Lawmakers did hold a couple of hearings to take testimony about the fires in early April, but they have failed to take any significant direct action to address underlying causes of the danger. This is despite the fact that frightening, and in one case deadly, evidence of a systemic problem in the Houston area flared up in March and April.

To recap: On March 16, a fire ignited at the ExxonMobil Refinery in Baytown, Texas, concerning the local community. A day later, another fire broke out at the Intercontinental Terminal facility near Deer Park. This blaze raged for days, casting a massive plume of toxic smoke over the region and forcing school children to shelter in place. Traffic in the Houston Ship Channel halted for nearly a week, causing an estimated $1 billion in economic losses.

Less than two weeks later, on April 2, a chemical tank at the KMCO plant in Crosby ignited, once again sending a toxic plume of smoke into the air. This time the fire proved fatal; one KMCO plant worker died and 10 others were injured. One might think three chemical fires in two weeks would prompt urgent bipartisan action by the Texas legislature, but that is not the case.

The Legislature did hold two hearings – one on April 4 and another on April 5 – to hear from state and local environmental officials, but not affected members of the public. Because Houston residents were not invited to testify at the April 5 hearing, Public Citizen, Air Alliance Houston and numerous community activists staged a press conference at the Texas Capitol on the same day. The event received significant media attention statewide, ensuring that community voices were heard.

During both hearings, Toby Baker, the executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, admitted that his agency lacks the authority to regulate above-ground petroleum storage tanks. Environmental advocates were already supporting SB 1446, a bill by Senator Nathan Johnson of Dallas, that would grant TCEQ the authority to develop best practices for these tanks. Before these disasters, SB 1446 was dead on arrival. Once it became apparent that TCEQ needed authority over storage tanks, advocates began pushing for a hearing on the bill.

After considerable pressure was applied to the Senate Water and Rural Affairs Committee and its chairman Senator Charles Perry, the bill finally got a hearing on April 29. Although this hearing did not lead to the bill’s passage out of committee, Chairman Perry stated repeatedly that an interim charge – or special legislative action post-session – is needed on the issue of above ground storage tanks. This commitment would not have happened without our advocacy on the issue.

The post 86th Texas Legislature Punts on Houston Chemical Fires appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

Earlier this, week, I spent time with some very fine folks from the United Steel Workers Local 13-1. Since April 22nd, about 235 workers have been locked out of the Dow Chemical facility in Deer Park, with the company citing failed labor negotiations. The workers have not been receiving pay or benefits since that time.

One of the union leaders told me that even though the workers were willing to continue working until negotiations had been reached, the company still locked them out.

The union members are an important part of the workforce and they help ensure safe operations. With all the incidents that have happened over recent months along the ship channel, such as the ITC Disaster, safety needs to be a top concern.

The workers are asking for your support. They are receiving donations to help the impacted families.

HOW YOU CAN HELP…

Specific items needed are posted on the USW website.

Make donations in person to either union hall:
USW 13-1 North Union Hall (Located Near the DOW Facility)
311 Pasadena Blvd.
Pasadena, TX 77506
Monday-Friday 8 AM – 4 PM
* Please call if making a donation outside of these times: 713-473-3381

USW 13-1 South Union Hall
2327 Texas Avenue
Texas City, TX 77590
Monday-Friday 1 PM-5 PM
* Please call if making a donation outside of these times: 409-945-2355

Because these workers are not receiving pay or benefits, anything that you can offer will go a long way toward supporting them and their families.

The post United Steel Workers Locked Out appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

Note: Today the Texas House of Representative’s Committee on Elections held a public hearing on Senate Bill 9, which would suppress votes in Texas by creating new criminal penalties and requirements for voters and election administrators. In an unusual move, registration for public testimony on the bill was closed by 8:30 a.m. CT. Even though hundreds of people had registered in advance of the hastily imposed deadline, hundreds more did not arrive in time. Certain members of the committee and the public are now calling on Committee Chairman Stephanie Klick to reopen testimony. The Elections Committee hearing will resume when the House finishes its business for the day.

Statement by Adrian Shelley, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office

Make no mistake: This bill is an attempt to suppress voters, and this attempt to gag witness testimony only proves that. Hundreds of people traveled to Austin from across Texas to voice their opposition to this bill. Now, due to an arbitrary decision by Chairman Klick, the people’s voices will not be heard. If our lawmakers are confident that this bill is about “election integrity” and not voter suppression, then they have nothing to fear from the testimony of hundreds of civic-minded Texans. Klick and the members of the Elections Committee still have an opportunity to reopen testimony and let Texas voters be heard. We must do that now.

The post Texans Must be Heard on Voter Suppression Bill appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

• Basic: Customers are charged the same rate for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) they use.

• Tiered Rates: The cost per kWh changes as the customer uses more electricity. The structure is the same as for federal income taxes. The customer pays one rate for the first block of energy (say up to 500 kWh) and a different rate for the next block of energy (say between 501 and 1,000 kWh). The number of tiers can vary.

Electric utilities have many options when it comes to billing residential energy usage. Tiered rates offer an opportunity for electric utilities to encourage decreased energy usage. This may help decrease our reliance on nonrenewable resources and reduce costs. Following my research on the largest 100 municipal electrical utilities, I have come across some hopeful examples of tiered rate structures which promote energy conservation. Others, however, may have the opposite effect.

Tiered rates can be used as a useful tool to conserve energy usage but only when the rate goes up in price as energy use increases. Not all electric services offer tiered rates. Even when they do, you typically only see 2 or 3 tiers that go up minimally in price.

Austin Energy provides an excellent example of how a municipal electric utility can promote reduced energy usage through a multilayered tiered rate structure. With 5 tiers that go up by roughly 2 cents for every 500 kWh increase in energy, customers have an incentive to cut down on their energy consumption. Bristol Tennessee Essential Services has a tiered structure with 6 tiers, the most tiers I found throughout my research.

The downfalls to tiered rate structures occur when utilities instead discount higher energy consumption. This structure is counterproductive to achieving a less energy dependent future in our society, and reflect and the challenge of getting electric utilities to encourage conservation when their business models are dependent upon selling more electricity. Many utilities implement this backwards billing structure to customers only in the winter. Georgia Power visualizes this tendency on its website.

