By Cyrus Reed
Friday the 13th marked the official deadline to file bills in the Texas Legislature. By then, over 4,000 bills were filed in the House and some 2,000 in the Senate, as well as multiple “resolutions” and even a few proposed constitutional amendments. The approaching deadline shifted the relatively slow early pace of bill filing to a frenzied rate as Senators and House members were spurred into action by hundreds of clock watching lobbyists. A backlog of bill drafts at Legislative Council was partly to blame for the flurry of activity, as well as the high number of new Senators and new House members just getting their feet wet and learning the bill writing and filing process.
While we will devote future writings to many of the good, the bad and the ugly late filings, we comment here on some of the more notable bills, many of which the Sierra Club has concerns about. First, and foremost, is HB 40 by Rep. Drew Darby, Chair of the Energy Committee –. Rep Darby’s stated intent is to draw a balancing line between the regulatory authority of the state and local government in regulation and oversight of the oil and gas industry. Unfortunately, as written, the bill is no compromise, but a power grab written by lawyers representing the Texas oil and gas industry. In a nutshell, the the bill prohibits cities from regulating anything related to oil and gas exploitation, extraction, exploration, development, processing, production, and even transportation of those products, except for “surface activity” that is incidental to those activities. Taken to its extreme, the bill might even prevent a city from regulating where a refinery is located or disallowing a city from requiring setbacks from schools and hospitals. Yet the bill has dozens of co-sponsors, including most of House Speaker Straus' leadership team, including South Texas Democrats like Rene Oliveira and Ryan Guillen. The bill appears to have traction. It and a similar bill by Rep. Phil King, HB 539, which would also limit cities’ ability to protect their residents, were heard in a committee meeting on Monday, March 23rd that went past midnight at the Texas Capitol. Rep Darby left his bill pending in committee.
A companion bill – SB 1165 by Senator Troy Fraser – was introduced as part of a leadership strategy to make it clear to those pesky cities and counties that the long arm of the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) – the state agency which has thus far failed to adequately deal with injection wells, waste pits, earthquakes and flaring and venting – is the only regulatory game in town. Well there is of course the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality – which ignores emissions during the completion of wells in deference to the RRC – and has failed to adopt modern emission standards for the oil and gas studies. During a hearing held on March 24th, Sen. Fraser heard from oil and gas and mineral interests lauding the bill as reasonable and rational, but also from the Sierra Club, other environmental organizations and citizens, and the Texas Municipal League and dozens of cities who felt the bill as written gave undue and unprecedented power to the oil and gas industry to negotiate city ordinances that were favorable to their interests, while also putting a hold on current ordinances. A copy of the written testimony that Sierra Club submitted can be found here.
Fortunately, there is one bill filed that would address air emissions from oil and gas operations. HB 3480 by Rep. Chris Turner, would require that oil and gas facilities throughout the state clean up their act by using leak detection equipment four times a year and repairing any equipment leading to fugitive emissions. In addition, the bill would require modern standards on compressor engines, storage tanks and pneumatic devices, and require “green completions” for both oil and gas wells. The real purpose of the bill is to HELP the industry avoid losing its product from wells and equipment leaks by capturing methane. The bill has already been referred to the Committee on Energy Resources.
A few other good bills of note did get filed on oil and gas matters. Senator Menendez (SB 1990) and Representative Guillen (HB 3001) filed similar bills that would require that the oil and gas industry not only report their water use – currently required -- but also identify the composition, source and disposition of that water. Rep Rafael Anchia took up the mantle of a number of “left-over” sunset recommendations from the 2011 Sunset process, including changing the name of the Railroad Commission to reflect that they actually regulate oil and gas rather than railroads, requiring limits on political contributions (HB 1823) and posting enforcement data on-line (HB 2191). Rep. Rodriguez and Sen. Zaffirini filed bills intended to provide more ways the public could issue complaints about the oil and gas industry to the Railroad Commission of Texas (HB 2901 and SB 1865).
The number of bills filed to “protect” the oil and gas industry from overzealous municipalities was stunning, with multiple bills filed by members of the Committee on Energy Resources. It appeared as if those named to the Committee received a message that filing bills intended to better regulate the industry were not welcome but those received designed to “protect” the industry were.
