{"id":632,"date":"2011-01-28T16:23:20","date_gmt":"2011-01-28T16:23:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/texasenergyexchange\/?p=632"},"modified":"2011-03-30T14:40:12","modified_gmt":"2011-03-30T14:40:12","slug":"tceq-buckles-on-oil-gas-rules-under-pressure-from-industry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2011\/01\/28\/tceq-buckles-on-oil-gas-rules-under-pressure-from-industry\/","title":{"rendered":"TCEQ Buckles On Oil & Gas Rules Under Pressure From Industry"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\"\"<\/a>After a 10-month process, the TCEQ finally ended the suspense regarding what emissions safeguards the oil and gas industry will have to follow in order to protect the citizens of Texas.\u00a0 \u00a0On Wednesday, the TCEQ adopt<\/a>ed a much, much weaker rule<\/strong><\/a> than the one it proposed in July (see details at the bottom of this post).\u00a0 The rule was dramatically scaled back to apply only to those living near the Barnett Shale<\/strong><\/a> near Dallas-Fort Worth and, miraculously, the process will begin anew to decide what protections will apply elsewhere.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If you are reading this, you are probably wondering what I think about the outcome.\u00a0\u00a0 I\u2019ll answer by telling you what I am going to tell my boss, who will surely ask how my efforts \u2013 scores of hours attending meetings, writing comments, coordinating and consulting with experts on this topic (as well as having to watch industry unrelentingly bully TCEQ staff) \u2013 translated into results.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n

It is a fair question given that I truly threw myself into this one.\u00a0 I convinced myself (and my boss) that \u2013 this time \u2013 it was going to be different.\u00a0 With all of the attention focused on the emissions from natural gas operations, including reports showing how the emissions from the oil and gas industry were much higher than everyone assumed, I thought this time we actually had a chance to help TCEQ do the right thing.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The most favorable answer I can give is that \u201cit could have been worse.\u201d\u00a0 Maybe, just maybe, had we not made the effort, the final rule might have been even worse<\/em>.\u00a0 What issues went in favor of public health?\u00a0 The TCEQ did expand the proposed definition of \u201creceptors\u201d that must be protected to include hospitals, day cares, and certain businesses (although this definition is still less protective than many other agency rules).\u00a0 Oh, and in response to our expert modeler\u2019s numerous examples showing that the agency\u2019s modeling did not represent \u201cworst-case\u201d conditions as claimed, the TCEQ changed their description to \u201creasonable worst case\u201d (while making numerous other changes that allowed far greater emissions of harmful pollutants than originally proposed).\u00a0 Sadly, that\u2019s all I can say went in a positive direction.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The TCEQ\u2019s initial proposal in July would have established a basic framework that provided greater assurances of protectiveness to the public.\u00a0 But industry firepower overwhelmed the TCEQ staff, which had little, if any, apparent support from their Commissioners.\u00a0 The final rule was gutted with so many exceptions and loopholes (see below) that it almost makes me wonder if there is sufficient environmental benefit left to justify the regulatory burden.\u00a0 Especially troubling was the number of sweeping changes made to the rule during a 6-week continuance, out of the public eye, during which time staff was asked to attempt to resolve industry concerns.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

In the end, I have no choice but to admit that my time would have been better spent on something else.\u00a0 This story is yet one more example of why the legislature\u2019s required sunset review of the TCEQ<\/strong><\/a> is so timely.\u00a0 It is time for the TCEQ to put the protection of public health and the environment first.<\/p>\n

On this last point, State Representative Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) who serves on the state\u2019s Sunset Advisory<\/strong> Commission<\/strong><\/a>, ably captured the situation in an interview on KUT\u2019s feature \u201cLetters to the Lege<\/strong><\/a>\u201d this morning:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn hearings we\u2019ve held, we\u2019ve heard complaints from all over the state \u2026 and there\u2019s definitely an issue at the TCEQ when it comes to the response to citizen complaints. There\u2019s no doubt about it. The EPA is seriously put out with the TCEQ and there\u2019s a real standoff going on right now between the Perry administration and the federal government on how the TCEQ regulates pollutants in Texas. And in my opinion, we need to shake the agency up and make it more responsive to the public.\u201d<\/p>\n

At EDF, we completely agree.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Key Examples Of How The July 2010 Oil & Gas Permit by Rule Proposal Was Weakened: <\/strong><\/p>\n