The majority of utilities (11 out of 18) that discount increased energy consumption in the winter are located in the South. Because winters are mild in the South and many customers use natural gas for heating, customers in this region don’t use as much energy in the winter. This leads me to believe that these discounts are intended to encourage increased energy usage in the winter, as a way to boost electric utility revenue. Some of the more northern utilities that have declining tiered rates – including Rochester Public Utilities – may have less sinister motives, namely to help customers avoid high bills during cold snaps, but this would bear additional research. In this time where it is imperative to promote decreases in energy usage, municipal utility utilities cannot be hesitant to adopt increasing tiered structures regardless of the time of year.

The City of North Little Rock Electric Company has done exactly this. Their tiered rate structure once discounted prices as consumption increased. These outdated rate structures, like many others like this, were in place since 2006. They recognize that this discounted structure is inconsistent with encouraging conservation and promise to eliminate these declining price blocks over a three year period.

Many other utilities can, and should, do the same. One more common theme I have encountered are extremely outdated rate structures. Jonesboro City Water & Light utility in Arkansas, has maintained the same rates since 1984.

Times have changed, particularly in values of consumption, in the past 35 years. I urge municipal utilities to update their rate structures in order to stay up to stay consistent with conservation values. Tiered rate structures have the capacity to encourage customers to become more conscious of their energy usage and to decrease their total usage. I encourage utilities to follow in the same path as Little Rock by hiring a company such as Utility Financial Solutions to review and improve current and outdated utility rate structures. In this way, electric utilities may begin to implement rate structures that encourage energy consumption while also not imposing too dramatic of an increase in bills for customers.

The post Tiered Electric Rates: Encouraging Conservation or Overconsumption appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

Once again, Public Citizen will be at EarthX Expo at Fair Park in Dallas, TX from April 26 thru the 28th celebrating Earth Day. Stop by our booth in the Centennial Building #4742 . The Expo is open from 10 AM to 6 PM each day.

Need Directions getting there? Click here. And you can register for free admission by clicking here.

There will be tons to do and see. Check out the event guide by clicking here. And don’t forget to come by and visit with us!

The post Celebrate Earth Day with the Texas office of Public Citizen in Dallas at EarthX appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

As more Texans look to solar energy to power their homes and businesses as a way to save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Texas Sen. Jose Menendez is working to win passage of a bill that would provide standards for the industry in the state.

CSSB 2066, sponsored by the San Antonio Democrat, aims to give residential and small commercial customers in many parts of Texas standards they can rely on when considering the use of distributed generation. A steady uptick in the number of small businesses and homeowners switching to solar is improving affordability for residents, reducing operating costs for businesses, and creating local jobs. There are now over 50,000 Texas residents and businesses using distributed solar energy. And over 9,600 people are employed in the solar industry in Texas.

All of this is good news and the average solar customer has a positive experience and is happy to be paying less for electricity while doing something reduce air pollution, improve public health and address climate change. But, the lack of statewide standards has led to frustration and bad practices in some cases. This bill would start the process of standardizing what should be included in a solar lease, and where and how customers have a right to utilize distributed solar energy.

To learn more about this important legislation that Public Citizen supports, read the full testimony from Adrian Shelley, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, below.

To the members of the Senate Committee on Business and Commerce.

Via hand delivery.

April 16, 2019

Re: CSSB 2066 (Menendez) – Relating to on-site distributed generation and energy storage

resources.

Supporting testimony of Public Citizen.

Dear Chairman Hancock and members of the committee:

Public Citizen appreciates the opportunity to support the committee substitute for Senate Bill 2066. We recommend reinstating language from SECTION 6 of the bill as filed to protect customers from unfair utility rates, fees and practices.

What the bill does.

This bill would set standards that residential and small commercial customers in many parts of Texas can rely on when considering the use of distributed generation. A growing number of Texas residents and businesses are utilizing distributed solar energy systems to reduce their electric bills. This is improving affordability for residents, reducing operating costs for businesses, and creating local jobs. There are now over 50,000 Texas residents and businesses using distributed solar energy. And over 9,600 people are employed in the solar industry in Texas. All of this is good news and the average solar customer has a positive experience and is happy to be paying less for electricity while doing something reduce air pollution, improve public health and address climate change. 

But, the lack of statewide standards has led to frustration and bad practices in some cases. This bill would start the process of standardizing what should be included in a solar lease, and where and how customers have a right to utilize distributed solar energy.

The bill is properly limited to renewable energy.

We support the change in the committee substitute to utilize the existing definition of “distributed renewable generation” found in Section 39.916(a)(1) of the Utilities Code. We had concerns about the safety and environmental risks of including distributed fossil fuel generators in this legislation. This fix addresses those concerns.

Standards for solar leases established.

Solar leases are a common tool that can allow certain customers to access distributed solar energy systems who may not otherwise be able to do so. They are especially helpful for nonprofits and other customers who don’t have tax liability, as a way to access the benefits of the federal solar investment tax credit. They are also attractive for customers who don’t want to be responsible for maintenance.

While they can be beneficial, they are also often quite complicated and customers can sometimes find themselves trapped in a bad agreement that wasn’t what they expected. Every industry, including solar, has good actors and bad. Most companies that offer solar leases already comply with the provisions proposed in SECTION 1 of this bill. This short list of requirements establishes standards to protect the customer that all companies offering solar leases must abide by. In addition to information about equipment, costs, maintenance and warranties, terms regarding the transfer of the lease to a future property owner would be clearly stated in writing.

Municipal regulation of distributed solar.

In most Texas towns and cities, residents and business are able to install distributed solar energy systems on their property. As with any electrical work, a permit and inspection may be required. That represents a fair and smart balance between allowing property owners to benefit from this valuable resource and protecting the city and other residents and businesses from harm.

In the past, some homeowners associations would ban or severely restrict distributed solar installations, but the Texas Legislature acted in 2011 and 2015 to set standards for how HOAs can regulate solar energy systems. SECTION 4 of this clarifies the inspection and interconnection process that an HOA can impose on a property owner. SECTION 2 applies some of the same standards set for HOAs to municipalities.

Don’t remove standards for utility interconnection and rates for customers with solar.

