Texas State Government Skips EPA GHG Permit Hearing, But Environmentalists Don't

No members of Texas government nor industry representatives spoke in the hearing.

Testimony at a Jan. 14 public hearing in Dallas on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s dispute with Texas over greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting was almost unanimously positive, in stark contrast with the combative stance the state has taken. No representatives from the state attended the meeting.

There were plenty of environmental protection groups and private citizens, though, and both praised EPA’s actions at the hearing. Texas brought a lawsuit against the agency on the grounds that the unelected EPA did not have the authority to compel states, via regulations slated to go into effect Jan. 2, to regulate carbon dioxide. It then informed EPA that it would not issue the permits until the conclusion of the suit. After a brief legal tussle, EPA assumed GHG permitting authority (pdf) in the state’s stead, much to the chagrin of officials at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

Neither members of TCEQ nor industry representatives spoke in the hearing, which came just two days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit lifted an injunction on EPA’s plan to issue the permits.

"The state's position on proposed greenhouse gas regulations has been clearly articulated to the EPA and well-documented in several pending court cases,” TCEQ said in a statement released to the media. “Our attempts to reason with EPA and efforts to have constructive discussions on our position and their authority under federal law have been ignored. We look forward to pursuing our position in the court system, and we are confident that science and the law will prevail."

Most of the 100 or so people at the daylong hearing testified differently.

“Although government officials might say you’re overstepping, EPA is really answering a cry for help, a cry for clean air,” testified Irving resident Diane Testa.

The overall tone of the testimony alternated between gratitude for the EPA’s actions and bitter feelings toward TCEQ.

“Their interest is oil and gas; their interest is not our safety,” said Dallas resident Marc McCord.

Several other speakers, including state Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth), were upset that Texas was using taxpayer money to pursue the suit against EPA at a time when it is grappling with an estimated $27 billion budget shortfall.

"What I resent is they are spending public dollars – scarce, scarce, scarce public dollars – to pursue their ideological agenda," Burnam said.

Those in support of the permitting process were almost gleeful about the lack of opposition present. “I guess if I worked for the industry, I’d be ashamed to show my face, too,” said Juan Parras of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services.

Large GHG-emitting facilities in Texas have slated 167 construction or renovation projects in 2011 that required a permit, so the lack of industry attendance was somewhat surprising.

Bill Stevens of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers had registered to speak but was unable to attend because of scheduling conflicts. Stevens submitted written testimony instead, in which he stated his organization believed the science behind GHG regulations was not strong enough to warrant regulation yet.

“We’re just pushing back as what we see as overreaching,” he told Environmental Protection. “I think we’ll see a delay in implementing these rules, and I support that. In two or three years, we’ll know more about what’s happening with climate change, and our economy will be in better shape to handle [the new regulations].”

Stevens said that the extra cost of complying with the new regulations during a slow economic period could weaken the competitiveness of American-produced energy on the world market.

The effect of the regulations, he said, is “hard to see right now, but … I’m not looking to support somebody who wants to put a burden on [energy producers]. I’m not interested in driving domestic production out of business and sending production overseas. Those regulations could have that effect.”

About the Author

Laura Williams is a content editor for Environmental Protection. She can be reached at LauraWilliams@1105media.com.

Comments

Mon, Feb 14, 2011 Steve

Good to see the EPA stand up for what is right, along with protecting citizens and fight what seems to be a corrupt government agency. No wonder none of them showed up, they were too embarrassed.

Mon, Jan 31, 2011 Common Citizen Kalifornia

The regulators know that the GHG issues is just another scam to raise taxes. They will fight it to the Supreme Court in any case so why bother.

Wed, Jan 26, 2011 Brian Oklahoma

"What I resent is they are spending public dollars – scarce, scarce, scarce public dollars – to pursue their ideological agenda," Burnam said.

This guy really just said this??? Yet it is perfectly ok for the EPA to waste millions and millions of tax payer dollars to drive critial businesses overseas costing Americans thousands of jobs based on ideological agenda (GHG regs that are half based on science and half based on fiction and omitted/modified "data"). All I can say is WOW!!!

Tue, Jan 25, 2011 Manassas Mike Virginia

Kentucky Tim, please don't try to equate the second hand smoke issue with the man-induced climate change hoax. I am somewhat amused by those individuals on the left side and some on the right side of the political spectrum who want this country to blindly go along with this UN-inspired hoax. Remember it was the UN that told us all through the 1990s that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The WHO banned the use of DDT in Africa which resulted in deaths due to malaria and other diseases. Do I need to provide more proof?

Tue, Jan 25, 2011 Kurt

Agreed!! The "global warming" er "climate change" er "cry for clean air" scam needs to be stopped soon.

Tue, Jan 25, 2011 Disappointed Texas

I too have spent most of my adult life (I'm 62) in the area of environmental protection - real environmental protection, and most of what I see from the EPA today is a preoccupation with bureaucracy and red tape. They seem to be far more concerned over the administrivia than they are over actual pollution prevention or control. I'm having to spend so much time, money, and manpower addressing paperwork details, that I actually am prevented from solving real environmental problems.

Tue, Jan 25, 2011 Tim Kentucky

As if our impact on the environment isn't recogizable enough, we have some hold outs like the people that still think second hand smoke isn't harmful. These people that like to error on the side of doing nothing or wait and see are always the ones later that don't want to be recognized when the truth comes out. Let's get all of these people that want to wait and see just agree to foot the bill and put money in escrow for a "few years". You won't see them put up their money first will you. They just want to make and worry about the consequences later.

Tue, Jan 25, 2011 Michigan Mark Michigan

Thank you Manassas Mike. When will people wake up to how clean our air is compared to 1970, the time when air quality regulations were just commencing? We have a lot more people and business now, yet we have vastly cleaner air. Please check out the EPAs own presentation of the trend at: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/images/comparison70.jpg

Tue, Jan 25, 2011 Manassas Mike Virginia

So global warmers are concerned over Texas using public money to sue the USEPA over the fraud-based climate change regulations. Do these people understand that far more of their money is going to be spent on this ridiculous issue with no good outcome in terms of protecting public health and the environment. I have been in the environmental protection field for 27 years and I have never seen such fraud used more effectively to brainwash the American people out of their hard earned money. More states should follow Texas' lead and either sue or disregard the USEPA. Don't mess with Texas!

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above