Category Archives: Texas Permitting

GHG Permitting Program Running Smoothly In Texas, Thanks To EPA

By | Bio | Published: January 22, 2013

This is the second of a two-part series on greenhouse gases and the part Texas plays.

(Source: NRDC)

Last month, we wrote about The Convention on Climate Change conference (COP18) and the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in Texas, a state whose GHG emissions are comparable to those from “131 railcars worth of burning coal.”

Indeed, such emissions increasingly have the potential to threaten our way of life as the climate continues to change. Just this month, a draft report from the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee says that evidence of climate change can already be seen around the world, including Texas. According to the report, there is “strong evidence to indicate that human influence on the climate has already roughly doubled the probability of extreme heat events like the record-breaking summer of 2011 in Texas and Oklahoma.”

Because it’s been well documented that Texas contributes a disproportionate share of the nation’s GHGs when compared to other states, we welcome the news that after one year, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) GHG federally implemented permit program is on its way to becoming a national model and a good starting place for Texas should the state ever regain management of the program.

Background

Under the federal Clean Air Act, states have the authority to regulate facilities that emit air pollution, including GHGs. In December 2010, after Texas refused to issue GHG permits to facilities in the state, EPA stepped in and created a federal implementation plan for GHG permits whereby facilities could apply to EPA directly for their GHG permits. Had EPA not stepped in to issue the permits, several new facilities across the state would have not been allowed to operate.

Unsurprisingly, industry leaders and even Texas officials balked at the move and filed lawsuits in retaliation. The biggest criticism was that such action would hurt business. However, since EPA began issuing GHG permits in 2011, most facilities have begun the process of reducing emissions to comply and business as usual continues.

Update

According to EPA staffers, the GHG permit program is well under way and shaping up to be a national model. The program includes agency transparency, public participation, scientific rigor and solid process. Since EPA took over the program, such elements have ensured the approval of numerous facility applications in Texas.

Another positive outcome of EPA’s management of the program has been the establishment of best emissions control technologies. EPA staffers say that a number of the approved permits could easily be considered some of the best model permits in the country. Sometimes, stronger controls are implemented than a company may have proposed on day one. Implementing this program has been a learning process and ultimately has the potential to benefit similar programs around the nation, as well as safeguarding public health through improved air quality.

The process hasn’t been perfect – the biggest issue so far has been that incomplete applications can delay the permit. EPA is working to educate applicants on the process, and delays have been reduced coming into the new year.

They said it couldn’t be done. When EPA first took over the program, critics predicted the move would shut down business. That didn’t happen. Permits are being issued. There haven’t been any closures. Facilities are up and running and bringing forward the best control technologies.

Bottom line: Companies are able to do the job they need to do while reducing harmful emissions. EPA stepped in to issue air permits when the state would not, enabling businesses to comply with federal regulations, and ultimately helping Texas to thrive economically while also doing its part to help combat climate change.

 

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency, GHGs | Leave a comment

Judge Follows Law And Overturns Air Permit for Dirty Power Plant in Corpus Christi

By | Bio | Published: June 5, 2012

(Source: Corpus Christi Caller)

State District Judge Stephen Yelonsky recently ruled that Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) failed to follow the law when it issued an air permit to Las Brisas Energy Center for a 1320 MW power plant in Corpus Christi, Texas. Judge Yelonsky found that the permitting was “flawed”, “misleading” and “wrong” and that it violated the Clean Air Act air toxics standards for particulates, sulfur and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The Las Brisas power plant would run on petroleum coke, a dirty solid byproduct of oil refineries that contains heavy metals and other hazardous impurities. Judge Yelonsky also pointed out that TCEQ failed to require Las Brisas to account for the storage of petroleum coke fuel before combustion.

Quintana Capital Group has provided much of the $3.2 Billion in funding for the project. Quintana is not only is trying to build this dirty plant, but it is also leading efforts to roll back health laws that protect our children.

Electricity providers, like Las Brisas, should understand that cheap electricity is not cheap. We pay for the dirty power in sick kids and medical bills.  This power plant would be located in downtown Corpus Christi—within a mile of local schools, churches, and neighborhoods.  The fact that Las Brisas tried to avoid complying with the law through legal technicalities shows an extraordinary degree of disregard for the most basic standards of health, safety, and community in Corpus Christi. 