SECTION 6 of SB 2066 as filed added Utilities Code Sec. 39.1015, which would have set minimum standards for how investor owned utilities should treat customers wishing to utilize distributed generation and energy storage. Numerous studies have shown that distributed solar energy provides greater financial benefit than is accounted for even through full net metering. Texas is one of only 5 states that have no net metering requirement, and this language would not have changed that. It would only have prohibited investor owned utilities from unfairly punishing customers who wish to use solar and or energy storage at their homes and businesses. Utilities would be required to provide timely interconnection of distributed generation and would not be allowed to charge customers punitive rates simply because they chose to utilize distributed generation or energy storage. These are important and needed protections, as some utilities have already proposed and others enacted punitive rates and fees for such customers.

We recommend restoring from the original SECTION 6 of the bill Utilities Code Sec. 39.1015(c)-(j), with the following slightly edited version of subsection (f). This language will ensure that utilities can use fairly calculated tariffs:

(f)  Except for a charge to recover a cost described by Subsection (e) or an electric utility’s interconnection fee applicable to the original installation of a customer’s on-site distributed generation or energy storage resource, an electric utility may not impose a higher rate or charge on a residential or small commercial customer utilizing on-site distributed generation or energy storage resources. Any specific tariffs for residential or small commercial customer utilizing on-site distributed generation or energy storage resources must be calculated so as to fairly compensate customers for the full value of the energy services they provide.

We support CSSB 2066.

We encourage this committee reinstate the language from SECTION 6 of the original bill adding Utilities Code Sec. 39.1015(c)-(j), with the edits described above, and then pass CSSB 2066 favorably out of committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony, if you would like to discuss our position further, I can be reached by email at ashelley@citizen.org or by phone at 512-477-1155.

Respectfully,

Adrian Shelley, Texas Office Director

Public Citizen

CC: Sen. Robert Nichols, Sen. Donna Campbell, Sen. Brandon Creighton, Sen. José Menéndez, Sen. Angela Paxton, Sen. Charles Schwertner, Sen. John Whitmire, Sen. Judith Zaffirini

The post Menendez bill would give residential solar users more certainty appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

That’s why Public Citizen is backing CSSB 1931, a bill in the Texas Senate sponsored by Sen. Judith Zaffirini, a Laredo Democrat. The bill would provide the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) with another tool to review environmental permit applications: a criminal background check of officers or governing persons.

This good legislation by Zaffirini would give TCEQ authority to deny a permit application, or revoke or suspend a permit, if the applicant has been convicted of a crime directly related to the duties and responsibilities of a permit holder, or a crime involving moral turpitude within the last five years.

Why is this necessary? Well, there are several examples in Texas of criminal conduct at companies with environmental permits. Some of these companies eventually had large pollution events or accidents.

Adrian Shelley, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, lays out several examples in his letter to lawmakers below. We urge the Texas Legislature to approve this important bill.

To the members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Economic Development.

Via hand delivery.

April 11, 2019

Re: CSSB 1931 (Zaffirini) – relating to the authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to access criminal history record information and to use a conviction of certain criminal offenses as a ground for denying, revoking, or suspending certain permits.

Supporting testimony of Public Citizen

Dear Chairman Birdwell and members of the committee:

Public Citizen appreciates the opportunity to testify for CSSB 1931. The bill would provide the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) with another tool to review permit applications: a criminal background check of officers or governing persons.

SECTION 3 of the bill grants authority to the TCEQ to deny a permit application, or revoke or suspend a permit, if the applicant has been convicted of a crime directly related to the duties and responsibilities of a permit holder, or a crime involving moral turpitude within the last five years.

There are several examples in Texas of criminal conduct at companies with environmental permits. Some of these companies eventually had large pollution events or accidents. Here are a few examples:

Theft plagues the scrap metal recycling industry, typically involving the sale of stolen materials to a recycling company. In 2011, the legislature passed HB 1933 (Wayne Smith), which provided for more documentation and recordkeeping within the scrap metal industry, provided penalties for criminal conduct, and created a grant program for theft prevention in the industry. In 2013, Harris County passed a regulation requiring license applicants to provide, among other things,

A statement of whether the individual applicant, any partner in a partnership, or any officer or director of a corporation, has been arrested, charged, or convicted for any criminal offense in this state or any other state or country: if arrested or jailed for any such offense, list the offense, the date of the arrest or confinement, and the place, court and case number of the case;[1]

In one of the more prominent Superfund cases in recent years, a German citizen named Klaus Genssler operated a fraudulent hazardous waste recycling company called U.S. Oil Recovery in Harris County. Gennsler failed to properly handle or store hazardous wastes on his Pasadena property, engaging in egregious conduct such as purchasing and filling a nearby wastewater treatment plant with hazardous waste. Although we aren’t aware of any previous criminal convictions for Genssler, violations at his site were first documented by OSHA in 2008, he was sued by Harris County in 2009, and the site was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List (Superfund) in 2010. Gennsler was eventually indicted on six felony counts of improper handling and storage of hazardous waste, whereupon he led the country and remains a fugitive from justice.[2]

In another unfortunate case in Pasadena, the Pasadena Refining System, Inc oil refinery was negligently operated by Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil company. Pasadena Refining was at the center of a 10-year bribery scandal that eventually led to the impeachment of Brazil’s president Dilma Rousseff.[3] The refinery was sold for the hugely inflated price of $1.2 billion, most of which turned out to be overpayments in a bribery scheme. Petrobras was the subject of 25 securities fraud cases. During this time, Pasadena Refining was poorly operated and plagues with large, hazardous pollution events, including an explosion in 2011, a $750,000 settlement with Harris County in 2012, and an explosion and fire in 2016 that injured one.[4] In 2018 the company settled a clean air citizen suit for more than $3 million.[5]

None of these cases speaks directly to the situation addressed by CSSB 1931, in which a permit applicant has a governing member who has been convicted of certain crimes in the past. But each situation demonstrates that when criminal conduct follows environmental permitting, disaster is likely. For this reason, we support CSSB 1931.

Respectfully,

Adrian Shelley, Texas Office Director, Public Citizen

CC:      Sen. Judith Zaffirini, Sen. Pat Fallon, Sen. Peter P. Flores, Sen. Kelly Hancock, Sen. Juan Hinojosa, Sen. Bryan Hughes, Sen. Borris L. Miles, Sen. Angela Paxton, Sen. Beverly Powell, Sen. José R. Rodríguez

[1] See “Regulations of Harris County, Texas Governing Metal Recycling Entities” adopted Dec. 4, 2012, effective Jan. 1, 2013, available at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5390d7a1e4b0f5b00cae341b/t/5499ee9be4b04808026daa5b/1419374235791/MetalRecyclingRegsEffJan2013.pdf; see also https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/County-targets-metal-thieves-with-heap-of-new-new-4091318.php (attached).

