The House Committee on Environmental Regulation met on March 30 to take up the bills on the notice here. In order, this report covers HB 3060 (Thompson, Ed), HB 1598 (Darby), HB 26 (Ordaz), HB 3128 (Kitzman), HB 3015 (Kuempel), HB 2222 (Lozano), HB 3855 (Morales Shaw), HB 3100 (Landgraf), HB 2214 (Landgraf), and HB 2211 (Landgraf). A video archive of the hearing is available here.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight 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 3060 (Thompson, Ed) Relating to the regulation of recycling and recycled products.
- CS laid out
- E Thompson – Have agreed upon language with stakeholders, advanced recycling can recycle products other services cannot
- Hydrocarbons will no longer be considered intended products under bill, incineration not considered recycling; defining advanced recycling in Waste Disposal Act
David Andrew, ExxonMobil – For
- Only 9% of plastics are recycled, extremely valuable material that shouldnât be going to landfills, supporting techs like advanced recycling to convert these materials into new products
- Mechanical recycling is simply cutting up material, mixing with virgin plastics and making new products; advanced recycling breaks plastic down to raw material, then built back up into virgin plastics
- Advanced recycling is happening now, ExxonMobil recently built facility with expected capacity of 80m lbs/year
- Texas has the infrastructure, petrochem facilities, and feed stock to do advanced recycling
- ExxonMobil working in P3 to expand advanced recycling in the Houston area via various projects
- Reynolds – Great to see global company like ExxonMobil taking the lead; this is a win-win
- Meza – Oftentimes things that arenât recyclable via mechanical recycling go to the trash, great that this process produces a cleaner plastic; only concern is about the âbag it & bring itâ process, sounds more burdensome; what can we do to make it easier?
- On a national level, 5k recycling program, more problems will need to be deployed to give people access to curbside recycling & make it easier to recycle
- Also think people need to be ablet o put all recyclables into the blue bins, but waste management doesnât have the market to do this; goal is to expand recycling programs to accept all plastics, have more drop sites, etc.
- Will require more sorting centers
- Meza – Any possibility to work with them to make sure plastics donât go to landfills?
- That is one of the things weâre trying to do; trying to provide economic value to waste management companies to pick it up and put it into advanced recycling
Hector Rivero, Texas Chemical Council – For
- Committed to circular economy via advanced recycling; have seen significant investments since 2019 & tech innovation
- HB 3060 is partly to define advanced recycling to account for new techs like depolymerization
- HB 3060 clarifies that incineration and waste-to-energy are not recycling, very important change
Rebecca Grande, Texas Association of Business – For
- Highlights large investments made into advanced recycling and economic benefit
- Circular supply chains benefits businesses, consumers, and the environment
Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – On
- Against bill as filed, âonâ the CS
- Biggest concern was that industry would gather plastics and use them to make new fuels rather than actually recycling; CS looks to take out hydrocarbons and new fuels
- This is one part of the solution, not the total solution; main issue is to reduce use of plastics
- Plastics in rivers & streams need programs as well
CS withdrawn, HB 3060 left pending
HB 1598 (Darby) Relating to local government and other political subdivision regulation of certain solid waste facilities.
- Darby – Seeking consistent regulation & processes for facilities looking to be permitted as municipal solid waste facilities
- Some waste companies operating statewide deserve to operate under uniform regulation
- Legislature has often addressed primacy; bill states that TX shall regulate solid waste, authority resides with TCEQ
- SB 486 allowed certain municipalities to restrict location of facilities, but did not allow them to ban solid waste facilities; HB 1598 does not alter the provisions of SB 486
- Recently, some local govs have sought to restrict locations of solid waste facilities
- Meza – Can you explain local control under the bill?
- Municipalities and GCDs can say a site is unsuitable, but must then suggest a site that is suitable
- Question is whether they should be able to regulate the site of these facilities, answer should be no
- Meza – A lot of aquifers in Texas, spoke recently with someone about how landfills take steps to protect aquifers?
- Yes, rules in place to protect aquifers in TX
- Need uniformity about location of some of these sites, statute says TCEQ shall have primacy over regulation of groundwater
- Meza – So part of concern is that municipalities will rule in such a way to prohibit landfills?
- Yes, has happened; city and county have restricted locations of these facilities
- Reynolds – Is the third time the charm?
