overall package, in this instance, they are committed to the lignite fuel at this location. You probably recall there are a number of other plants that were proposed that are now in abeyance, not really gone but not moving forward.
>> in anticipation of the purchase.
>> correct.
>> would emission credit. Credit.some sort of incentive for the use of either cleaner burning fuel for the plant or for more advanced technology?
>> it's difficult to see how that would play out in this scenario unless you have a lot of very in depth understanding of their total holdings across the country. The way I am an understanding it as I知 looking at the media reports across the country, they wouldn't be looking at their plants here in Texas as providing credits but perhaps plants in other locations may provide the credits that would allow them to produce to use these plants here.
>> we only have a voluntary system at the federal level for reporting of emission. At this point having any incentive for the use of higher technologies is pretty low since nobody is required to report their emissions except roll tarly.
>> it may be voluntary but it is nevertheless a matter of their permits. So they are depending on how vigorous the enforcement agency is locally, they are varying levels of teeth.
>> how vigorous is in inenforcement locally? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
>> we would defer that to tc tceq to deal with that.
>> okay.
>> judge, since kind of the same subject matter and it was at least brought up, should the court try to put something back before us with regards to this new epa issue with regards to taking it from 85 to 75? I知 not to sure on the face of it it seems like a community would want that to happen, but that is pretty frightening to think that we at some point in time shouldn't weigh in to that.
>> I think we plan to. Epa is considering this but there is no formal rule yet.
>> correct.
>> proposed. Yeah. Are they taking comments yet yet?
>> they are having hearings, three hearings on it.
>> the formal process is what you normally, where you take comments. But I think the coalition and clean air force and then the governmental entities may as well informally take a position. The question really is what impact will this have on us. Clearly, you know, can't say what impact it will have two and a half, three years down the road. Unless things change dramatically, we won't be under 75.
>> right.
>> now, when they lay out adverse health effects, which they think is a justification for this discussion, they can be kind of frightening for certain individuals. If you are a healthy person, you may not feel these today today. But if you suffer from asthma, some of the other illnesses, you are more likely to be impacted. Right ?
>> correct.
>> from air pollution.
>> yes.
>> this is kind of early in the process. But I do think we should start getting ready to give comments because there is a reality check on reducing it that much. The other thing, we don't get energy from txu, I think the new name is tep, we get energy from Austin energy. But the impact from the txu facility in oak grove would effect us.
>> correct.
>> yeah. Anymore discussion?
>> just one point.
>> there was a typo on the first page and we have corrected that and I would like to bring it up to the court.
>> let's see if it passes first.
>> okay.
>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> okay. You can read those, can't you, ms. Noel? You do a lot better job than I do. 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, July 3, 2007, 8:00 AM