[2] See https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Pasadena-Superfund-site-s-owner-indicted-missing-4342439.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral (attached).

[3] See https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Brazilian-scandal-centers-on-purchase-of-Pasadena-6618757.php (attached).

[4] See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-refinery-fire-pasadena-petrobras-idUSKCN0W70R1.

[5] See https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/26/houston-area-refinery-agrees-pay-millions-settle-air-pollution-suit/.

The post TCEQ needs authority to consider criminal conduct in environmental permit applications – support Senate bill 1931 appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

Oil and gas pipelines are also inherently dangerous, and that’s why Public Citizen’s Texas office is always keeping a close eye on bills in the state legislature that would improve protections against human injury and/or environmental damage from pipelines, or bills that would erode safeguards.

Adrian Shelley, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, testified before the legislature this week on three commonsense bills to help make Texas pipelines safer. The bills, sponsored by Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, would:

• Require prompt disclosure of pipeline incidents to the Railroad Commission, which will facilitate response and preparation for future incidents.

• Require the use of safer plastic pipelines by gas pipeline operators
• Create a system for identifying the severity of pipeline leaks and the proscription of an appropriate immediate response to the worst leaks.

We applaud Rep. Anchia for introducing these important bills (CSHB 864, CSHB 866 and CSHB 868). Read more about each of the bills in Shelley’s testimony below.

To the members of the House Committee on Energy Resources

Via hand delivery.

April 8, 2019

Re: CSHB 864 (Anchia) – relating to pipeline incident reporting requirements for gas pipeline operators; clarifying changes to related administrative penalties. Supporting testimony of Public Citizen.

Dear Chairman Paddie and members of the committee:

Public Citizen appreciates the opportunity to testify for CSHB 864 (Anchia) – relating to pipeline incident reporting requirements for distribution gas facility pipeline operators; clarifying changes to related administrative penalties. We are supportive because the bill requires prompt disclosure of pipeline incidents to the Railroad Commission, which will facilitate response and preparation for future incidents.

SECTION 1 of the bill clarifies that a violation of Subchapter E (Pipeline Safety) of the Utilities Code is punishable by a fine under Utilities Code Sec. 121.206, which provides for a penalty of up to $200,000 per violation, with a cap at $2 million.

SECTION 2 of the bill defines “pipeline incident” as one involving a death, $50,000 in property damage, or the release of three million cubic feet of gas. The bill requires operators to report such incidents to the Railroad commission within one hour of discovery, sharing information including the time, location, and certain other details of the incident, as well as any relevant facts including those related to “ignition, explosion, rerouting of traffic, evacuation of a building, and media interest.” The Railroad Commission is asked to retain information about such incidents perpetually.

Pipeline incidents are quite common in Texas, and HB 864 establishes criteria for the reporting of incidents that meet a given threshold. The gathering and maintenance of this information by the Railroad commission will facilitate in the response to a given incident, as well as gather data that may be useful in responding to future incidents.

Because CSHB 864 requires disclosure to the Railroad Commission of certain pipeline incidents, we are supportive.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony, if you wish to discuss our position further, I can be reached by email at ashelley@citizen.org or by phone at 512-477-1155.

Respectfully,

Adrian Shelley, Texas Office Director, Public Citizen

CC: Rep. Abel Herrero, Rep. Rafael Anchia, Rep. Ernest Bailes, Rep. Tom Craddick, Rep. Drew Darby, Rep. Charlie Geren, Rep. Roland Gutierrez, Rep. Cody Harris, Rep. Mary Ann Perez, Rep. Jon E. Rosenthal.

——————————————————————————-

To the members of the House Committee on Energy Resources.

Via hand delivery.

April 8, 2019

Re: CSHB 866 (Anchia) – relating to the replacement of certain gas pipelines with plastic pipelines; clarifying changes to related administrative penalties.

Supporting testimony of Public Citizen.

Dear Chairman Paddie and members of the committee:

Public Citizen appreciates the opportunity to testify for CSHB 866 (Anchia) – relating to the replacement of certain gas pipelines with plastic pipelines; clarifying changes to related administrative penalties. We are supportive because the bill requires the use of plastic pipelines, which are safer and reduce risk of leaks.

SECTION 1 of the bill clarifies that a violation of Subchapter E (Pipeline Safety) of the Utilities Code is punishable by a fine under Utilities Code Sec. 121.206, which provides for a penalty of up to $200,000 per violation, with a cap at $2 million.

SECTION 2 of the bill prevents operators from installing cast iron, wrought iron, or bar steel pipelines. Existing pipelines constructed of these materials are among the oldest and riskiest pipelines in use. The bill also requires operators to develop a “risk-based program” for removing and replacing old pipelines, with the riskiest eight percent of pipelines removed or replaced each year. This represents a sixty percent increase in the annual replacement rate described at 16 TAC Section 8.209(h), which sets an annual replacement rate of five percent. All cast iron pipelines must be replaced by December 31, 2021.

Because CSHB 866 requires the use of safer plastic pipelines by gas pipeline operators, we are supportive.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony, if you wish to discuss our position further, I can be reached by email at ashelley@citizen.org or by phone at 512-477-1155.

Respectfully,

Adrian Shelley, Texas Office Director, Public Citizen

CC: Rep. Abel Herrero, Rep. Rafael Anchia, Rep. Ernest Bailes, Rep. Tom Craddick, Rep. Drew Darby, Rep. Charlie Geren, Rep. Roland Gutierrez, Rep. Cody Harris, Rep. Mary Ann Perez, Rep. Jon E. Rosenthal.

————————————————————————–

To the members of the House Committee on Energy Resources.

Via hand delivery.

April 8, 2019 Re: CSHB 868 (Anchia) – relating to gas pipeline operator disclosure of the location of pipeline leaks; clarifying changes to related administrative penalties.

Supporting testimony of Public Citizen.

Dear Chairman Paddie and members of the committee:

Public Citizen appreciates the opportunity to testify for CSHB 868 (Anchia) – relating to gas pipeline operator disclosure of the location of pipeline leaks; clarifying changes to related administrative penalties. We are supportive because

SECTION 1 of the bill clarifies that a violation of Subchapter E (Pipeline Safety) of the Utilities Code is punishable by a fine under Utilities Code Sec. 121.206, which provides for a penalty of up to $200,000 per violation, with a cap at $2 million.

SECTION 2 of the bill requires distribution gas pipeline facility operators to report pipeline leaks to the Railroad Commission and publish on the Internet information about leaks including “the exact census block and the location of each leak on a map.”

The bill also establishes a leak grading system and proscribes certain remedial actions for “grade one leaks,” defined as those that present an “existing or probably hazard to persons or property” and requires “immediate action.”

Public Citizen supports the effort to create a system for identifying the severity of pipeline leaks and the proscription of an appropriate immediate response to the worst leaks. We also believe that the public deserves immediate access to information about hazards in their community, information that will allow them to make their own decisions about risk and take their own precautions to limit exposure. For this reason, we are supportive of Internet posting of leak information. Because CSHB 868 increases disclosure and response to pipeline leaks, we are supportive.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony, if you wish to discuss our position further, I can be reached by email at ashelley@citizen.org or by phone at 512-477-1155.

Respectfully,

Adrian Shelley, Texas Office Director, Public Citizen

CC: Rep. Abel Herrero, Rep. Rafael Anchia, Rep. Ernest Bailes, Rep. Tom Craddick, Rep. Drew Darby, Rep. Charlie Geren, Rep. Roland Gutierrez, Rep. Cody Harris, Rep. Mary Ann Perez, Rep. Jon E. Rosenthal.

The post Public Citizen backs bills to protect public from pipeline accidents appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

This bill continues a multi-session trend by Rep. Sarah Davis, a Houston Republican, to try to improve Texas’ notoriously weak public ethics laws. In fact, in a 2015 state integrity investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, Texas was given a D- for its poor ethics laws.

HB 784 defines a “financial interest” as a five percent ownership or control interest that could result in a financial benefit.

Under the legislation, if an individual’s financial interest could lead to a conflict of interest with a position on a state agency governing board or as a governing officer, then the individual must disclose the conflict and recuse from decisions on the matter. The bill includes an emergency exception for situations in which a majority of decision makers have a conflict.

Disclosures are filed with the Texas Ethics Commission and are public information. Disclosures at institutions of higher education are still governed by the Education Code. Knowing failure to disclose is a Class B misdemeanor.

During the 85^th special session this bill was reported favorably out of the General Investigating and Ethics Committee as HB 18 with 6 Ayes and 1 Absent. Because HB 784 applies ethics controls to agency officials, we are supportive.

[1] See https://publicintegrity.org/accountability/texas-gets-d-grade-in-2015-state-integrity-investigation/.

The post Public Citizen supports bill to curb conflicts of interest in Texas government appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

So we’re having a rally & press conference to give effected residents space to share their stories. Whether you’re from Deer Park or another part of Houston or just want to stand in solidarity with frontline communities who are being polluted and silenced, we invite you to join us.

The rally and press conference will be at 9:30 in the Open-Air Rotunda in the Capitol extension (E2).

The joint hearing will take place at 10:30 AM or upon adjournment of the Texas House of Representatives, at the Texas Capitol in Hearing Room E1.030. Or you can stream the hearing live at https://house.texas.gov/video-audio/.

Invited Testimony will be allowed from the following (15 minutes each)

• Mr. Toby Baker, Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
• Mr. Francisco Sanchez, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator, Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management
• Mr. David Gray, Deputy Regional Administrator for Region 6, US Environmental Protection Agency
• The Honorable Jerry Mouton, Mayor, City of Deer Park, Texas

We have heard there will be a hearing in or near Deer Park after the session. The last day of the regular Texas Legislative session is May 27th.

The post Invited Testimony Only at TX Legislative Hearing on ITC Disaster, but Public will Speak at Rally Friday Morning appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

That’s why Public Citizen and others are participating in peaceful street/sidewalk protests in major Texas cities and around the nation on Thursday to insist that Trump’s hand-picked attorney general release the full report. Barr missed a congressional deadline to release the report on Tuesday night.

We deserve the full report and congressional leaders and the American people expect it now.

Here are the Texas events. We hope to see you out there!

AUSTIN

WHEN: Thursday, April 4 at noon to 7 p.m.

WHERE: 6th St and Lamar Blvd or your neighborhood!

We will be there ALL day, 12 noon to 7p so people can come when their schedule permits. We are taking our message to the streets. Fill the sidewalks with our DEMAND that the Mueller Report be released in full and unredacted form. Bring your signs. We will be in a very busy area and able to impact THOUSANDS. Numbers Matter. Let our Legislators see that this matters to us!!!!!

DALLAS

WHEN: Thursday, April 4 at 5 p.m.

WHERE: Dallas City Hall Plaza, 1500 Marilla Street

FORT WORTH

WHEN: Thursday, April 4 at 5 p.m.

WHERE:Mahon U.S. Courthouse (Burnett Park), 501 W. 10^th Street

HOUSTON

Thursday, April 4 at 5 p.m.

WHERE: Houston City Hall, 901 Bagby Street

GALVESTON

WHEN: Thursday, April 4 at 5 p.m.

WHERE: Federal Building, 601 25^th Street (sidewalk in front)

The post Street Protests in Texas Thursday to Demand Release of Mueller Report appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

Since the storm, Public Citizen has repeatedly asked the question: Who Pays for Harvey? The answer remains elusive.

HB 274 sponsored by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione provides one solution to this problem, creating the disaster reinvestment and infrastructure planning revolving fund and making a one-time appropriation of $1 billion from the economic stabilization fund.

Public Citizen supports the creation of this fund and the appropriation as one means to pay for Harvey recovery and for that of future storms.

We have commented on similar legislation by Representative Phelan (HB 478 and HB 13) about the need to expand the definition of infrastructure projects to explicitly include green or natural infrastructure projects.

Specifically, we have recommended the addition of “conservation of land, wetlands, or riparian habitats” to the definition of “flood project” at Water Code Sec. 15.531. We understand that this bill’s author Rep. Davis is amenable to such improvements.