Here are the plant’s annual emissions according to their own TCEQ and EPA applications:

  • Approximately  13 million tons of CO2 equivalent
  • 68 tons of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
  • 3,823 tons NOx
  • 8,154 tons CO
  • 283 tons VOCs
  • 3004 tons PM
  • 2901 tons PM10
  • 10,480 tons SO2
  • 1996 tons H2SO4141 tons ammonia
  • 47 tons HCl

The electricity we need to power our homes and businesses should not come at cost of breathing clean air. This is a trade-off we do not have to make.  We applaud the courage of State District Judge Stephen Yelonsky to apply and follow the law fairly, and call on TCEQ to fulfill its mandate, and protect Texas’ environment for our children and grandchildren.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, coal, TCEQ | Leave a comment

Houston Chronicle to Rick Perry: "Stop Blowing Smoke"

By | Bio | Published: July 14, 2011

This post was written by Colin Meehan, Clean Energy Analyst for EDF's Energy Program

Houston (and the Rest of Texas) Benefit From the EPA's Efforts

In an editorial today, the Houston Chronicle lauded the EPA for developing sensible rules that protect human health while keeping impacts to industry as minimal as possible. Specifically the Chronicle pointed out that EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) will save lives and improve Texans' health with benefits that far outweigh the impacts to industry in the state.  Pushing back against Governor Perry and TCEQ Chairman Bryan Shaw's unfounded claims of massive job losses, the Chronicle's editorial board had this to say about Perry's political posturing:

"We're well aware that Perry is contemplating a presidential run, and that "federal overreach" plays well to some Texas voters, but clean air doesn't stop or start at the state line. Texas emissions pollute the air of other states, including Louisiana, Illinois and Michigan, but our Texas air is in turn polluted by emissions from at least 12 other states."

TCEQ: Fighting the EPA While the EPA Works with Texas Businesses

These issues were raised at a conference earlier this week, where I had the opportunity to sit on a panel with Chairman Shaw as well as former TCEQ Chair and current Texas Public Policy Foundation Fellow (a conservative Texas think tank funded in part by fossil fuel interests) Kathleen Hartnett White.   Both Shaw and White have long been critics of what they see as 'federal government overreach,' although noticeably neither were vocal on this issue when in 2007 the Bush administration declared TCEQ's flexible permitting program was "in violation of the Clean Air Act."  (See Appendix 5-6 of the link). Still, Shaw continued to use the EPA's actions on flexible permitting as an example of federal overreach that in his opinion threatens jobs more than it helps the environment.  Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, Ozone, PM2.5, TCEQ | 2 Responses

Goodbye Flexible Permits! We won’t miss you.

By | Bio | Published: July 12, 2011

Today, the EPA announced that all 136 of the industrial facilities across the state that had flexible permits committed to bring them into compliance with federal law. While it seems only logical that air permits issued to facilities comply with the Clean Air Act, this has not been the case in Texas.  Since 1994, when the first flexible permit was issued, many facilities in Texas have been operating under permits that make it nearly impossible to track facility compliance.

 What was wrong with flexible permits?

As we’ve said many, many, many times before, here is a summary of a few of the problems with flexible permits:

 1.      Flexible permits eliminate pollution limits designed to protect public health.   Flexible permits eliminate federal, unit-specific, pollution limits that are intended to assure that public health is protected from industrial pollution.

 2.      The flexible permit pollution trading system is unenforceable and fails to protect public health. Flexible permits allow sources to lump hundreds of pieces of polluting equipment under a single pollution limit, or cap. Because most of the equipment is not monitored, it is almost impossible to determine whether or not companies are complying with their pollution caps.

 3.      Flexible permits prevent the public from their right to know.  The federal Clean Air Act protects neighbors’ right to know about, and voice their concerns with, pollution increases that may affect the safety of the air they breathe.  The flexible permit program allows industry to move emissions around, and increase pollution from some units, without notifying neighbors, or even state and federal regulators.

 4.      Flexible permit emission caps allow so much pollution that they aren’t limiting industry emissions.  The pollution caps in flexible permits are so high that they don’t serve as a real limit on pollution, and certainly don’t reflect the best that industry can do.   The same companies that operate in Texas operate in other states under permits that meet federal requirements and include significantly lower emission limits. 

  Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, TCEQ | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Update On White Stallion Coal Plant

By | Bio | Published: June 23, 2011

Back in May I issued a statement on our court win against the While Stallion coal-fired power plant being proposed in Matagorda County, Texas.  The motion we filed against White Stallion was regarding their use of two conflicting site plans for air permit applications with US Army Corps of Engineers and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 

On Monday, June 20, 2011, Judge Lora Livingston of the Travis County District Court entered EDF’s proposed order to require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to take additional evidence on White Stallion’s coal-fired power plant air permit application.

