Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘soah’

courtroom symbolUPDATE: SB 709 passed in the Senate on Thursday, April 16 and then passed in the House on Thursday, April 30.

Texas legislators have once again taken aim at the long-standing contested case hearing process that provides opportunity for public participation in ensuring an environmental permit is protective of public health and the environment.

Senate Bill 709 by Senator Fraser and its companion House Bill 1865 by Representative Morrison reduce public participation and rights in a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) contested case hearing for an environmental permit application.

The changes to the state’s permitting process proposed in SB 709 reduce the rights of Texans to participate effectively in the permitting process on the basis that the contested case process has become burdensome to the state’s ability to competitively attract businesses due to the uncertainty created by the threat of a lengthy permit process.

However, the truth is that there are just not that many permit applications that are affected by the contested case hearing process. In 2014, there were 1,960 applications received by TCEQ. Of those applications, only 10 were referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings – that’s only one half of one percent of applications received in that calendar year. The other 99.5% of permit applications to the TCEQ go uncontested and are processed and issued in time-frames similar to or even faster than our neighboring states that we compete closest with for business.

If this bill is enacted into law, the contested case process that has a track record of improving permits and protecting the environment from the biggest and longest lasting environmentally hazardous projects, would be substantially amended.

First, the length of any hearing would be limited to 180 days without regard to specific needs of parties. This time frame does not allow sufficient time for meaningful discovery, or analysis of the facts removing any discretion by the Administrative Law Judge to grant an extension of time even when such a denial would deprive a party of due process.

These bills would also allow the TCEQ to deny a hearing request based on the merits of the application without allowing an opportunity for discovery, presentation of the evidence, or cross examination. The contested case hearing process was created to provide an affected party a chance to argue against the TCEQ decision in front of an impartial decision maker as part of a sound democratic system.

Further, the bill places the burden of proof on the wrong party by shifting it from the applicant to the protestant. In this legislation, the draft permit itself, is evidence that is presumed to be true that the permit meets all federal and state requirements declaring it protective of public health and the environment. However, this is often not the case of draft permits and if this bill passes the burden to find fault in a supposedly perfect draft permit shifts to the protestant. Protestants are often individuals or small organizations who often do not have the resources nor expertise to collect the necessary evidence to bring a strong a case against a large cooperation.

The bottom line is that the burden of proof should remain on the party seeking to change the status quo by filing permit. If an applicant wants to discharge waste into the air, water or land, it is their responsibility to show that they are using the best technology available, so that the activity can be done safely, rather than forcing an affected member of the public to prove otherwise.

Although most permits don’t go through the contested case hearing process, those that do are often the most significant permits that would allow the most pollution. In those cases, Texans should have the right to protect their health, land and livelihoods.

The contested case hearing process reflects longstanding Texas values of transparent and accountable government, private property rights, and local control. In a state where these values are held sacred it will be interesting to see how legislators handle these bills.

Email your state representative to voice your opposition to HB 1865 and SB 709.

Read Full Post »

Tomorrow  at 9:30 a.m. the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will have a hearing at their headquarters off Interstate 35 and Parmer Lane in north Austin regarding a status-update on the air permit application for the controversial Las Brisas coke-fired coal plant proposed for Corpus Christi.  Commissioners sent the application back for further review last summer.

This update on the planned Las Brisas Energy Center will be held in advance of Monday’s hearing by the State Office of Administrative Hearings. The commission sent the application back to SOAH on June 30 to determine if the plant would be in compliance with federal clean air laws.

Las Brisas has asked the TCEQ to take unprecedented and extraordinary steps to issue an air pollution permit before the end of the year, in order to avoid greenhouse gas regulations that become effective early next year and tomorrow’s status update and Monday’s SOAH hearing should be watched carefully

When commissioners remanded the application in June, they cited problems involving technical readings of federal clean air laws, including whether petroleum coke should be in the same category as coal for the purpose of evaluating its impact on air quality.