We support CSHB 274 because it provides a fund for recovery from Hurricane Harvey and future storms, and because there is opportunity to include green infrastructure projects in the fund.

The post Who pays for Hurricane Harvey? appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

The post Another Chemical Fire, This One Deadly; Stronger Protections, Enforcement Needed at Chemical Plants appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

In essence, Public Citizen’s fears that HB 2730, sponsored by Republican Rep. Jeff Leach of Plano, would seriously undermine critical free speech safeguards for Texans who participate in public discussions about businesses and political issues.

Such speech is currently protected by the Texas Citizens Participation Act – commonly known as TCPA, and also known as the Texas anti-SLAPP law. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, and Public Citizen attorney Paul Levy submitted written testimony to the committee today that elaborates on our position. Shelley also testified in person during today’s hearing.

Michelle L., a Florida woman who raised health alarms about a medical study she had participated in before becoming wary of the program also spoke out on the bill today. Michelle was sued in Houston (where her LLC was located) for raising public concerns about the medical study. Public Citizen’s lawyers took on her case pro bono and prevailed in part by using the TCPA law that Leach and others want to modify.

“The TCPA (law) is ultimately what helped,” Lanham told the House Judiciary Committee. “People are scared to talk and this is very important.”

You can read the official Public Citizen testimony in opposition to HB 2730 below.

The post Public Citizen Opposes Anti-Free Speech Bill in TX House appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

You can send and email to support these recommendations.

What the Bill Does

This bill would set standards that residential and small commercial customers in many parts of Texas can rely on when considering the use of distributed generation. A growing number of Texas residents and businesses are utilizing distributed solar energy systems to reduce their electric bills. This is improving affordability for residents, reducing operating costs for businesses, and creating local jobs.

There are now over 14,000 Texas residents and businesses using distributed solar energy. And over 9,600 people are employed in the solar industry in Texas. All of this is good news and the average solar customer has a positive experience and is happy to be paying less for electricity while doing something reduce air pollution, improve public health and address climate change.

But, the lack of statewide standards has led to frustration and bad practices in some cases. This bill would start the process of standardizing what should be included in a solar lease, where and how customers have a right to utilize distributed solar energy, and how electric utilities should treat customers who use or wish to use solar.

Change Needed to Avoid Safety and Environmental Hazards

Section 6 of this bill would add Section 39.1015(a) to the Utilities Code to define “distributed generation.” It expands the definition of “distributed renewable generation” found in Section 39.916(a)(1) of the Utilities Code, to all energy sources. This expanded term is referenced throughout this bill and would limit the ability of HOAs, municipalities and electric utilities from regulating the use of fossil fuel generators if they were connected behind the meter. While it is unlikely that many residential or small commercial customers would utilize such generators because of the relatively high cost, we don’t think this is a wise change.

As the Association of Electric Companies of Texas (AECT) pointed out in its letter to the House Committee on State Affairs, there are “safety and environmental risks associated with generators that use fossil fuel.” This is the one statement in that letter that we agree with. Fossil fuel generators, are noisy, polluting, often include exposed elements that get very hot and include moving parts. These are not characteristics that many would welcome into their residential or mixed-use neighborhoods.

This problem can be remedied by simply using the definition of “distributed renewable generation” everywhere that you currently find the new definition of “distributed generation” referenced. The remainder of this testimony is written assuming this change was made.

Standards for Solar Leases

Solar leases are a common tool that can allow certain customers to access distributed solar energy systems that may not otherwise be able to do so. They are especially helpful for nonprofits and other customers who don’t have tax liability, as a way to access the benefits of the federal solar investment tax credit. They are also attractive for customers who don’t want to be responsible for maintenance.

While they can be beneficial, they are also often quite complicated and customers can sometimes find themselves trapped in a bad agreement that wasn’t what they expected. Every industry has its good actors and bad actors and the solar industry is the same. Most companies that offer solar leases already comply with the provisions proposed in Section 1 of this bill. This short list of requirements will simply establish a standard that all companies offering solar leases must abide by, in order to protect the customer. In addition to information about equipment, costs, maintenance and warranties, terms regarding the transfer of the lease to a future property owner would need to be clearly stated in writing.

Homeowner Association and Municipal Regulation of Distributed Solar

In most Texas towns and cities, residents and business are able to install distributed solar energy systems on their property. As with any electrical work a permit and inspection may be required. That represents a fair and smart balance between allowing property owners to benefit from this valuable resource and protecting the city and other residents and businesses from harm.

In the past, some homeowners associations would ban or severely restrict distributed solar installations, but the Texas Legislature acted in 2011 and 2015 to set standards for how HOAs can and cannot regulate the use of solar energy systems. Section 4 of this bill would clarify the allowable inspection and interconnection process that an HOA can impose on a property owner. Section 2 would apply some of the same standards set for HOAs to municipalities.

Fair Utility Rates and Practices for Customers with Solar

Section 6 of this bill would set minimum standards for how investor owned utilities should treat customers wishing to utilize distributed generation and energy storage. Numerous studies have shown that distributed solar energy provides greater financial benefit than is accounted for even through full net metering. Texas is one of only 5 states that have no net metering requirement and this bill would not change that. It would only prohibit investor owned utilities from unfairly punishing customers who wish to use solar and or energy storage at their homes and businesses. Utilities would be required to provide timely interconnection of distributed generation and would not be allowed to charge customers punitive rates simply because they chose to utilize distributed generation or energy storage.

Recommendation

We encourage Texas House Committee on State Affairs to amend CSHB 2860 to utilize the existing definition of “distributed renewable generation” and then pass it out of committee.

You can email the committee to support this recommendation.

The post Texas Solar Bill of Rights appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

Rep. Brooks Landgraf’s HB 2269 is scheduled for a hearing late this afternoon in the Texas House Committee on Environmental Regulation.

This bad bill would allow the expansion of Waste Control Specialists’ radioactive waste dump in West Texas and would eliminate the fee that the company pays to the state.

A companion bill, SB 1021, sponsored by Sen. Kel Seliger, is scheduled for a 9 a.m. hearing of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Economic Development on Wednesday.

If you oppose state policies that allow nuke waste operators to dump more while paying less for the privilege, please consider showing up at either – or both – hearings to register your opposition. Texas oil industry representatives are also expected to testify against the bills because they fear nuclear waste could contaminate the oil-rich Permian Basin.