Following the money, the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance continued their march toward passing a state budget. The House finished considering “riders”, amendments to the budget designed to lower or raise money earmarked for certain programs as laid out in the “base” budget and passed out the whole budget on March 24th. The proposed budget made modest increases in certain programs, but generally punted several big issues to other legislation. Thus, efforts to increase funding for parks, and clean air programs like the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan and the Low-Income Vehicle Repair and Replacement Program, were made contingent upon passage of HB 7, a separate bill from the budget. In the case of parks, an extra $47 million for everything from local park grants and maintenance of existing parks was included in HB 300 by Larry Gonzalez. This bill would give the Legislature more authority to decide how to spend the Sporting Goods Sales Tax, generally dedicated to park spending. Separate legislation has also been filed to dedicate this money constitutionally to the Parks and the Historic Commission, with hearings held over in the Ways and Means Committee. In the case of TERP and LIRAP, their exact fate is now tied to HB 7 by Drew Darby, which would set up a schedule for spending down the huge balances that have been established for TERP and LIRAP but not yet spent.
The Senate is also moving swiftly on SB 2, their budget bill. SB 1 is dedicated to tax-relief. Workgroups met throughout the month and a final budget is expected soon, with rider day scheduled this Thursday before the full committee. The Senate, unlike the House, made more definitive decisions on TERP and LIRAP, increasing each by approximately $80 million over the biennium. While a welcome increase, the amounts are still well short of full allocation of the revenues, especially in the case of TERP. The Senate at first glance also appears to have been slightly more generous with park funding, though details are sketchy until the full Committee passes a revised bill.
In the meantime, other bills of substance are also moving. Three bills of concern had hearings last week. HB 1796 by Rep. Charlie Geren would place significant limitations on the ability of local government to pursue enforcement cases against egregious polluters where the state fails to act. Clearly filed to put limits on the efforts of Harris county to deter current and future polluters, the bill had a spirited hearing before the House Committee on Environmental Regulation. Sierra Club and Public Citizen joined representatives from Harris and Travis County, and a variety of local citizens living in the shadows of toxic dumps and leaking underground storage tanks, who let Rep. Geren know what they thought of his bill. Supporting him was the Texas Association of Business, the Waste Management Company, and various chemical interests, among others. Based upon concerns raised, Rep. Geren substituted the filed bill with a slightly less egregious committee version and parties – including Harris County – said they would continue to work with him. The bill had not been been voted out of committee at the time this newsletter was published.
In the Senate, Sen. Troy Fraser announced “mission accomplished” in his effort to eliminate the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard and any future Competitive Renewable Energy Zones. Sen. Fraser stated that since we had basically built out the CREZ lines as well as met our initial and future goals and targets in the RPS, we should remove them from statutes. He got a cold reception from the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and the Wind Coalition, among others, who argued that not only would doing so send a message to wind and solar developers that they might look for states that are more welcoming, but there would be real financial damage in removing an obligatory RPS with its associated Renewable Energy Credits. Moreover, doing so would fundamentally take away a tool that we may need as a state to meet the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan since it allows states to utilize an RPS to help show compliance. Despite our opposition – and that of the renewable industry – Sen. Fraser passed the bill out of committee, with Sen. Zaffirini voting no.
Sierra Club was also raising concerns about a third bill in the Committee on Natural Resources. While supporting a number of bills by Rep. Eddie Lucio III, Sierra Club announced its opposition to HB 2031, Rep. Lucio’s bill relating to Marine Seawater Desalination. As former Sierra Club director Ken Kramer explained:
“Seawater desalination involves costs – not only financial and energy costs but also potential environmental costs, including possible harm to our productive bays and estuaries and direct impacts on marine life.
Therefore, any proposed seawater desalination projects need to undergo thorough review to ensure a project is the most viable approach to meeting a true water supply need and can avoid or minimize the potential effects on marine life and the environment. HB 2031 as introduced does not allow this type of thorough review, and as such, its passage would allow projects to be built that could have disastrous impacts on the Texas coast.”
For his part, Rep. Lucio III promised to work on a committee substitute to address the Sierra Club and others’ concerns. The bill was left pending.
Interested in Becoming Involved? Sign Up for Our Upcoming Lobby Days
With all of the activity on both the water and energy front, Sierra Club is asking our members to get involved. If you would like to participate in upcoming Energy (March 30 and 31st) or Water (April 21st and April 22nd) Sierra Club lobby days, contact Cyrus Reed at cyrus.reed@sierraclub.org or Evelyn Merz, elmerz@hal-pc.org.
To RSVP For Our Energy Days Here, click here: