A recent report by the University of Houston details how the fourth largest city in the nation can reduce air pollution by replacing old, polluting vehicles. (Full disclosure: the report was funded in part by Public Citizen and the Healthy Port Communities Coalition.) By 2040, the eight-county Houston region will have 30-50% more cars on the road and 40-80% more trucks. A business-as-usual scenario for those vehicles would lead to 122 additional deaths in Houston. In contrast, replacing pollution intensive vehicles with electric and clean tech vehicles could save 246 lives.

Houston has battled air pollution—particularly ozone—for decades. Air quality is complex in Houston, with pollution contributions from cars and trucks, energy generation, and one of the largest concentrations of petrochemical manufacturing facilities found anywhere in the world.

Scientists are increasingly appreciating the role that transportation plays in air pollution. Diesel trucks are some of the worst offenders, and the best thing Houston can do to fight pollution from the transportation sector is to replace our oldest and dirtiest trucks.

This turns out to be true whether those trucks are replaced with electric vehicles or so-called “emissions controlled” vehicles. Newer diesel engines can be up to 90% cleaner than their older cousins. This fact, combined with the low-cost and familiarity of diesel engines, means that regulators looking for cheap and easy solutions to clean the air often turn to diesel vehicles first.

But there are a number of reasons why electric vehicles (EVs) are a better alternative to “clean combustion” vehicles. Let’s look at a few of them now.

Electric vehicles save money. If you purchase an electric car or truck today, you will spend more than if you purchased an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. But that doesn’t mean EVs cost more. In fact, over the lifetime of ownership of a vehicle, you will save money if you purchase an EV. The first saving comes in fuel costs—it’s more expensive to fill a gas tank than to plug in your car at home or at work. The next savings is in maintenance cost. EVs have fewer moving parts, so the long-term maintenance cost of an electric vehicle is significantly less than an ICE vehicle. And with EV prices declining rapidly, even the initial cost will be less than that of an ICE vehicle within about seven years. Sometime between now and then, we are likely to see a tipping point, as vehicle purchasers begin to appreciate how they can save money with EVs.

Electric vehicles are inherently cleaner. EVs never have tailpipe emissions—they are truly zero emissions. They do pull energy from the electricity grid, and most of the energy on the grid comes from fossil fuel sources today. But Texas’ grid is getting cleaner by the year. Which means that the air pollution EVs are indirectly responsible for will continue to decrease.

Clean tech does not always work. “Clean diesel” vehicles, unlike EVs, still emit pollution. And the amount of pollution they emit is highly dependent on how they are used and how frequently they are serviced. Diesel trucks rely on something called a diesel particulate filter (DPF) to reduce air pollution. But DPFs only work at certain operating temperatures. Vehicles that idle for long periods of time, such as drayage trucks operating at the Port of Houston, often fall outside of those temperatures, rendering the DPF ineffective. Vehicle emissions controls also only work if vehicles are continuously maintained (this is why you have to get an emissions test on your car every year). As “clean diesel” trucks age, they stop being so clean.

These are a few of the reasons why we advocate for replacing today’s transportation fleet with electric vehicles—the fleets of the future. Texas has $209 million dollars in Volkswagen mitigation funds to spend on clean transportation in the coming years. Cheap, “clean” diesels may seem like a bargain, but they are not. As we propel Texas and Houston toward a cleaner future, we should embrace the best technologies available. Our lives depend on it.

On Tuesday, September 17, the Dallas City Council passed its new biennium budget, funding an environmental plan with the development of a climate plan.

The historic vote was marked by a press conference with ten environmental and health groups and Council Member Sandy Greyson, who fostered the $500,000 budget amendment for the plan.  The Office of Environmental Quality, that will oversee the climate planning process, also participated in the press event.

The Dallas Mayor issued a statement regarding the vote noting:

 “With no current state or federal action on climate change, it is apparent that local governments must shoulder the burden. The City of Dallas accepts this responsibility and is actively working towards building a greener, more resilient city.  Addressing climate change should not be a controversial or partisan issue, and local leaders and the marketplace should work together in pursuing climate action.”