This means our motion for remand is now formalized and has specific action associated with it. (See the order here)

The additional evidence will show that White Stallion played “bait and switch.”   We know that six days after TCEQ’s air permit decision White Stallion significantly altered its site plan in an effort to win a different permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.  If White Stallion waited until after TCEQ’s air permit decision to change site plans, it made a mockery of TCEQ air permit hearings – the air emissions evidence taken was not on the power plant White Stallion intends to build. 

It’s important to mention that the change in site plans warrants re-notice of the entire permit application under Texas Health & Safety Code § 382.0291(d).  Otherwise, as the District Court said, “the public will not be afforded meaningful participation in the permit application review process” of White Stallion’s actual proposed power plant.

As this process moves forward, we’ll keep you updated.

Special thanks to lead EDF counsel Tom Weber and Paul Tough of McElroy, Sullivan & Miller.  As well as Pete Schenkkan of Graves Dougherty who assisted in the district court briefing and argument.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environment, TCEQ | 4 Responses

White Stallion Air Permit: Setting the Matter Straight

By | Bio | Published: June 16, 2011

Earlier this month, guest blogger Allison Sliva expressed approval for a court decision that effectively withdrew an air permit application to build a proposed coal plant (White Stallion) in Matagorda County.

EDF had filed a legal document called a “Motion to Remand” based on White Stallion's use of two different site plans in applying for permits with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The plans differed vastly in the locations of emissions sources, and changing emissions sources can affect the permits compliance with Clean Air Act standards and TCEQ rules.

Now, even though White Stallion “intends to move forward with its construction plans,” new approval from TCEQ should not be considered automatic as one might infer from an article this week in the Houston Chronicle:

“The plant's developers, Houston-based Sky Energy, already have a permit from the state for air pollution and need one from the Army Corps of Engineers to deepen the Colorado for barge traffic.”

Yes, White Stallion received a permit from TCEQ. Yes, it was remanded. And yes, even so, TCEQ rules allow developers to depart from an approved site plan with the “submission of an ‘as built’ report” that does not require public notice.

However, the people’s right to know is the crux of the matter at hand. As State District Judge Lora Livingston wrote in her legal decision, “meaningful public participation in the permit approval process would be effectively eliminated” should the permit not be sent back for review given the site changes.

People have a right to know what’s going on in their backyards, especially those in Matagorda County and nearby Houston, where hazardous coal plant emissions will impact air quality. TCEQ should give the application review due diligence, with a fair and open process. The court has decided, not to mention that fundamentally it’s the right thing to do.

Also posted in Air Pollution, TCEQ | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

No Coal Coalition Weighs in on White Stallion Court Decision

By | Bio | Published: June 1, 2011

Allison Sliva is board chair of the No Coal Coalition/Matagorda County.

When I heard the news that EDF’s Motion to Remand was recently granted by Travis County Court Judge Lora Livingston, I was pleased on several fronts.

First, the decision halts, even if temporarily, a process of approving building facility plans that has tried to circumvent air quality laws designed to protect public health. Building this coal plant would bring with it serious air quality impacts for people in and around Matagorda County, not to mention the greater Houston area. Projected emissions from the plant will include 10 million tons of carbon dioxide, nearly 5,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, more than 4,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, nearly 1,800 tons of particulate matter and nearly 100 pounds of mercury.

This pause in the process should make everyone involved – especially the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality – think twice about the air impacts to present and future generations.

Second, the decision exposes a White Stallion action that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. TCEQ granted White Stallion an air permit after reviewing air dispersion modeling and testimony based on a site plan that White Stallion changed six days after the permit was issued. As EDF’s Jim Marston said, White Stallion “should be upfront with regulators about their intentions.”

Third, the decision renews public confidence in our legal system. As Judge Livingston wrote in her decision letter, “Without remand, meaningful public participation in the permit approval process would be effectively eliminated.”

Myself and members of the No Coal Coalition of Matagorda County thank you EDF for your due diligence in helping to set the record straight.  Our call to action now is to help gather the evidence needed to prove that the air pollution coming from White Stallion would violate the law as well as harm human health.

WHITE STALLION TIMELINE

Here is a timeline of the community efforts that Matagorda County residents and others have undertaken over the years to prevent a poorly planned, poorly placed and poorly designed coal-fired power plant from coming online. – Elena Craft

September 2008 – White Stallion files for an air quality permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. It proposes a 1,320 megawatt coal and petroleum coke-fired power plant to be located along the Colorado River eight miles south of Bay City in Matagorda County, in an ecologically sensitive area known as the Columbia Bottomlands. The proposed location is also 20 miles southwest of the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region.