Both the ALJ and the TCEQ staff had agreed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not specifically ruled on that question, but noted that the federal agency is expected to do so by next year.

The TCEQ’s decision to remand the application was based on more narrow concerns, including whether there would be an increase in particulate matter from offsite sources above levels expected under its most recent modeling.

The commission also instructed Las Brisas to be able to demonstrate that it could load the ashes from the burned petroleum coke into trucks for offsite disposal without contributing to additional emissions.

We’ll keep you updated on what is happening with this proposed plant as events unfold.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

The Administrative Law Judges (The Judges) who heard the case against the proposed Tenaska Coal Fired Power plant ruled Friday that Tenaska’s air permit should not be granted as it stands!

“The Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have concluded, based on their review of the evidence and applicable law, that Tenaska failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the emissions limits proposed in its Draft Permit will meet the requirements for Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).  The ALJs recommend that the Commission adopt more stringent emissions limits as indicated below.  Alternatively, the ALJs recommend that the Commission deny the Application or remand the matter for further evidence regarding BACT and MACT.”

While we all know there is no such thing as “clean coal” Tenaska claims that they would be one of the cleanest around, yet the judges recommended lower limits for almost every pollutant that Tenaska would emit.

The proposed Tenaska coal plant, if built, would be a 900 MW coal plant that would emit:

Citizens pack a town hall in Abilene - the majority are against the proposed plant.

Sulfur Dioxide: 2,183 tons/year; Nitrogen Oxide (forms Ozone):1,819 tons/year;Particulate Matter:1,092 tons/year;Mercury: 124 lbs/year.

We commend the Judges for following the law and working to make sure the Clean Air Act is followed.  The important thing to remember, folks, is that this is a “recommendation” to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), not a binding ruling.  So when the TCEQ commissioners make the decision on the Tenaska air permit they will have the opportunity to do the right thing for the health of Texans and deny the air permit!

We don’t need another coal plant in Texas.  Instead we should be investing in renewable energy technology like wind and solar which Texas is so ripe for!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We arePublic Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

The TCEQ ruled today on the air permit for the proposed Las Brisas pet-coke plant in Corpus Christi. The good news is they didn’t grant the permit (yet), instead they remanded the permit back to the State Office of Administrative Hearings on a number of issues. However, they refused to acknowledge some of the most important aspects and requirements of the process (like a case-by-case analysis of the hazardous air pollutants) and practically ignored the recommendations of the administrative law judges and even their own staff – who have all recommended that this permit be denied.

TCEQ should have sent Las Brisas packing – they should have outright denied this joke of a permit, or at the least made them restart the permitting process from square one. Instead we have the same old story from TCEQ. They have shown once more that their primary interest is to allow industries to pollute irresponsibly and not, as it should be, to protect the people and environment of Texas from unnecessary pollution.

The video below is of the press conference held yesterday, which also talked about revisions to water quality standards – another mistake TCEQ is in the process of making. Visit Sierra Club’s website for more on that. Stay tuned to Texas Vox for more info on the Las Brisas case – the video footage of today’s proceedings will be up by tomorrow and will include responses from the protestants in the case including locals from Corpus Christi.

[vimeo 12988286]

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas

Read Full Post »

Portland, Texas’ City Council members voted yesterday on a resolution to unanimously to support a State Office of Administrative Hearings’ judicial recommendation that an air permit sought for Las Brisas petroleum-coke fired power plant be denied or reviewed further.

Portland’s council has long-standing tradition of staying out of Corpus Christi and Nueces County matters, but back in March, after two administrative law judges recommended that the permit be denied or sent back to the state environmental agency for further review, City Councilwoman Cathy Skurow, a civil engineer specializing in environmental permitting, requested it be put on the agenda.