“That’s why I am excited that we have approved funding for a Comprehensive Environmental Action Plan.  The City’s Office of Environmental Quality & Sustainability will have the resources and responsibility to chart a path of environmental and climate action for the coming years in alignment with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.”

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings signed onto the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda in June 2017, which was formed after the United States withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and commits cities to the goals of the Paris accord.

A total of five cities in Texashave signed the Mayors’ Climate letter. Austin passed a climate plan in 2015. San Antonioisdeveloping a climate plan now, while Houston has just initiated its planning process.  San Marcos and Smithville have also signed onto the Mayor’s Agreement.

More cities in Texas, both large and small, need to step up to the plate and do what they can to reduce their carbon footprint. When an area reduces its dependence on fossil fuels, it can also be beneficial to improving overall air quality in regard to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), both major components of ozone.

In Dallas, 1 in 10 children suffer from asthma, costing Dallas County more than $60 million annually, yes annually, in direct and indirect costs.  Clearing the air can only help improve the health and vitality of all our communities.

The U.S. is the only country worldwide that is not part of the Paris Climate Agreement, after the current Trump Administration pulled out of its commitment.  As a result, the Mayors Climate Coalition was formed, with more than 400 Mayors representing 70 million Americans dedicated to taking action to reduce their communities’ carbon footprint.

So I urge citizens to band together, to talk to their City Councils, and ask their municipalities to join the Mayors Climate Coalition.

Now that Dallas has stepped up to begin its climate planning process, it is my hope that neighboring Ft. Worth and other cities around the state, will take on the challenge, for the health and welfare of their communities.

For more than fifteen years, Rita Beving has been a volunteer and professional advocate on environmental issues including air, water, and landfill in North and East Texas coordinating with numerous environmental groups across the state.

Currently, she serves as a consultant for Public Citizen on clean energy and eminent domain work in North Texas.   Rita conducts ongoing monthly clean air meetings to educate the public on energy efficiency, PACE renewable energy districts, and other clean air issues in North Texas.

Scoping Meeting

Wednesday, September 12th, a scoping meeting was held for the Texas Gulf Coast Terminals Project- Deepwater Port Application. Texas Gulf Coast Terminals is a subsidiary of Trafigura, a Swedish company. I attended and commented at the meeting as a representative of Public Citizen and as a Corpus Christian, my hometown being Corpus Christi. Public Citizen recognized the importance of this application on both a local and national level. Along with our efforts were local Sierra Club members including Hal Suter and Lois Huff, Jim Klein president of the Clean Economy Coalition, Lauren Loney a UT Law Environmental Justice and Community Development Fellow, as well as other passionate local environmental scientists and activists. 

The Application

Corpus Christi is known as the “sparkling city by the sea”, however, the city’s  attachment to the oil industry has given our home other reputations. For instance, I was visiting Corpus Christi two Christmases ago when an erosive chemical from Valero polluted the city’s water. We could not drink, shower, or even boil the water for use. Local businesses were greatly disrupted financially by this industry event and we became dark humored memes across the state and nation. Corpus Christi is now known as the city with bad water. Moreover, when I learned about the proposed deepwater port license, I had great concerns as to the potential repercussions this level of industry could bring to the health of the Corpus Christi community, gulf coast tourism, fragile marine ecosystems, as well as the big picture consequences this application is tied to. The Trafigura offshore port is designed to accommodate very large crude carriers – called VLCCs – that each can carry 2 million barrels of oil. Trafigura is a secretive, privately-held company that has refused to provide details about its ownership structure as part of this application. 

Local Impacts

With the massive amounts of fracked oil exportation that this license allows (which will be traveling through a pipeline that cuts across the vital and sensitive Laguna Madre), if any accident were to occur, as they do, this would be catastrophic to our coastal marine ecosystems. The pipeline (as mapped in the photo below) is also placed less than a mile from Padre Island National Seashores, where nature is preserved and tourism flourishes.