- Passed it out of committee twice before, have had issues in the past on specific sites, timeline of session has caused issues, etc.
Stephen Minick, Republic Services – For
- Primacy issues have been decided in other industries, this is another area where uniform state regulation is appropriate; TCEQ has primacy in regulation of solid waste, but lege allowed counties and cities to determine site in 1990s, so long as they suggest alternate site
- Counties and cities were the only local gov given this ability, MUDs, GCDs, etc. were not given this ability
- EPA rules allow facilities to go over aquifers if needed; can address water quality concerns with tools given by the legislature
- Important to consider who gets to decide where landfills go if local govs restrict site
Marisa Perales, Guadalupe County GCD – Against
- Bill appears to directly target or impact Guadalupe County GCD, curious as GCD has excellent track record and takes responsibility of protecting groundwater resources very seriously
- Have a rule in place since 1999 intended to protect Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer, litigation currently ongoing and shouldnât change rule until it is resolved
- Solid Waste Disposal Act encourages landfills to communicate with local govs; if the landfills had reached out they wouldâve been informed of many areas without a sensitive aquifer outcrop
- Statute weâre discussing applies to hazardous waste facilities, not municipal solid waste facilities
- Landfills are currently subject to a lot of different regulatory authorities for good reason, TCEQ cannot supervise everything; many different regulations exist that landfills have to account for
Rebecca Grande, Texas Association of Business – For
- Solid waste deserves to operate without patchwork of regulations
Chris Macomb, Waste Management of Texas – For
- Bill does not preclude FEMA floodplain regulations
Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – On
- Not testifying; called to correct registration as âonâ the bill
Rep. Darby closes
- State law does not interfere with federal requirements, bill is prospective
HB 1598 left pending
HB 26 (Ordaz) Relating to the permitting of medical waste facilities by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
- Ordaz – Requires operators of medical waste facilities to properly notify stakeholders about where the medical waste company intends to operate
- TCEQ has no issues with this bill
- Does not include municipal solid waste landfills or waste transfer stations
Brenda Haney, Texas Lone Star Chapter Solid Waste Association of America – On
- Recognize bill is to apply to medical waste facilities & appreciate clarification it is not to apply to traditional municipal solid waste facilities
HB 26 left pending
HB 3128 (Kitzman) Relating to the regulation of on-site sewage disposal systems, including requiring a license for on-site sewage disposal system pumping technicians.
- Kitzman – Requires risers and covers to be designed to prevent unauthorized access, requires permitting in counties of 40k or more
Randy Chelette, Texas Onsite Wastewater Association – For
- Onsite wastewater only got rules in 1989, pumpers are the lowest tier in the industry
- Bill would allow pumpers to participate in industry and be trained & registered
Rep. Kitzman closes
- Bill contemplates registration & not a license
HB 3128 left pending
HB 3015 (Kuempel) Relating to solid waste management contracts
- CS laid out
- Kuempel – CS doesnât prevent extending or expanding exclusive solid waste franchise, only provides existing solid waste franchise chance to complete contract up to two years
- CS also conforms to other state requirements
Stephen Minick, Republic Services – For
- Cities have ability to contract for waste services franchises, but often new contracts disadvantage 3rd party franchisees
- Bill extends opportunity to wind down for rest of contract term, up to two years; similar to annexation bills from past sessions
Brenda Haney, Texas Lone Star Chapter Solid Waste Association of America – Against
- Against the bill as filed, would like to continue to work on the substitute bill
- Many members provide waste services through exclusive contracts that are bid for, routine practice; limiting operations to one exclusive franchisee is often safer and more efficient
- Often longer term agreements that allow hauling companies to manage equipment, depreciation, etc.
Chris Macomb, Waste Management of Texas – For
- For the bill as substituted, appreciate CS language
- Bill is prospective, has been done in numerous states and often much more aggressively, e.g. Florida has 3 years plus damages
CS withdrawn, HB 3015 left pending
HB 2222 (Lozano) Relating to certain eligibility requirements for grants under the Texas natural gas vehicle grant program.
