Travis County Commissioners Court
February 5, 2008
Item 24
24 is to consider and take appropriate action on memorandum of agreement regarding the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard and the central Texas 03 flex program.
>> good morning. I知 john white, environmental officer for tnr. With me is adell. Last week we were talking about the o 3 flex program, which is the successor to the early action compact, the plan under which Travis County and a number of other communities and agencies in this region undertook a set of actions to help control the emissions that result in ozone formation. The early action pom com packet has expired and its successor will be the 03 flex program. What we're asking for is the court's approval for part of that o 3 flex program.
>> I received an e-mail indicating I guess recent action by e.p.a.?
>> that's correct. The e.p.a. Has suggested that we do move aboard with the 03 flex program. Should the standard change it will take years to implement the program and to get all of the cities on board. The words are exactly that under revised standards it could be a few years or many years down the road.
>> so basically what's happening is the e.p.a. Is contemplating a new standard for ambient ozone. That could be 70 parts per billion, could be 75, maybe 80. We don't know that yet. It's supposed to be announced March 12th. It will take some time for that program to be fully implemented. In the meantime we would still have an obligation to carry forward with control measures in this region to help us meet the existing standard and presumebly to try to meet any new more stringent standard.
>> has this area put together a financial model of what it would necessitate in order to reach that? Have we done that with Travis County?
>> no.
>> don't you think that we ought to weigh in on that. Don't you think we tiewt have a clue -- I don't know what that would do to just our road maintenance.
>> if you want to move the needle on some of this stuff, those are the kind of things that you probably need to look at. Now, if those were to be done, I think this region -- I think that Travis County really needs to know what effect would that have on budget, what effect would that have on roads, what effect would it have on anything that we do? There's mowing the grass, weed eating. Don't you think that we ought to have some sort of a model from from time to time that if we really were to go there, what effect it could have on us financially?
>> I think if we get to the point where there's a new standard adopted and we're bound to be in non-attainment I suspect, that any kind of state implementation plan and the measures that would go along with that would have to include some kind of assessment of what the cost of that would be. I don't think at this point that kind of an analysis has been done because these are largely voluntary measures and it's essentially an action to show that you're doing your best effort to try to control emissions and remain within the standards now. So these are voluntary measures. It's just sort of a best effort kind of approach.
>> well, john, I agree. I think that that probably is the intent of trying to get people to recognize and be cognizant of all of the things that you could do. The two things that we're going to do, one is going to be this car pool incentive that we already have a car pool incentive. The other thing is we're going to put up these ozone signs that I don't know that I can image thain somebody will be sitting in the line to pay whatever they're going to pay over on airport boulevard and say oh my goes, it's an ozone day, let me see if I can get out of this line and go park. Come on. Realistically? Does that mean that we don't go through the motions and try to do this, but this is almost comical for us, y'all. I mean --
>> what we've done so far has been to notify e.p.a. In writing that in our view that there will be dire consequences, right?
>> correct.
>> that came from the clean air coalition, of which we are a member. And didn't the Travis County Commissioners court sign on to the written comments to e.p.a.?
>> yes.
>> so we have tried to make clear to e.p.a., in our view you take this action, there will be dire consequences for us and all the other entities that are in near non-attainment. And all of a sudden almost overnight we're into non-attainment. Plus all the action that we've taken over the last three or four years will have been for naught. And so we have been vigorously implementing innovative initiatives I think on a voluntary basis to stay out of non-attain nlt. Non-attainment.
>> and we've also diminished -- even if we can claim that we're the ones -- we've been part of it, of diminishing the number because we were teetering close to the 85. Now we're probably somewhere in the 82 range. Sometimes we drop a little bit below that. But the point is that if western at 75 and we were going to 85, there would be people in this community saying, we want a resolution that says we're opposed to that. I知 not so sure that we shouldn't have a resolution from this court that says before do you this -- because after the fact it's too late. It's like okay, we're going to take you to 75. Maybe we shouldn't be doing that as a court to let somebody know that hey, if you do take this thing down to 70 or 75, it is going to have a huge impact because we know that. Moving something seven, eight, 10, 12 points is going to take an awful lot.
>> but we dmows it. The international community is asking all developing nations to reduce their emissions by 40% by 2050. And the united states is the largest emitter of gases that produce ozone.
>> well, I don't know if that's true Commissioner. I think if you three china -- especially china and india into there, that are not part of the kyoto plan --
>> the state of Texas if it were its own nation would be I think the eighth largest emitter of gases that produce ozone.
>> hold on, hold on.
>> we're getting mixed up a little bit between ozone and carbon dioxide, but nevertheless --
>> correct me. I知 sorry.
>> could you repeat that? I知 hearing all these different things and I知 trying to digest exactly what is going on, especially when we -- last week when you appeared before us and you talked about those things that are contributing to our high emissions, that will lead us eventually into a non-attainment status. The question is what will e.p.a. Do when they have to factor in or will they factor in the fire coal burning plant that people are putting in, the stuff coming up from houston. Should we be penalized in Travis County? Should Travis County or any other county be penalized because there's no control of movement of this -- these pollute ants through the air? They come from all over the place. We may be doing a good job with the program. The judge just mentioned and Commissioner Daugherty, everyone is committed to the programs we've done. Emission violators. We've been diligently working toward that end. But at the end of the day are they going to factor in the prevailing winds, pollute ants, air pollutants that are coming here across the border and into Travis County border area? Is that going to be factored in? That's really what I知 concerned about. Because we aren't generating a lot of stuff here: can you answer that question for me? Are they going to factor in, especially when you talk about reducing this to a 70, 75 point, that's going to be the new deal, somewhere along the line we have to have an answer for that because we aren't generating all these pollutants.
>> Commissioner, clearly Travis County has expressed the position that we ought not to be held accountable for piewlt pleut tants that are -- pollutants that are wafting in from other regions. But I don't think that's going to wash when it comes to declaring the attainment versus non-attainment status. They will simply be looking at what is the ambient ozone concentration and have you tripped the threshold to go into non-attainment '.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> judge, I have one pertinent question. I値l get off this. On the first of the additional reduction measures it talks about who carpool with two or more other employees. We presently have a policy about that. But that is three or more. Are we changing that is this.
>> no. The way I wrote, it said employee with two or more other employees. I put the word other speak employee plus two others.
>> so you do have to have three. Unless you invisibly drive your car.
>> either we do something or nothing. Unfortunately, our best efforts here may well not save us because there's pollution coming from other areas over which we have no control.
>> right.
>> but at leads --least we ought to continue the mish that we started three or so years ago. I think they really have produced results for us. Just that those may well not be enough. I guess in epa's defense, if you are worried about the entire country, central Texas looks kind of small in comparison. But at the same time I think we ought to complain about all of the circumstances and especially things had a we don't control that we may be punished for and we have done that. After doing that, though, I think the memorandum of of agreement is appropriate because it really put us in a position of continuing the good initiatives that we adopted three years or so ago. The most controversial one, the emissions testing, really, very very people have complained about that and the state ought to be patted on the back because they have made more funding available for residents who fail the the test and who need assistance to make the necessary repairs. So I think that with the state of Texas we have partnered to put some of these initiatives in place that really make all the sense in the world. The this is one of the big areas where worldwide there is problems, nationwide there are problems and in central Texas there are problems. So this is our let's do the best we can action, right? And the coalition, of which we are a member, basically is recommending this, and as far as I know the clean air central Texas, clean air force of central Texas is also. The clear air participants are saying we at least ought to continue what we have been doing. That's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> anymore discussion? Staff recommends this.
>> yes.
>> all in favor. Those those.
>> thank you.
>> I was scared to ask you whether the recommendation was ennews tick or not.
>> my--enthusiastic or not.
>> pie level of enthuse may be because of my nasty virus.
>> you want the over.
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, February 6, 2008 8:09 PM