The Laguna Madre is the only hypersaline lagoon in North America and is one of only 6 hypersaline lagoons in the world. The Laguna Madre, Padre Island, and surrounding habitat in the Lower Rio Grande Valley are critical for several endangered species, including the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, ocelots, and millions of migrating waterfowl such as the federally-listed piping plover. The seagrass beds of the Laguna Madre also provide habitat for one of the world’s most productive fisheries, supporting vibrant angler and eco-tourism industries. The Laguna Madre, Padre Island, and surrounding habitat have been the focus of conservation efforts for decades.

This project would put this unique resource at risk and directly threaten the years of work that have gone into conserving both the habitat and the species that call Laguna Madre home. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should consider the impact on federally and state-listed threatened or endangered species as well as their associated habitat requirements, the fishery, migratory birds that winter in the Laguna Madre, as well as the local eco-tourism industries. 

If this port is built, we would also expect locally to feel the effects of increased water use and pollution issues, and a worsening of our air quality leading to further public health risks. Exporting high volumes of crude will also impact the energy direction of our state. This opening of the gates would lead to increased fracking and the environmental issues associated with fracking – impacts largely felt in Permian basin and other oil-producing areas in Texas where fracking is common.

This proposed license serves up the question, “What would we like Corpus Christi to be known for?” Is it indeed the sparkling city by the sea, or is it the city of industry, of industry pollution? 

Why should Corpus be making such a choice? When the city could be investing in long term health and energy reliability like that of renewable energy?

US Energy Policy Impacts

The Trafigura offshore oil port has global implications for the crude oil trade, as it will vastly expedite the ability to export greater volumes of fracked crude oil out of the United States. Facilitating crude oil exports will increase the financial incentive to expand fracking in Texas – leading to environmental and water challenges in the Permian and Eagle Ford. There will be not only local environmental impacts, but global climate impacts because of the Trafigura port influence on global oil markets.

The port would ultimately allow the United States to reach new heights of oil exporting. The financial temptation has come in the form of a Swedish company wanting to build a port in international waters with minimal accountability if a pollution event were to occur. To make matters worse, Trafigura’s informational holes in it’s application only lends to further distrust by local activists. The public has a right to know who exactly owns Trafigura.

What Comes Next?

Stay tuned to Public Citizen for future opportunities to comment. We will keep you updated when the EIS is released. In the meantime, click here to view the notice of application.

There is a lot of misinformation spreading around Texas right now about wind energy.

This summer, Texas set new records for energy demand, the product of millions of Texans running their air conditioning to beat the extreme heat. Earlier this year, several coal plants were retired, taking hundreds of megawatts of power off the grid and raising the question whether Texas’ energy supply could meet demand. The grid responded well, and Texans have not faced energy shortages, price spikes, or reliability issues. (You already know this. Did you experience blackouts? Did your bills spike?)

But lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry have taken this opportunity to spread misinformation about the role of wind and other renewable energy sources. They have claimed, for example, that wind energy is detrimental because the wind blows the most at night, when demand is low. (This is nonsense. Energy demand never drops to zero, and Texas is able to use the energy produced by wind at all hours of the day.)

We have also been told that renewable energy subsidies are disrupting energy markets, forcing sources like coal out of business. If you are a 19^th century energy tycoon, you think of the situation something like this:

Original Image from Texas Public Policy Foundation

It is true that coal is having trouble competing, but that has nothing to do with energy subsidies and everything to do with Texas’ competitive energy market. Simply put: where wind is more affordable than coal, coal can’t compete and is priced out of the market.

That’s a good thing. We’ve replaced a dirty, fossil source of fuel with a clean, renewable source, and we’ve saved consumers money. That is a robust energy market at work.

But what about energy subsidies? We’re told that wind can only compete because it is propped up by government handouts. Is that true?

It is true that wind receives subsidies, but every source of energy receives subsidies, and always has. Subsidies for coal, oil, and natural gas have been in place for decades. The list of subsidies that have been available over the years is overwhelming: https://www.stopthesubsidies.com/.

In Texas, the fossil lobby’s ire over subsidies is directed at Chapter 313 of the Tax Code, the Texas Economic Development Act.

