The House Committee on Environmental Regulation met to discuss a series of bills. This report only includes HB 1927 and HB 2321 dealing with toxic chemical notification systems and LIRAP.
HB 1927 (Rodriguez) Relating to an alert system for notification of the release of toxic chemicals by a manufacturing facility.
- People should be notified if at risk to dangerous chemicals
- State Emergency Response Commission is tasked with working with local entities
- Notification must allow people to register
Public Testimony:
Christina Wisdom, Texas Association of Manufacturers – Against HB 1927
- Notification is already being done on local level
- Reynolds – you’re not against the content, you just believe bill is duplicative?
- Yes, and could cause a lot of confusion.
Adrian Shelley, Air Alliance Houston – For HB 1927
- There are local systems in place in jurisdiction
- Idea is to create something statewide which is opt out vs the local jurisdiction which is opt in.
- 19 committee in Harris county under the Emergency Act
Michael Walter, City of Houston Office of Emergency Management – For HB 1927
- Believes this is a local issue
- All statewide notifications would need to be coordinated with local officials if bill passes
- Ensure bill integrates with systems that are already in place such as FEMA
Frank Borrego, Resident of Pasadena – For HB 1927
- Shared personal experience of dealing with toxic chemicals
- Two notification systems – ECMA or sound of sirens
Diaday Adriano, Self – For HB 1927
- Shared two personal experiences of chemical toxins
- Cannot continue to rely on unknown reports
Martha Larmer, Texas Energy Council – Against HB 1927
- Notifications are already occurring at the local level and addresses beyond what is required.
- TCC is willing to work for a solution
- Currently have 266 LAPC’s in Texas
- Emergency response is up to local officials – worried about duplicative system
Nim Kidd, Texas Department of Public Safety – Resource Witness
- Trying to give DPS the responsibility on notifying the public
- Federal law taught to first responders dictates that emergencies are local
- Through IPAUL system was sent the alert systems back to FEMA for additional study
- Almost all counties and cities have a wireless system, but they are all opt in.
- Emergency doesn’t have to be reported to the state
- Rodriguez – have you looked at the substitute?
- Briefly.
- Rodriguez – this morning’s testimony was saying that it was a statewide system, and that it was only sending the states help in during emergencies.
- Rodriguez – recently served on COG, how do COG’s work with local aspect of this kind of notification.
- 24 planning districts – every city and county is covered. Some have 911 systems. COGS are created differently.
- Rodriguez – so governments could work through this system?
- Yes, COG’s have purchased notification systems.
- Dale – asked if FEMA was discussed. FEMA fact sheet says that cities can enter FEMA system.
- The difference is that we only are opt in or opt out. Systems being discussed have to be opt in. Difference is if driving through the area, will you receive the message. Amber alerts are not sent through the state of Texas. Weather however is different. The challenge becomes that those are attention messages not evacuation messages. It uses the real-time source weather data to get those evacuation messages.
- Dale – How about silver alert and blue alert?
- Those two programs have a misconception. They have to be signed up to get those messages.
Timothy Milum, Medical Professional in San Jose – For HB 1927
- Gave personal experience of driving among chemicals
Stephanie Thomas, Public Citizen – For HB 1927
- Commended city of Houston on their work in this effort
- Important to have a system in place to inform people without going outside
- Similar to an amber alert system
Rodriguez closes.
- Idea is an opportunity to collaborate with state and local jurisdictions
- Intent is to support pre-existing technologies.
- Notifications causing a panic would not be an issue
- Continue working with those who testified.
HB 1927 left pending.
HB 2321 (Turner) Relating to low-income vehicle repair assistance, retrofit, and accelerated vehicle retirement programs and local initiative projects.
- Deals with LIRAP program and LIP
- LIRAP has helped to replace older aging vehicles that pollute the air.
- CS does following:
- Allows vehicle leases – currently only allows purchases
- Modifies registration requirements – requires vehicle registration to be current in participating county without requiring registration for 12 of the 15 months preceding the application will help transition to single sticker
- Increase the incentive amounts – adds maximum repair amounts for up to $800 while maintaining TCEQ regulatory authority to increase amount per their discretion
- Gives TCEQ ability to set assistance amounts
- Expands vehicle eligibility by one model year with odometer limit at 80,000 miles
- Pickett – where does the money come from? You’re asking for more flexibility for money that comes from your region.
- Couldn’t have said it better. Money comes from the local level, not the state.
- Rodriguez – asked if CS reflects input from environmental program in Travis County
- Yes, has correlated with those officials
Public Testimony:
Stacy Suits, Travis County Constable Precinct 3 – For HB 2321
- Has officers that work in LIRAP
- All counties need the flexibility to use the money to fit counties need
John Dolan, Dallas Sheriff’s Department – For HB 2321
- In investigations, confidential informants are created
- Read letter from FBI reciting issues in the Dallas area.
Lawrence McCall, Dallas County Sheriff Task Force – For HB 2321
- Shared examples of Dallas County’s tasks to enforce LIRAP
Jon White, Natural Resources Director at Travis County – For HB 2321
- Appreciates efforts for increase incentives along with flexibility for counties
- Been involved with LIRAP since it began
Jason Candella, Independent Garage – For HB 2321
- $600 cap limits the vehicles that can be fixed
HB 2321 left pending.