Print 🖨

The Committee on Senate Natural Resources and Economic Development met to take up a full agenda on March 28. The report below covers: SB 1045 (Estes) relating to public notice requirements of certain air quality permit applications and SB 1046 (Estes) regarding TERP funding.
 
SB 1045-(Estes)Relating to the consolidation of public notice requirements for certain air quality permit applications.

  • Makes public participation in air permit applications more meaningful.
  • Reduces red tape per permit applicant.
  • Would allow air permit applicant to consolidate NORI and NAPD into a single notice.
  • Only in cases where TCEQ determines that the application is administratively complete.
  • Draft permit must be finished with 15 days.
  • Members of the public will be more informed of the permits affects.
  • Will help avoid certain situations that lead to the loss of options.

Questions

  • Zaffirini- Calls on two TCEQ witnesses, Steven Hagood (Air Permits Division TCEQ) and Robert Martinez (Environmental Law Division TCEQ), to answer any questions.
  • Rodriguez – How many people typically contest or comment on these types of permits?
    • Martinez- There are only about 50 applications of the type that might be eligible for what is being discussed in this bill. For the past 4 years, we haven’t received any request for contest of case hearings.
  • Rodriguez- These 50, are these simple routine cases that the technical review can be done within the proposed 15 days?
    • Martinez- Correct.
  • Rodriguez – You don’t see a problem with limiting the public comments under this bill?
    • Martinez- Under the bill the public will still have 30 days to comment on the draft permit as required under federal law.
  • Rodriguez – The current process has two notices, the initial and then a second notice for an opportunity to comment. But under this proposal they would have 30 days to review everything, the draft permit would already be complete?
    • Martinez- Right the draft permit would already be complete, they would have a 30 day comment period on the draft permit.
  • Rodriguez – Is there any possibility that even though this is intended for simple permits that other more complex permits might go through this process and there not be enough time for the public to give sufficient input?
    • Martinez- The draft permit must be ready within 15 days which puts a major limitation on what type of permits might be applicable.
  • Garcia- The bottom line is that you want to eliminate one of the notices, right?
    • Martinez- The bottom line is the bill does eliminate one of the notice periods.
  • Garcia- And what brought this on, why the need to reduce notice to the public rather than increase notice to the public?
    • Martinez- The agency has found that the current system makes you wait to comment until 30 days even though the draft is already prepared, all this bill does is allow us to provide that notice immediately when it’s ready.
  • Garcia- You don’t think there is some benefit to letting the public comment on your draft before you draft it?
    • Martinez- The draft permit remains subject to change after its been published, it’s not uncommon to receive comments.
  • Garcia- Once something is drafted it is hard to change. It seems to me that this is reducing public input. I see this as another barrier for public input.

Public Testimony
Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club, Against SB 1045

  • Bill would limit public participation.
  • Provides less notices.
  • Nothing in bill limits this to simple facilities.
  • Senator Estes requests TCEQ come back up in regards Cyrus saying TCEQ has pre-meetings with people behind closed doors.
    • Steven Hagood- We have pre-meetings with a lot of our applicants, but we do not do full application reviews.

Steven Minnick, Texas Association of Business, For SB 1045

  • This will save the public's time.
  • Opportunity for comments is far more productive when the facts are known, which right now the public cannot see when the application is first shown.
  • Rodriguez- You seem to think that what Mr. Reed said is not necessary regarding the public getting to comment.
    • Minnick- The public is still going to get to comment, and if their comments are applicable then the agency must consider those comments. If they don’t consider them they risk having it overturned in court. 
  • Rodriguez- So you don’t agree with Senator Garcia about public input being minimized?
    • Minnick- Doesn’t disagree but his experience has been positive in regards to those situations.

SB 1045 left pending 

SB 1046– (Estes)Relating to sources of funding for the Texas emissions reduction plan.

  • Extends TERP’s funding as long as the program exists.
  • If SB 26 (which extends TERP) doesn’t pass this session this bill will never take effect.
  • Detangles TERP’s funding from TxDOT funding, making the system more transparent.

 
Questions

  • Zaffirini- Calls on two resource witnesses, Steve Dayton Texas Commission on Environmental Equality (TERP) and Brian Ragland Chief Financial Officer at TxDot.
  • Hancock-How is the detangling of this currently being utilized?
    • Ragland- A portion of title fees are deposited in the Texas Mobility Fund, and there is a similar transfer from the State Highway Fund to TERP.
  • Hancock- So the total impact to TxDOT would be if we make the correction on transferring of funds?
    • Ragland- For fiscal note purposes the 5-year period it’s $148 million per year x3 = $420 plus million dollars.
    • Ragland – if look at UTP 2017-2026 the bill would impact 7 out of 10 years and would be $1.1 billion

Public Testimony
Hector Rivero, President of the Texas Chemical Council, For SB 1046

  • Bill fixes two important needs for the TERP program.
  • It extends the program for the life of its need.
  • Detangles the funding issue.
  • Vital we continue to fund this program. 

SB 1046 left pending