Chapter 313 was created in 2001 to incentivize large industrial projects by allowing school districts to lower property taxes for up to ten years. The theory behind Chapter 313 is that lower taxes will attract investment that would otherwise go elsewhere. From its creation through 2015, Chapter 313 has incentivized more than $81 billion in investment. Out of 311 approved projects, 144 were for wind energy and 22 were for other non-wind renewable energy projects. Oil and gas projects are lumped into a category of “manufacturing” projects that has included 139 projects over the years. Chapter 313 has also been used twice for nuclear projects and four times for research and development projects. At present, Chapter 313 is set to expire in 2022. Public Citizen supports Chapter 313 and believes that it should be continued by the state legislature. (We would like to thank Vanessa Tutos and Sarah Greenberg with EDPR for their research on Chapter 313. Greenberg, S. (2018) Chapter 313 Research Summary. Internal EDPR report. Unpublished.)

Here’s the thing about Chapter 313: it’s a tax break. Tax breaks are tried and true economic incentives. If you lower taxes, you incentivize investment. That’s a position long held by fiscal conservatives. If we were drawing our own version of the cartoon above (and guess what? we did!) it would look something like this:

Chapter 313 isn’t taking money out of anyone’s pocket. It is providing school districts with a way to incentivize economic investment within their borders. If a school district attracts a wind energy project (or any project) with a Chapter 313 incentive, then it increases its tax base and gets more money for its schools. There are small school districts in West Texas that have built entire schools with revenues from Chapter 313 projects.

So why are the fossil lobbyists so opposed to Chapter 313? Before we answer that question, here’s another surprising fact about Chapter 313.

It’s been used by the oil and gas industry nearly twice as much as by the wind industry.

From the beginning of the program in 2001 through 2015, oil and gas companies have received $3,244,574,036 in tax breaks from Chapter 313. Wind companies have received $1,563,876,000.

So don’t believe the fossil lobby when they talk about Chapter 313 as a “renewable subsidy.” It’s benefited the oil and gas industry more than twice as much as the wind industry. And if Chapter 313 tax abatements are ended, Texas communities and schools could miss out on the economic support brought by these wind projects, while all Texas residents could miss out on having more affordable electricity.

The fossil tycoons are scared. They can’t compete in the 21^st century energy economy. They are lashing out with big-money lobby campaigns and misinformation. If they are successful, they could set the transition to renewable energy back several years. But they can’t stop the inevitable: clean, affordable energy for all Texans.

By Briauna Barrera
August 27, 2018

This is a story about one city and two neighborhoods that exist within its borders. A tale of two geographies that exist in a microcosm. These two neighborhoods, separated only by ten minutes of time, might as well be across the world from each other, a difference in demographics creating a rift as wide as a sea. The four miles from one to the other creates the thin line between the “haves” and the “have nots”.

One of these neighborhoods, Monte Vista National Historic District, its very name exuding importance and wealth, is situated in central San Antonio, about two miles north from downtown. Monte Vista started development in 1889 in what used to be a goat pasture and is home to about 3,000 people spread over approximately 100 blocks. Originally considered a suburb, it is now praised by real estate websites for its close proximity to downtown and is considered part of the very heart of the city. It is a treat to walk around Monte Vista. The blocks have many old oak trees whose tall, lush canopies spread out and provide shade over lawns, sidewalks, and streets. The sidewalks exist, which is no small feat in San Antonio, with ample room to boot. The architecture is particularly notable in this neighborhood, as a variety of architectural styles exist within its boundaries, from Spanish colonial to European cottage.

The other neighborhood is Dignowity Hill, a similarly historic neighborhood. Founded in 1854, Dignowity Hill was the first residential neighborhood in San Antonio. It is located about a mile and a half from downtown, on the east side of I-37. This neighborhood may not have the architectural diversity of Monte Vista, but its abundance of mansions, Folk Victorian houses, and Craftsman Bungalows radiate coziness and charm. Like Monte Vista, Dignowity Hill started off as a place of affluency, settled by Dr. Anthony Michael Dignowity, a physician and Czech immigrant. After his and his family’s settlement, the neighborhood became known as a place for upper-class residents. However, with the introduction of the railroad in 1877, an increase of urbanization and a concentration of industry came to the area. By the mid-1910s, the neighborhood was surrounded by industry and by the 1920s, the wealthy residents were moving further out to newer housing developments and with the building of smaller houses and creation of working-class, industrial jobs, people of lower socioeconomic status started moving in.

Dignowity Hill became a poorer neighborhood as the decades went on. First the wealthy moved to the edges of the town to escape the ever growing expansion of urbanization and industry, and then after WWII, with the availability of Federal Housing Administration mortgage loans to returning soldiers and the mass development of suburbs, the United States saw a boom in its, primarily white, middle class. This left the urban core deteriorating as government and private funding funneled outside city centers and forced those who could not afford to leave – primarily people of color – to remain living in urban environments with degenerating conditions. Dignowity Hill was one of the core neighborhoods. Monte Vista never experienced this change in demographics because at its advent, it was considered a suburb. It was the place that wealthy people were escaping to and it stayed desirable once people began to move back into the city, as by that point, it was considered to be part of the city core. The history can still be seen today and are illustrated in the maps below.

Figure 1. Race and ethnicity (right) and education attainment for bachelor degrees (left). Monte Vista on top, Dignowity Hill on bottom.

Figure 2. Median income (right) and poverty (left). Monte Vista on top, Dignowity Hill on bottom.

San Antonio is the one of the most economically segregated cities in the country. Economic segregation is based on racial segregation in a country where racist policies such as red-lining was only made illegal in 1968 and others, such a gerrymandering, are still exist today. Those who have historically had access to wealth and power made sure to set up systems of governance and economics that ensured their continuing wealth, while ensuring the continuing poorness of other groups. As a result, black and Latinx people experience higher rates of poverty than white people. Thus, the economic segregation of San Antonio also translates to, in large part, to the racial and ethnic segregation of it as well. Our circular highway system conveniently categorizes the city into a pie chart of the segregation: northside is predominantly white, the southside and westside are predominately Latinx, and the eastside has the highest concentration of Black people. This segregation is perpetuated by systems like property taxes funding public schools so that schools in wealthy areas with high land value do well, while schools in poorer areas are unfunded, and city bonds that distribute money evenly over districts, even though districts are not evenly wealthy. This is why some city districts use their bond money for libraries and parks and others have to use them for infrastructure creation and maintenance. Just like the landscape of the Hill Country, we are not all on even ground.

*****

During the summer of 2016 I did research on food deserts and community gardens in San Antonio. Part of this research involved surveying blocks of houses. Considering it was summer in Texas, it was miserable, but it was noticeably more miserable in neighborhoods in the westside and eastside because of a lack of trees (and often also a lack of sidewalks and the packs of stray dogs). These areas didn’t only feel hotter, they were hotter due to the heat island effect, the warming of urban areas due to greater human presence and activity. Trees help mitigate this effect, but there was also a noticeable difference in the tree density of these areas. When I was in these eastside and westside neighborhoods, there would often be little to no trees shading front lawns and sidewalks, much less shading the actual streets. Walking around, I could feel the sun bearing down on me from above while also reflecting up from the ground. No one wants to walk in environments like this. The times I have spent walking around Monte Vista have been far more pleasant, even during the summer, partly due to the presence of those great, old oaks providing shade and some degree of relief from the summer sun.

The utility of trees goes far beyond providing shade relief for pedestrians through:

Figure 3. Benefits of trees. Source: https://www.state.sc.us/forest/urbben.htm.

If those aren’t enough reasons, there are other resources that compile the research on the benefits of trees such as this one, this one, and this one. Trees come with many benefits and contribute greatly to increasing people’s standard of living, while also contributing to the environmental and economic health of areas too.  

However, San Antonio is segregated and where you live fundamentally shapes your opportunities, your access to education and healthcare, your mental health, your physical well being, how long you live, and even to some degree, your personality. Your social security isn’t the most important number you have, it’s your zip code. That inequality of access extends to tree coverage too (see figure 4).

Figure 4. Map of tree coverage in Dignowity Hill (right) and Monte Vista (left).

It is clear that Monte Vista has more tree coverage than Dignowity Hill. Considering the wealth of benefits trees give us, our environments, and our pocketbooks, we should be doing all we can to expand coverage for all of San Antonio, not just the ones who can afford it.

*****

San Antonio has had a Tree Preservation Ordinance since 1997 and was officially declared a Tree City in 2016. Progress is being made, but it is concentrated in wealthy areas. That is not enough progress. This tree ordinance has a 40% canopy goal for the city. The ordinance also states that it can be strengthened as needed. Considering the tree canopy in San Antonio at 22%, it’s needed.

There are programs that do exist in San Antonio to encourage the spread of tree coverage, such as a rebate program from CPS, but more can and should be done. A report released in 2009 from the nonprofit, American Forests, recommends an increase in education about the benefits of trees, but even that isn’t enough because at the heart of this matter is the inequality of access. A rebate is great, but what if you lack the resources to purchase trees in the first place? A Tree Preservation Ordinance, but what if they area you live isn’t experiencing development like other areas are? Or worse, what if the area where you do live in, like Dignowity Hill, is experiencing development so much so you can no longer live there?

The larger issue of all of this is the displacement that comes from gentrification and lack of access that exists in these neighborhoods before gentrification occurs. They both need to be addressed. If more trees are planted, land values will rise, leading to an increase in property taxes and rent prices, which will eventually price out and dislocate the people that an increase in trees was supposed to benefit in the first place. The people that have lived there for generations leave, forced to live in low-access neighborhoods elsewhere before the process begins anew.

It would be great if planting trees could be a cure-all for the problems in San Antonio, but it’s only one action of many that need to happen. The root, systemic issues of poverty and racism need to be carefully and thoughtfully examined and tackled, not just the symptoms they create. Just as with trees themselves, it is the roots that give hold so much importance and yet, are so often overlooked.

Volkswagen plant in Wolfsburg, Germany. (JULIAN STRATENSCHULTE / EPA)

Earlier this month, the Texas Commission on Environmental Policy (TCEQ) released it’s long-awaited plan to spend Volkswagen settlement funds–$209 million in all for Texas. Our first impression was that the plan was a mixed bag: some good elements, but also some head scratchers.

A preference for electric vehicles.

On the good side of things, Texas’ plan to spend VW funds charts a future for electric vehicles in Texas. The plan dedicates 15% of the funding–the maximum allowable amount–to the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) program, which will build electric vehicle (EV) charging stations around the state. Notably, while the plan does allow that ZEV funding could be used for hydrogen fueling projects, it includes the caveat that funding will only be given to hydrogen projects “where there will be a sustainable market for use of the hydrogen fuel.” Houston, with it’s robust petrochemical infrastructure that includes hydrogen pipelines, may be such a place.

The bulk of the ZEV funding, though, will go to electric vehicles charging stations. This means that Texas will spend $31 million on EV charging in the next few years, along with a 1-to-1 match of local funding for each project. You may also know that, due to a separate portion of its settlement agreement, Volkswagen has also started Electrify America, a company that will invest $2 billion in EV charging in the next ten years. (We have commented previously that allowing VW to start a for-profit company to install infrastructure for the benefit of its own products is hardly a punitive measure appropriate to the scale of its illegal acts, but for now we will just take note of the investment in EV charging that will ultimately benefit us all.)

The ZEV program in Texas will spend $31 million. The bulk of our VW funds, some $180 million, will go into a program that allocates funding to priority areas for a variety of clean transportation projects. The projects eligible for funding are:

Electric trucks like this one can be purchased with VW funds.

1. Class 4 – 7 Local Freight Trucks
2. Class 8 Local Freight Trucks and Port Drayage Trucks
3. Class 7 – 8 Refuse Vehicles
4. School Buses
5. Transit and Shuttle Buses
6. Electric Forklifts and Port Cargo Handling Equipment
7. Electric Airport Ground Support Equipment
8. Ocean-Going Vessel Shore Power

These categories create some very interesting possibilities. A few months ago we were critical of Houston’s proposal to purchase more than 75 diesel refuse trucks. Perhaps incentives for electric refuse trucks will encourage the city to purchase those in the future. And shore-power for ocean-going vessels could mean cleaner air for residents of the Houston Ship Channel, or even a cleaner cruise ship terminal in Galveston.

Our research in communities over the years has shown, unsurprisingly, that school bus projects are always very popular with the public. And I know from my days monitoring air quality in the Houston area that clean freight and drayage trucks are sorely needed in ship channel communities. All told, the $180 million eligible for projects in the above eight categories will, if invested wisely in zero-emissions technologies, be very good for public health in Texas.

There are three project categories eligible for funding under the VW Settlement Agreement that Texas has decided not to include in its draft plan. These are:

1. Freight Switchers
2. Ferries and tugs
3. Diesel Emissions Reduction Act

We know from research by our friends at Environmental Defense Fund that freight switchers and ferries/tugs are among the most cost effective options available, measured by cost per tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) reduced. TCEQ states that it left these projects out of the VW plan because they are already eligible under the TExas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP), another state program for clean transportation projects. But in fact these projects are limited under TERP, with a stricter cost per ton of NOx cap than that for other projects. The rationale for this treatment in TERP is that these vehicles do not pay into the TERP fund as do passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles. The result is that freight switchers, ferries, and tugs are not eligible for VW funding and are disfavored under TERP. This is a shame, as these may be among the most cost effective projects.

Texas also left projects out of its plan that require a match with federal Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funds. Texas says that it doesn’t want to bear the cost of administering DERA funding and that’s why those projects are left out of the VW draft plan. In fact Texas has declined DERA funds for the last few years, unrelated to the VW Settlement. We think that it is foolish to leave federal money on the table, but Texas does seem to have a habit of it (witness our disastrous decision to reject federal Affordable Care Act funding). We also don’t agree with Texas excuse that it doesn’t want to pay to administer DERA funds. Texas administers TERP, and now VW, at a cost of about 4% of the total funding available. Texas could administer DERA as well if it wanted Texans to have access to those clean transportation funds. Doing so would provide cleaner air to more Texans.

Austin is left out and Houston is left wanting.

When Texas allocated 81% of the VW funds to priority areas, it did so to within a hundredth of a percentage point, as follows:

Those percentages, along with what we know about the timing of the plan’s release, suggest that careful deliberation went into these allocations.

I don’t want to pit one region of the state against another, but I can’t help but wonder why San Antonio gets more funding than Dallas and Houston combined. Was Houston slighted because, in the words of Harris County Judge Ed Emmet, “They wrote us off as a lost cause.”?

And why was Austin left entirely out of the plan? It is well known that Austinites purchased more VWs per capita than other areas of the state. Texas’ VW plan takes great pains to define “impacted community” as one that has offending VWs AND doesn’t meet ozone pollution standards, a definition that could be used to exclude Austin. Texas also points out that VWs could have moved around the state after purchase, though the state offers no evidence to indicate that there are fewer VWs in Austin today than past purchase records would suggest. Taken altogether, the state’s justifications for which areas it included and excluded don’t add up. Governor Greg Abbott’s disdain for Austin is not a secret, and I wonder if this was another not political slight by him.

If the people of Austin have become players in a political chess match, then our children and elderly are the pawns that will pay first, and most dearly.

What you can do.

Between now and October 8, you can share your thoughts about Texas VW draft plan with the TCEQ. Send comments on the plan to VWsettle@tceq.texas.gov. You can also attend one of a series of meetings on the plan happening across the state (below). In the coming weeks, we will share more thoughts about what’s in Texas’ VW plan: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Houston
September 10, 2018 2:30PM
Tracy Gee Community Center
3600 Westcenter Drive
Houston, TX 77042

Beaumont
September 11, 2018 2:00PM
South East Texas Regional Planning Commission
2210 Eastex Freeway
Beaumont, TX 77703

Arlington
September 14, 2018 2:00PM
North Central Texas Council of Governments
616 Six Flags Drive
Arlington, TX 76011

San Antonio 
September 17, 2018 2:00PM
Alamo Area Council of Governments
8700 Tesoro Drive, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78217

El Paso 
September 19, 2018 10:00AM
Rio Grande Council of Governments
8037 Lockheed, Suite 100
El Paso, TX 79925

Austin 
September 26, 2018 2:00PM
TCEQ Austin, Building E, Room 201-S
12100 Park 35 Circle
Austin, TX 78753