Meanwhile, read testimony from Adrian Shelley, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office, against Landgraf’s House bill here: HB 2269.

The post Public Citizen Opposes Giveaways to Nuclear Waste Industry appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

All three bills are sponsored by Rep. Sarah Davis, a Houston Republican.

The first of Davis’s bills Public Citizen lent its public support for is HB 1297. This legislation would bar those who have been fired or have resigned from a state agency position due to malfeasance from serving as the executive or on the executive staff of a state agency. Malfeasance is defined in the bill as “intentional misconduct or the knowingly improper performance of any act, duty, or responsibility, including unethical or criminal conduct, financial misconduct, or fraud.”

Public Citizen also testified in support of HB 1876, which reflects the recommendations of the Texas Ethics Commission. This bill would, among other things, address the “revolving door” of legislators-turned-lobbyists by barring a former lawmaker from registering as a lobbyist for one year, beginning with the first regular legislative session to convene. It would also ban political contributions during special legislative sessions.

We also spoke in favor of HB 1877, which would enact eight different ethics-related bills that passed the House in the 85th Session of the Legislature but not the Senate.

Read all three letters from Public Citizen’s Texas office director, Adrian Shelley, to members of the Texas Legislature on these important bills:

• HB 1297
• HB 1876
• HB 1877

The post Public Citizen Testifies in Support of Government Ethics Bills appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

HOUSTON – A chemical fire that erupted early Sunday morning at the Intercontinental Terminals Company (ITC) plant in La Porte, Texas, and is expected to continue to burn through Wednesday shows the dire need for tougher regulation and enforcement, Public Citizen said today. In addition, the disaster underscores the need for more public information from both the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about chemical risks and disaster response efforts.

The fire, which so far involves seven petrochemical storage tanks, sent a thick plume of smoke over the Houston region, forcing local officials to urge residents to shelter in place and cancel classes in both the Deer Park and La Porte Independent School Districts. At least three toxic chemicals involved in the blaze – naphtha, xylene and toluene – pose a danger to public safety. Short-term exposure can cause headaches, dizziness, confusion, breathing irritation, weakness and memory loss – with potentially fatal effects from longer-term exposure.

The ITC fire comes on the heels of a separate, unrelated fire at ExxonMobil’s Baytown refinery on Saturday, which has been contained. A 2016 Houston Chronicle investigation found that chemical incidents occur once every six weeks in the Houston area.

“The ITC chemical fire demonstrates how chemical disasters happen far too often in our region, often due to lax regulatory oversight and enforcement,” said Stephanie Thomas, researcher for Public Citizen’s Texas office. “While this fire rages on for days, the Trump administration is trying to slash the budgets of the EPA and the Chemical Safety Board, and is rolling back the 2017 Risk Management Plan amendments, which sought to bring greater safety to communities like Deer Park that are surrounded by the petrochemical industry. We need more protections for our communities and a serious investment in our health and safety.”

Public Citizen has called for restoring chemical right-to-know standards, so that first responders and residents who live near industrial facilities can fully understand the potential hazards of plants’ chemical inventories. The TCEQ needs additional staff and tools – such as a mobile monitoring unit for full-time use in Houston – to be able to adequately respond to pollution disasters, and needs to be more forthcoming with information about serious health-related incidents, Public Citizen maintains. As of 1 p.m. CDT on Monday, the agency still had not posted any information about the Houston fire on its website or social media accounts.

“Industrial disasters are the natural and inevitable outcome of administration policy to let corporate wrongdoers off the hook, slash regulatory and enforcement budgets, and not update regulations to deal with serious health, safety and environmental risks,” added Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.

###

The post Houston Chemical Fire Shows Need for Stronger Protections, More Vigilant Enforcement appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

Public Citizen’s Texas office wrote to state lawmakers today urging them to vote in support of HB1.

The letter calls on lawmakers to support funding specifically for the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan, or TERP.

“TERP is the most cost-effective way to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollution in Texas,” the letter says. “Reducing NOx pollution improves public health and reduces ozone pollution in our federal ozone non-attainment areas of Houston, DFW, and San Antonio. Despite this, the 2018-19 biennial allocation to TERP was down 22.3 percent from 2016-17 spending levels.[1]

Our letter also aims to address some misconceptions about the Light Duty Purchase or Lease Incentive Program.

“We would…like to correct a misperception about the Light Duty Purchase or Lease Incentive Program (LDPLIP), which provides grants for the purchase of passenger electric vehicles,” we wrote. “This program has been characterized as providing funds for “rich environmentalists to buy electric vehicles.” While we would love to meet some of these rich environmentalists, we aren’t aware of too many of them, and we note that the two most popular vehicles in the LDPLIP program are the Nissan Leaf, with a 2018 MSRP of $29,990 and the Chevy Volt, with a 2018 MSRP of $33,220.[4]”

Read Public Citizen Texas Office Director Adrian Shelley’s complete letter to lawmakers below.

Via hand delivery.

March 18, 2019

Re: HB 1, general appropriations bill Public Citizen testimony in support of the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan

Dear Chairman Zerwas and members of the committee:

Public Citizen appreciates the opportunity to testify on HB 1 and in support of funding for the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP). The proposed budget funds TERP at just over $154 million for the 2020-21 biennium. We ask you to allocate $400 – 500 million to TERP for the 2020-21 biennium, equivalent to the fee revenue that will be collected if all TERP fees are extended. We also note that the TERP account has in excess of $1.7 billion in it right now. This money was paid by vehicle owners and drivers in Texas and is dedicated to the purpose of reducing air pollution.

TERP is the most cost-effective way to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollution in Texas. Reducing NOx pollution improves public health and reduces ozone pollution in our federal ozone nonattainment areas of Houston, DFW, and San Antonio. Despite this, the 2018-19 biennial allocation to TERP was down 22.3 percent from 2016-17 spending levels.[1]

Perhaps the most cost effective program in TERP is the Diesel Emissions Reduction Incentive (DERI) Program, from 2001 through August 31, 2018, DERI has made possible:

• 11,899 projects
• $1.1 billion in grants
• 179,878.45 tons of NOx reduction
• At a cost per ton of $6,128.[2]

Within the DERI program, the Emissions Reduction Incentive Grants (ERIG) program funds replacements and retrofits of heavy-duty on-road vehicles, non-road equipment, marine vessels, locomotives, and certain stationary engines. According to the TCEQ:

The most recent ERIG application period closed in August 2018, with approximately $53 million in available funds. More than $100 million in grants were requested by applicants.[3]

This means that nearly $50 million in grant opportunities were left on the table. If this funding had been allocated and appropriated for projects that met the historical DERI cost effectiveness rate of $6,128 per ton of NOx, an additional eight thousand tons of nitrogen oxides could have been removed from our air.

We would also like to correct a misperception about the Light Duty Purchase or Lease Incentive Program (LDPLIP), which provides grants for the purchase of passenger electric vehicles. This program has been characterized as providing funds for “rich environmentalists to buy electric vehicles.” While we would love to meet some of these rich environmentalists, we aren’t aware of too many of them, and we note that the two most popular vehicles in the LDPLIP program are the Nissan Leaf, with a 2018 MSRP of $29,990 and the Chevy Volt, with a 2018 MSRP of $33,220.[4] We also note that the reduced fuel cost and lifetime operation and maintenance cost of these and other electric vehicles make them far cheaper to own than comparably priced internal combustion engine vehicles.

Because TERP is the most cost effective means to reduce air pollution, which will provide public health benefits and help Texas meet federal air quality standards, we support an allocation of $400-500 million in the 2020-21 biennium.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony, if you wish to discuss our position further, I can be reached by email at ashelley@citizen.org or by phone at 512-477-1155.

Respectfully,

Adrian Shelley, Texas Office Director

Public Citizen

[1] See Legislative Budget Board, “Overview of the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) Account” (May 2018) available at https://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Publications/Presentation/5266_HAC_TERP.pdf.

[2] See Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, “Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Biennial Report (201-2018): Report of the 86^th Texas Legislature” (Dec. 2018) available at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/sfr/079-18.pdf. See also attached.

[3] See Id. at p. 7 (emphasis added).

[4] See Id. at p. 49.

The post Public Citizen asks TX Legislature to Support Emissions Reduction Policies appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.

San Antonio’s draft climate plan – SA Climate Ready – is out for public comment until March 26 and is expected to be up for a vote at City Council in May. We hope that city staff will take the next several weeks to strengthen the plan, and that the City Council will then adopt it without further delay. You can weigh in here.

Climate change is already wreaking havoc on communities around the world, with the loss of life and damage to ecosystems, public infrastructure and private property already at unacceptable levels, and worse to come. So the most important thing is to avoid further delay in acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are fueling climate change, and subsequently extreme weather, including droughts, wildfires, floods, and stronger hurricanes, as well as rising sea levels and melting permafrost

Greenhouse gas emissions actually increased in 2018, demonstrating why every city in the U.S. needs a climate plan and needs to implement those plans with a real sense of urgency. There is no time to waste and our federal government isn’t helping.

How does SA Climate Ready stack up? In short: it needs work.

At the most fundamental level, the plan doesn’t set goals that align with the scientific consensus on how quickly emissions must be reduced to keep global warming to 1.5°C (a level that will result in more disasters than we are currently experiencing, but will hopefully avoid ecological collapse). Likewise, it fails to recognize that U.S. cities, including San Antonio, have a responsibility to reduce emissions more quickly than cities in poorer countries with lower emissions. The reality of what is needed from U.S. cities (ending our addiction to fossil fuels over the coming decade) may seem daunting, but the least we can do is recognize the fact, even if we don’t have a clear plan to achieve the goal.

What the World’s Climate Scientists Say

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C,” which made it clear that the window of opportunity to avoid catastrophic climate change that is irreversible on the human time scale is closing. We need big changes now. We will have the best chance of keeping global warming to 1.5°C if we can achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions on a global level by 2040. Postponing significant emissions reductions until after 2030, as is implied by the SA Climate Ready plan, won’t land us in a world we want to live in.

Listen to the Experts on City Climate Planning

C40 Cities – the leading organization that works with cities in the U.S. and internationally to take on climate change has developed a very helpful guidance document called “Deadline 2020” to help cities develop climate plans that align with meeting the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. The name of the report comes from the fact that global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak by 2020 to give us a decent shot of limiting warming to 1.5°C, but the report describes emissions reduction paths for cities through mid-century.

As an organization that works with the world’s largest cities, C40 Cities is intimately aware of the fact that not all cities can reduce emissions at the same rate and that it’s not fair to expect all cities to be on the same path. Cities in wealthy countries with high emissions – like the U.S. – have the responsibility and the ability to reduce emissions much quicker than average. According to the C40 Cities methodology, San Antonio should be on the “steep decline” emissions reduction path.

Big, but Achievable, Emissions Reductions Needed in San Antonio

The “Deadline 2020” methodology was developed before the IPCC released its latest and most dire report, so we think that, taken together, the IPCC and C40 Cities reports point to U.S. cities needing to reduce emissions by around 80% by 2030. That’s a big drop, but fully transitioning to renewable energy (which is possible and can be done affordably with planning) and electrifying transportation (which is already a growing trend), would achieve this goal for a city like San Antonio. It’s cities that are home to more polluting industries that will have a bigger challenge.

CPS Energy Must Take Responsibility

San Antonio, along with the rest of the world, needs to stop burning coal and natural gas to make electricity. Cheap wind and solar, paired with now cost-competitive energy storage, along with energy efficiency, can replace fossil fuel power plants that pollute the community and are the city’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. CPS Energy made a big deal about funding the development of the climate plan, but the utility failed to provide any analysis of options for phasing out it’s use of fossil fuels during the planning process. The city-owned utility is holding firm on waiting until 2050 to stop burning coal and natural gas. This simply isn’t compatible with climate action. That’s why we’re calling on CPS Energy to shut down the Spruce coal-burning power plant by 2025 and phase out it’s natural gas power plants by 2030

Our message to the city is this: Be straight about the facts and set goals that give the city a decent chance of meeting the challenge at hand. Do your fair share to preserve a livable planet.

If you live in San Antonio or are a CPS Energy customer, you can send the San Antonio City Council and the Office of Sustainability a message, asking them to strengthen and adopt the SA Climate Ready plan.

You can read our full comments on the draft SA Climate Ready plan here.

The post San Antonio’s Draft Climate Plan Step in the Right Direction, but Needs Strengthening appeared first on TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas.