(As Reported out of House Environmental Regulation Committee) -- 4/21/1999
S.B. 766 does NOT close the 28-year old "grandfathered" loophole for sources of air pollution.
The bill sets up a two-year program for grandfathered facilities to "volunteer" to enter the TNRCC permitting process, but it does not close the grandfathered loophole when the voluntary period ends. It only requires TNRCC to report to the Legislature in 2001 how many grandfathered plants have entered the voluntary program and what emissions reductions have resulted.
S.B. 766 establishes a new "grandfathered" status for pollution control technology.
The bill DOES NOT require grandfathered facilities coming into the permitting process to use current Best Available Control Technology (BACT), subject to economic and technical practicability, to achieve significant and measurable reductions of pollutant emissions. The bill sets up a new "grandfathered" status by saying the currently grandfathered facilities are only going to be required to use BACT that was in effect TEN YEARS AGO. Although the permit is subject to renewal, which might require a technological upgrade in years to come, a 10-year-old BACT requirement will not produce the greatest possible pollution reductions.
S.B. 766 does NOT require important public safeguards and citizen rights which are part of the normal permitting process for sources of air pollution.
The bill does NOT require that a grandfathered facility coming into the permitting process be subject to the following traditional requirements for sources of air pollution, such as:
· a full public health effects review;
· local public hearings (upon request) on a permit; or
· an opportunity for citizens to request a contested case hearing on a permit.
S.B. 766 allows trading of emissions of different types of pollutants within a single permit
The bill allows deferral of the implementation of reductions of emissions of certain air contaminants in return for "substantial emissions reductions" of other air contaminants. Although this trading may be based on TNRCC "prioritization" it sets up a potentially complex situation which does not specify how public input to this decision is provided or considered.
S.B. 766 establishes a complex, unworkable, and ineffective new type of permit known as an "emissions permit through environmental mitigation project."
Under this new form of permit a grandfathered facility would be able to escape making reductions in emissions if the company made reductions in emissions from other sources in the state OR if the company undertook some other "feel good" projects such as creating a wildlife or plant preserve or setting up an environmental education program. The latter types of projects have no direct benefit for air quality, and comparing their value to the value of reducing air pollution is like comparing apples to oranges. Moreover, many companies are already undertaking these kinds of projects, and they would be getting credit for these activities while making no improvements in air quality.
S.B. 766 allows a company with multiple plants in Texas to reduce air emissions at plants in some communities while continuing to emit unacceptable levels of air pollution in other areas.
The multiple plant permit would allow a company to have a cap placed on its total emissions in the state but allow the company to choose which of its plants would reduce emissions and which would keep air emissions at current levels. This situation raises serious environmental equity concerns.
S.B. 766 creates a new type of "standard permit" which would be available to NEW sources of air pollution as well as grandfathered plants and DENIES citizens the right to request for a contested case proceeding for NEW facilities seeking a standard permit as well as grandfathered facilities seeking a standard permit.
This bill allows TNRCC to expand dramatically the use of standard permits for NEW and grandfathered facilities (NO LIMITATION IS PUT ON THE VOLUME OF EMISSIONS THAT MIGHT BE AUTHORIZED UNDER A STANDARD PERMIT) and DENIES citizens the right to request a contested case proceeding for a NEW facility as well as for a grandfathered facility. In other words, this section of the bill would accomplish for many if not most air pollution control permits the same denial of contested case proceeding opportunities that the controversial H.B. 801 as filed would have done for almost all pollution control permits issued by TNRCC.
S.B. 766 does NOT eliminate the "volume discount" on air pollution.
The bill does not eliminate the current cap on the volume of annual air pollution emissions subject to an operating permit fee used to fund state air pollution control activities (currently emissions of air contaminants in excess of 4,000 tons per year from any source are not subject to the fee, meaning that smaller sources of air pollution pay a disproportionately larger share of the fee than larger sources do).