Print đź–¨

House Environmental Regulation met on April 26 to discuss several items. The following bills are covered in this report: SB 211 (Zaffirini), HB 969 (Dutton), HB 4472 (Landgraf), and HB 2974 (Morales, Christina). The full witness list can be found here which includes those who registered, but did not testify. A video of the hearing can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

HB 969 (Dutton) – Relating to the definition of “affected person” for purposes of a contested case hearing held by or for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regarding certain environmental permit applications

  • Dutton – Adds the definition applies to state representatives and senators
  • Reynolds – As long as the facility is in their respective districts, correct?
  • Yes

 

Sam Gammage, Texas Chemical Council – Against

  • Separate case hearing processes allow any affected person who has a personal judiciable interest affected by the application to request a contested case
  • Bill adds time and cost to the already tedious process
  • Legislature addressed definition of “affected person” with regard to contested case hearings because of the systematic abuse of this process to delay or stop a permit
  • Concern is providing this “affected person” status to someone who does not meet the definition
  • Dean – A permit will be issued in respective districts and we will be notified, correct?
  • Yes
  • Reynolds – A citizen of the affected party would already have standing? We should not expand it so the state rep/senators can request it on their constituent’s behalf?
  • There would be a huge delay and slowing effect on economic growth; the process is already satisfactory
  • Reynolds – Your only argument is you think it would add unnecessary delays or costs?
  • Process was abused significantly; some states are pushing out permits in 6 months, while Texas would push them out in 2 years or longer
  • Reynolds – Cannot make a request nefariously or for delay, don’t you have to have specific reasons to do that?
  • Yes, under the code there is about 6 specific reasons
  • Reynolds – Person would have to justify their need or request in order to fulfill that requirement anyway, wouldn’t the state representative/senator have to follow those same rules?
  • Not under the way this bill is drafted, the state representative/senator would automatically be granted that affected party’s status
  • Morrison – If constituents know there is something coming/changing in their area they can ask their state rep about it, and help someone who may have a contested hearing, correct?
  • Yes

 

Rep Dutton, Closing

  • Gammage tries to confuse everyone with “public hearing” vs. “contested case hearing”
  • To be an “affected person”, you have to live within 440 yards of the facility where the permit application is being made
  • If you live outside of that you cannot request a contested case hearing
  • Reemphasizes the bill only allows state senator/representative whose district in which the permit application is being made to request a case hearing

HB 969 left pending

 

HB 2974 (Morales, Christina) (CS) – Relating to required maintenance on heating and air conditioning systems at public school instructional facilities and to the liability of certain facilities handling hazardous substances for damages caused to public schools

  • Morales – Bill would ensure proper cleaning of HVAC units at schools following chemical plant explosions or other explosions affecting air quality
    • Clarifying guidance in local officials’ responsibility
  • Cesar Chavez high school was the only one that advocated for any HVAC cleaning, made HISD risk management come smell the air in the school, HISD eventually replaced air filters
  • Reynolds – What do schools currently do for HVAC maintenance following plant explosions?
  • Currently there is not any guidance, each school district will do something different
  • Some may lack resources or risk management departments in place
  • Bill would connect schools with local emergency management departments/fire departments to recommend and provide a clear path forward
  • Reynolds – Who pays for the maintenance costs?
  • Taxpayers; school districts sometimes pay out of pocket or have an umbrella insurance policy still have to pay their deductible

 

Kenneth Flippin, US Green Building Council Texas Chapter – For

  • Clarifies there is no clear procedures or protocols currently regarding what happens after these explosions
  • There were 7 chemical plant explosions in 2019 that affected public health, and we should respond quickly when affected

 

Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – For

  • Will not be an additional cost measure for schools
  • Asthma is the number one cause for school absences, schools receive some of their funding based on attendance; schools with elevated asthma rates will more than likely have less access to full time nurses
  • Taking this measure seriously will keep our kids in school and consequently bring more revenue in

 

Leticia Ablaza, Air Alliance Houston – For

  • Gives a perspective of her son’s experience having asthma and how he has struggled with the air quality in schools that have had a chemical explosion near them

 

Sam Gammage, Texas Chemical Council – Against

  • This bill presumes that in every instance certain release notifications are made by TCEQ that the release results in a damage to school’s HVAC system
  • This presumption is inaccurate and creates a terrible precedent
  • No clear definition in this legislation that defines “other qualified local authority”; should clarify who all specifically would be able to grant this regulatory authority
  • No process or procedure as to a quantitative process that may decide to establish damage or causation of an HVAC system
  • Bill would place strict liability on the facility in the area to replace the HVAC system because of this determination
  • Reynolds – Why should taxpayers dollars in our public schools be used to clean up HVAC systems damaged by plant incidences?
  • Cannot speak to the taxpayer dollars, more worried about the precedent this would set assigning strict liability and handing it over
  • Reynolds – You are familiar with the ITC incident that happened, correct?
  • I am
  • Reynolds – They did not pay for the HVAC cleaning at the Chavez High School, did they?
  • I am not aware if they did

HB 2974 left pending

 

HB 4472 (Landgraf) (CS) – Relating to the Texas emissions reduction plan fund and account

  • Landgraf – Would amend the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan’s (TERP) fund and account
  • Would increase the percentage of TERP funds used for new technology implementations, 3% to 6%
  • Would make changes to what kind of projects can receive new technology implementation program grant funding
  • Adds reduction of flaring emissions and other emissions to the list of projects that should be given preference when awarding grants, TERP designed to modernize the plan

 

Sam Gammage, Texas Chemical Council – For

  • Bill has the ability for TCEQ to utilize TERP funds for air monitoring capabilities
  • Allow for TCEQ to utilize fee based contracts for the reductions of emissions
  • Couple of issues under Section 13, reduces heavy duty diesel surcharge from 1.5% to 1%, concerns with reducing revenues for the program
  • Has been deals made between stakeholders of TERP to utilize some of these funds for congestion mitigation, requests that the House members consider that deal

 

Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – For

  • TERP is important to reduce mobile emissions and other emissions because it impacts public health
  • Similar concern to Gammage’s on Section 13, recurring surcharge
  • Believes energy efficiency is important and is something that can be funded too, another way to reduce air emissions

 

Michael Lozano, Permian Basin Petroleum Association – For

  • Supports expanded use of these TERP funds

 

Kenneth Flippin, US Green Building Council Texas Chapter – For

  • No reason why this bill should not be supported by all members
  • Most important part of this bill is an addition of the energy efficiency programs

 

Tom Smith, Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance – On

  • Concerned about paragraph 3 on the first page that reduces funding in Clean Fleet program from 5% down to 2%; has been an effective program
  • Requests that the alternative fuels program not be capped at $6 million, but increased to 8%
  • Would help us get charging infrastructure out there that we will need
  • Need to get this infrastructure started, moving, and installed before this increase hits
  • Another concern is the reduction on heavy diesel surcharge from 1.5% to 1%, this is a $24 million dollar hit in TERP

HB 4472 left pending

 

SB 211 (Zaffirini) – Relating to judicial review of acts by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

  • Landgraf (House Sponsor) – In 2017, legislature passed HB 3177, sought to clarify and streamline process for seeking judicial review of commission actions on matters delated to TCEQ’s executive director
  • HB 3177 amended provisions enumerating general powers and duties of the commission across all matters under its jurisdiction
  • Failed to address provisions that contained separately stated requirements about the timing of judicial appeals
  • This bill would correct this inadvertent omission aligning with these timeline requirements
  • Would clarify timeline for judicial review of axe by TCEQ, would apply to matters under the solid waste disposal act and the clean air act

SB 211 left pending