More than 50 people packed the City Council Chambers and the council heard twenty four-minutes of testimony from a couple of Portland residents and dozens of Corpus Christi residents, all against the project, because of concerns that the plant would be detrimental to residents’ health and harmful to the economy should the region fall out of compliance with air pollution limits.

Portland Mayor David Krebs told the crowd that he came into the meeting 100 percent against the resolution, but by the time the vote occurred, he and the others fully supported it.

Council members said the council is not for or against Las Brisas, but wanted to add its collective voice in asking the state agency to make sure the project meets environmental regulations before it is built.  Basically the Portland council put TCEQ on notice that they expect TCEQ to do what they are supposed to do to protect the health and environmenal wellbeing of citizens in the region.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

This week the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality received a recommendation from two administrative judges denying the air permit for the proposed Las Brisas Energy Center in Corpus Christi.  The decision is a ray of hope in the battle to prevent the petcoke plant from showering the citizens of Corpus Christi with harmful pollutants including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and lead.

Set to be built in the Inner Harbor of Corpus Christi, the petroleum coke-fired power plant would cost nearly $3 billion.

Petcoke piles along the ship channel in Corpus Christi

The recommendation was issued following two weeks of testimony and nearly two months of private deliberation between the judges.  Reasons for their decision against the permit were that the company:

  • failed to perform analysis on maximum achievable control technology to be used for its boilers
  • failed to properly account for second emissions
  • failed to properly account for emissions from material handling
  • improperly adjusted the moisture content of the petroleum coke handled at the Port of Corpus Christi in violation of state and federal guidance, resulting in unreliable emissions modeling (more…)

Read Full Post »

The dramatic irony of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) decision this morning to grant the NRG Limestone Coal Plant an air permit (and therefore permission to begin construction on a third smokestack) is painful.  At the very moment that leaders from around the world are meeting to come to an international agreement to save the world from catastrophic global warming, at the very moment that residents of developing nations are begging for the continued existence of their land and way of life, Texas gives the green light to build another mercury-spewing, asthma-inducing, planet choking coal plant.

Not exactly what I was hoping to wake up to this morning.

This decision also comes just days after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came out with its engangerment finding, which says that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases represent a significant threat to public health and welfare.  Earlier this year, the EPA also ruled that TCEQ has not been adhering to the Clean Air Act in its issuance of new air permits.  This is the first coal plant permit that TCEQ has issued since that warning (which TCEQ doesn’t seem to have taken to heart).  AND, according to Karen Hadden, executive director of SEED Coalition,

The TCEQ is not following federal law (Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT) in issuing this permit and a result, mercury emissions will be higher.

So many hearts to break, so little time. But of course there’s always a silver lining. Next legislative session, the TCEQ (and a whole host of other commissions) will undergo the Sunset Review process — and as Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office mentions, that gives Texas a chance to reform the TCEQ permitting process:

This is just another example of why the Sunset Commission should take a good hard look at how TCEQ rubber stamps permits for coal plants in Texas.

In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed for progress in Copenhagen, and stay tuned at Texas Vox for more information on how you can help fight global warming and a 2nd Texas coal rush.

Full breakdown of the good (NRG has agreed to offset 50% of their emissions, though there’s nothing in their permit to hold them to that), the bad, and the ugly after the jump:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

smoke-menaceResidents Who May Be Affected by Plant’s Pollutants Should Tell the Judge

AUSTIN – Next Monday marks the last chance to register as legal opponents to the White Stallion power plant proposed near Bay City, and Public Citizen is urging people to attend. Opponents have organized a group called the No Coal Coalition around concerns for air quality, water use, the health effects of increased pollution and the plant’s potential contribution to global warming.

The White Stallion Energy Center is slated for construction just 10 miles south of Bay City. The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) will conduct a preliminary hearing on the White Stallion Energy Center at 10 a.m. Monday, April 20, at the Bay City Convention Center.

Anyone with concerns or who anticipates being affected by air contaminant emissions from the facility may attend Monday’s hearing and request to be a party to the case. A SOAH judge will decide who will be eligible to participate in the case; the actual contested case hearing, which will be in about six months, will be a legal proceeding similar to a civil trial in state district court.

“We are extremely concerned about the White Stallion plant,” said Robert M. Malina, Ph.D, a Bay City resident representing the No Coal Coalition and a professor emeritus with the Department of Kinesiology and Health Education at the University of Texas at Austin.”  If built, White Stallion would emit thousands of tons of pollution, which could have serious health consequences for a large number of people and the environment. Emissions from coal plants can complicate asthma, cardiac pulmonary disease, and many other circulatory and respiratory conditions. Mercury and lead, both emitted in large quantities from coal and petroleum coke plants, accumulate in our bodies and the environment and are associated with serious developmental problems in children. Simply stated, the White Stallion plant should not be built.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Corpus Christi residents stirred up quite a stink at the Las Brisas preliminary hearing last Tuesday. Four hundred residents showed up to make their feelings known about the coal plant, which if built will be clearly visible from Town Hall.

lasbriashearing

Originally the hearing was to be held in a 50 person capacity room, which was not expected to fill up. Little did they know that countless locals and a bus load of grade school kids from Smith, a nearby town, would show up to voice their opinions about the hearing.

“I don’t want this plant because I already live by six large refineries and I’ve been affected by the air pollution,” Jean Salone, who lives in the Hillcrest area, told KRIS-TV. “My concerns are air pollution, the effects on my health and dangerous situations like gas entering my home,” Salone said.

Public and environmental health issues were raised by several Corpus residents.

“I’m very concerned about my health. We are the 84th most polluted county in the country right now based on the tri data,” Dr. Melissa Jarrell said to KRIS.

“It might cause adverse affects to myself, to my neighbors, to wildlife, to fish in the bay,” local resident Bill Reeves told KRIS.

Having to balance the droves of fired up citizens and capacity issues, the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) judge who was presiding over the hearing decided to rotate the groups 50 people at a time in order to give everyone a chance to be heard.Apparently though, having so many people in one place with limited capacity is a fire hazard – or at least it is according to the Corpus Christi Fire Marshall, who required the hearing to be moved for safety reasons.

20090217_lasbrisasmarch1The Judge heard the rest of the people that were in the room, and any individuals who could not come back at a later time. Then a recess was called until the afternoon to reconvene at the Del Mar College Center for Ecological Development.

Even with all the commotion, the hearing was still a great success. Several organizations were granted standing, including the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Clean Economy Coalition, as well as many individuals form the local community. “Standing” means that individuals are uniquely affected parties and will actually have status in the hearing process.

The next hearing is expected to be held sometime in August. This meeting will give organizations and individuals who were granted standing the opportunity to present their case.

Read Full Post »

nrgprotest10Last Friday two administrative law judges refused to hear testimony on the impact of carbon dioxide emissions during the permitting process for the NRG Limestone coal-fired power plant. The contested case hearing for NRG’s air quality permit application will be going on all week long, but testimony on the proposed plant’s contribution to global warming will not be allowed.  The judges decided that the TCEQ has adopted clear policies that they would not consider testimony on the issue, even though the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 (EPA vs Massachusetts) that the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. If built, the plant will emit 7.4 million tons of carbon dioxide every year.

NRG has acknowledged that climate change is a serious environmental issue, and has agreed to offset a portion of its greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed new plant. Yet, lawyers for the company maneuvered to strike all references to CO2 or climate change from the week-long hearing.

nrgprotest4In protest, local environmentalists gathered for an 8:30 a.m. protest Monday Feb 22 outside the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Groups supporting the protest included: Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, Environment Texas, Clean Water Action, Re- Energize Texas, and the Texas Climate Emergency Campaign.

Some of the protest’s participants made the following comments in a press release: (more…)

Read Full Post »