November 13, 2009 – In a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Section Chief Sharon Fancy Parrish recommended that an Environmental Impact Statement be conducted “for the proposed project to better access the substantial change to the human environment.” Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, GHGs, PM2.5, TCEQ | Tagged , , , , | 1 Response

A Polluter Puppet Show In Houston

By | Bio | Published: April 28, 2011

The Texas EPA Task Force will be visiting Houston tomorrow to examine the environmental protections being employed and to “[talk] to industry representatives about the affect of over bearing EPA regulations on jobs in the Houston area.”

While Rep. Barton and his colleagues might be quick to apologize for what they feel is government overreach, EPA regulations haven’t stopped ExxonMobil ($10.6 billion) or Shell ($6.29 billion) from making enormous profits in the first quarter of this year.

We have a few suggested stops and notable facts for the “Task Force” to consider while touring the Houston-area:

And when they’re done touring the ship channel, they should visit Texas City, where when the power goes out, the residents stay inside to avoid the tons of pollution flared from the local refineries and chemical plants.

In an instance this week, during a power outage, Valero alone pumped a reported 43,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide into Texas City air.  The outages were caused by soot buildup due to a lack of rainfall.  The emissions were so high in Texas City, residents were told to take “shelter in place,” meaning stay where they were.  The emissions from the plants exceeded the air monitors ability to measure their levels.

If this “Task Force’s” only answer to extreme weather, deplorable air quality and health conditions for Texans and a total absence of meaningful state regulation is to attack the Clean Air Act and pray for rain, then Texas is in trouble.

When our citizens must take shelter from literal pollution attacks, our farmers struggle to find water to irrigate their crops and our children struggle to breath, we must help ourselves.  Now is not the time to play the role of puppet to polluters.  We need real leadership, we need real solutions.

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Benzene, Environmental Protection Agency, GHGs, Mercury, Ozone, PM2.5, Ports, TCEQ | Leave a comment

Texas House Votes To Suffocate You and Your Family

By | Bio | Published: April 20, 2011

I heard someone recommend selling the Texas Legislature as a way to fill the budget gap, but it is clear after yesterday that most of our Legislators are already owned by big polluters (decorum requires that I leave it at “owned”).

Although the process was already stacked in favor of polluters, the Texas House voted to strip away the last remaining fig leaf of protection for Texans fighting to keep their air and water clean.  Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) authored an amendment to the TCEQ sunset bill (HB 2694) that would shift the burden of proof to the individual challenging the issuance of a permit for polluting facilities like coal-fired power plants. 

This means that should a company want to build a coal or chemical plant near your home and you and your neighbors become concerned about a plant pumping harmful, cancer-causing chemicals into the air, you will be required to prove the extent of the problem rather than the permit applicant being required to prove the permit meets state and federal health and safety law as is required for every other permit.    Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environment, TCEQ | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Texas Flex Permitting Lies and Myths

By | Bio | Published: March 24, 2011

In 1867 Mark Twain wrote, "The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers, if a man only tells them with all his might."

Sadly, Texans have been getting fed some real whoppers when it comes to greenhouse gas regulations, and that’s exactly what I said today at a field hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

The topic of today’s Houston hearing was “EPA’s Greenhouse Gas and Clean Air Act Regulations: A Focus on Texas’ Economy, Energy Prices and Jobs.”

Already, this Committee has passed legislation that would strip EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, this legislation provides no alternatives for reducing harmful climate-disrupting pollution and is based entirely on misconceptions about EPA's role in regulating these deleterious pollutants.

Bottom line? When it comes to the flexible permitting system and the regulation of greenhouse gases the problem isn't EPA – it's Texas.

It would be a real shame if Congress guts clean air protections based on the myths and lies coming out of Texas. Speaking of myths and lies, here are highlights of my testimony today, attempting to set the record straight [Stay tuned to this blog for a recap of today’s hearing with specific responses to Committee questioning.] . . .

Myth No. 1: The only reason why EPA has objected to the Texas “flexible permits” is because President Obama is “punitive” against “big, red” Texas.

The Facts: EPA has raised concerns about the illegality of the Texas flexible permitting programs since 1994. The Bush Administration in 2006 and 2008 wrote letters saying that the Texas program did not meet the legal standard of the Clean Air Act. This is not a new complaint by EPA and it is not political.  The only people playing politics are Texas officials who are misrepresenting the facts. Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, GHGs, Ozone, TCEQ | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Responses