- Lozano – Would expand Texas Natural Gas Vehicle Grant Program (TNGVGP) under TERP
- Valuable but underutilized program, no fiscal note
Michael Lozano, Permian Basin Petroleum Association – For
- Good opportunity to expand the program
Susan Shifflet, Texas Clean Fuels Alliance – For
- No fiscal note, program is underutilized; 40 out of 88 counties are in attainment for this bill, looking to expand to all counties
Shea Pearson, Texas Chemical Council – Against
- TERP is the only tool for Texas to reduce mobile emissions in nonattainment areas, HB 2222 would greatly increase area available under the program and eliminate annual mileage requirements
- Morales Shaw – You donât want it to expand because it would expand to areas already in attainment?
- No, do not want to expand use of TERP funds into areas that are not nonattainment
Rep. Lozano closes
- Key is program is underutilized with $10s of millions, vehicle emissions know no boundaries, will not stop at boundaries of nonattainment areas
- Chair Landgraf – Are some opportunities to make this work and satisfy some of the stakeholders
HB 2222 left pending
HB 3855 (Morales Shaw) Relating to projects that may be considered for a grant under the new technology implementation grant program administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
- Adds downstream O&G to list of eligible projects that reduce emissions under TERP; specifically for New Technology Implementation Grant Program
- Would help smaller entities access grant fund money to help reduce emissions via detection of leaks, etc.
- Can include range of activities like refining streams, creation of fertilizers & plastics, etc.
- No fiscal note
HB 3855 left pending
HB 3100 (Landgraf) Relating to the creation of a hydrogen infrastructure and vehicle grant program under the Texas emissions reduction plan.
- CS laid out
- Chair Landgraf – CS limits the program to nonattainment and affected counties while ensuring hydrogen and heavy equipment are included
- HB 3100 seeks to create new markets by establishing Texas Hydrogen Infrastructure and Vehicle Grant Program within TERP to be administered via TCEQ
- Would provide matching grants for replacement of heavy weight trucks and for establishing fuel network
- Plan is to create 8 fueling stations with rider carried by E Thompson
Nikola Corporation – For
- Nikola produces hydrogen fuel trucks, see significant demand; bill will help meet diesel parity, bring more trucks on the road, help bring hydrogen to scale, help decarbonize certain sectors
- Meza – Have positive impression of hydrogen, but have heard hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are zero emission but hydrogen combustion is not? Did not know there are different types
- Nikola produces hydrogen fuel cell, zero emission
- Meza – So youâre the good one?
- In favor of both
Bill Zobel, Pilot Company – For
- Under bill TX will attract additional investment
- Hydrogen has a role in the future of heavy duty transport, hydrogen fuel cell trucks have many characteristics beneficial for heavy transport
- Fuel cell trucks are zero emission, hydrogen can be produced as a very low or zero carbon fuel
- Hydrogen trucks are long range, lighter than battery counterparts
Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – On
- Will tend to sign up neutral on TERP bills
- Sierra Club does not have issue with adding hydrogen program to TERP, but want to make sure it doesnât impact the most cost effective program going to reduce ozone in nonattainment areas
- $8m is probably reasonable
- There are different hydrogen techs, fuel cell is cleaner than the combustion engine would be; want to be sure TCEQ is giving grants based on emissions
- CS puts focuses on effective, this was another concern and glad it is addressed
Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – On
- Fuel cell strips the electrons to make electricity, nothing burning so no emissions; combustion burns the material and emits NOx
- On the supply side not all hydrogen is created equal, many processes use fossil fuels, e.g. gray hydrogen can even use coal
Phillip Martin, Environmental Defense Fund – For
- Hydrogen has huge potential if done right
- Should electrify whenever possible when it makes sense for industry, in many cases hydrogen makes more sense for industry so it is good it is available
- Also have concerns over production, leakage can lead to poorer environmental impact than traditional fuel; EDF has partnered with universities to create leakage detection tech
- Bill allows for new vehicles, doesnât require replacement & replacing is a better option
- Each new TERP program increases admin burden on TCEQ & should look into whether this is the best way or whether consolidation is appropriate
Shea Pearson, Texas Chemical Council – On
- Registered as âonâ based on concern about statewide applicability, CS changes addressed this concern
Brady Borcherding, Fuel Cell Energy – For
- Creates important avenue for fuel cell investment
- Company produces industrial scale fuel cells, can use a large number of feed stocks with little to no emissions
- Figuring out ways to build out infrastructure is important, bill kickstarts the process & signals hydrogen production companies that robust consumer market exists
CS withdrawn, HB 3100 left pending
HB 2214 (Landgraf) Relating to the allocation of Texas Emissions Reduction Plan funds.
- Landgraf – Recategorizes TERP program, lowers allocation for 2 TERP programs and raises allocations for 2
- Increasing allocation for New Technology Implementation Grant Program (NTIG), Texas Clean Fleet program; decreases for TNGVGP and light-duty motor vehicle program
Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – On
- Theme on TERP bills is neutral
- HB 2214 increases funding for 2, decreases funding for 2, not sure percentages are exactly right
- In terms of NTIG, donât really know subscription as funding for new projects has just opened
- No issues with increasing Clean Fleet, no problem with reducing natural gas program
- Preference for light-duty would be to change it from rebate to point-of-sale program, would see more use, complicated to get the rebate; have seen demand on the EV side of the program
Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – Against
- Speaking against because of light-duty decrease, only looks like it is undersubscribed because of the natural gas vehicle side of it; would see full enrollment by focusing on EVs
Phillip Martin, Environmental Defense Fund – For
- In favor primarily for increase in Clean Fleet Program, more money in program leads to more industry access
Susan Shifflet, Texas Clean Fuels Alliance – On
- Recognize cut in the TNGVGP program, agree with Sierra Club and Public Citizen on light duty program to generalize access and make it first come, first serve
Kenneth Flippin, US Green Building Council Texas Chapter – On
- Increase to storage is a good idea
HB 2214 left pending
HB 2211 (Landgraf) Relating to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in this state and the express preemption of local regulation of those emissions.
- Landgraf – Establishes statesâ exclusive jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emission in Texas to the extent not preempted by federal law; goal is to create uniform set of regulations, expressly preempts local regulations
- Intent is to streamline regulatory process, provide clarity to businesses and stakeholders, streamlines action on climate
Adam Bazaldua, Local Progress, Dallas City Council – Against
- Indicates potential for significant impact on City of Dallasâ ability to manage infrastructure and serve citizens
- Bill would strip municipalities of ability to regulate green house gas emissions; ozone emissions lead to negative health impacts
- Dallas has worked hard to phase out gas-powered devices such as lawnmowers and leaf blowers
- Ability to maintain city services has been affected by increasingly severe weather, asthma rates contributing significantly to student absenteeism; collected data is clear that greenhouse gas emissions increasingly represent severe financial risk
- Dallas has tried to address risk with common sense actions to address air quality
- DFW region was recently declared to be in severe nonattainment, voluntary actions to attain compliance may now be prohibited
- Meza – Wanting to centralize regulatory authority on emissions to eliminate patchwork regulations, how would you address this?
- Clear that cities all have various needs, important to allow for cities to be data driven in approach and goals set
- Goals and metrics set specific to Dallasâ air quality will be impacted
- Meza – Sometimes have ozone action days
- Yes, have days where weather apps will say donât run outside
- Meza – Part of the problem with a statewide solution is because the problem varies?
- Yes, preemption doesnât have to be a bad word, but data driven approach to policy is important & this bill removes huge opportunity to be data driven
- Blanket state regulation could set Dallas back or negatively impact other cities who arenât ready to implement certain things
- Meza – Big proponent of council of governments, especially with air and water; concerned about patchwork system, do you see the different regulations as a good thing?
- Donât necessarily, do understand concern over actions taken in cities; trying to work with partners and not have financial burden fall on businesses, want opportunity to issue microgrants, etc.
Chris Canales, Local Progress, El Paso City Council – Against
- Last November voters in El Paso approved $5m for development of climate action plan, emissions and vehicles are in the plan, recently appointed climate officer and created new office to address concerns; have profound concern about preemption and potential impact on existing and forthcoming investment in environmental protection
- El Paso and other border communities have unique concerns with emissions that arenât captured by state law
- May be concerns with patchwork approach, but different cities face different challenges
- Understand stateâs interest in centralizing some regulation, but needs to be a balance
Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club – On
- Fundamentally important that local communities are able to set local emissions action plans
- My reading of your bill is direct control of emissions which is a state function under Federal Clean Air Act, would be important to make that clear in intent, would be good to clarify cities can do rebates, etc. so long as they are not directly regulating emissions
- Landgraf – Specifically tailored to greenhouse gas emissions in state jurisdiction not preempted by federal law, happy to work on revisions that would help clarify what could be done by municipalities
HB 2211 left pending