By Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter Conservation Director
Well it took some time but, after a lengthy delay, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) - Governor Abbott’s agency pick at the urging of the Sierra Club and other organizations - released its draft plan earlier this month on how Texas could spend $210 million from the federal Volkswagen (VW) settlement.
Not familiar with “Dieselgate”? Long story short: Advertising “clean” vehicles, VW tricked monitors during emissions testing that resulted in 40 times the legal amount of pollution to spew from VW vehicles in real-world driving.
Under the mitigation plan approved by a federal judge, each state was earmarked a certain amount of money; Texas has been allocated more money than every state except for California.
Here’s where your input comes in!
The plan released this month is only a draft, and TCEQ is asking stakeholders and the public what they think about it. First, they are inviting anyone that wants to submit comments to send them to vwsettle@tceq.texas.gov.
Comments must be received by the TCEQ no later than October 8, 2018.
Second, TCEQ is holding public meetings in six cities - Houston, Beaumont, Arlington, San Antonio, El Paso and Austin - over the course of September. (You can find more information on public meeting dates and locations here.)
So What’s Actually In The Draft Plan?
The plan is actually pretty simple. The roughly $210 million is split into two parts, with some funds allocated for administration. Fifteen percent of the funds are available statewide for funding of light-duty electric vehicle charging infrastructure, for both electric and vehicles cars and small trucks powered by hydrogen cell fuels.
The plan also gives priority to geographic areas in Texas where entities would be eligible for grants to cover part of the cost of replacing older, dirtier heavy-duty on-road vehicles and off-road equipment. The plan creates eight categories of eligible classes of vehicles or equipment that could receive grants (list below) and then divides the money among five regions (table below). The vehicle or equipment is for the most part technology-neutral, meaning gas, natural gas, and electric vehicles could compete for grant resources. Thus, a school district wanting a grant to replace a school bus could choose to apply for a grant for an electric, natural gas, diesel or even propane bus as long as it met certain emission standards.
Eligible Mitigation Vehicles/Infrastructure:
Class 4-7 Local Freight Trucks
Class 8 Local Freight Trucks and Port Drayage Trucks
Class 7-8 Refuse (Garbage) Trucks
School Buses
Transit and Shuttle Buses
Electric Forklifts & Port Cargo Handling Equipment
Electric Airport Ground Support Equipment
Ocean-Going Vessel Shore Power
Priority Areas For Texas Volkswagen Draft Mitigation Plan
What Does Sierra Club Think?
While we are still developing our comments for the TCEQ’s plan and welcoming input, we think there are good, bad and some ugly details in the plan.
Let’s start with the good. The decision to set aside 15% of the fund for zero-emission vehicle infrastructure is a really good idea. This smart investment will help accelerate the EV market and put infrastructure in place around the state for electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles.
Chevrolet Bolt Electric Vehicle
Photo: Al Braden
Second, we’re generally in agreement with the other eight categories of projects for funding, in addition to the electric infrastructure and the concept of spending the majority of that money in areas of our state that face high levels of smog, like Houston, Dallas and San Antonio.
The Bad
Plan Has No Guarantee That Money Won’t All Be Spent In One Category
TCEQ is proposing to essentially create a free-for-all in the five areas they have identified for the eight categories. In other words, potentially all the money could be spent in an area for only garbage trucks, or all for buses, as opposed to creating some minimum level of funding for each. Other states with final or draft plans have created specific levels of funding. At the very least, we think some money should be earmarked for more “public fleets” that serve all residents, such as school buses and transit buses.
Plan Doesn’t Address Inequity Within City Limits
Second, TCEQ is proposing that by spending money in areas with high smog levels, they are thus meeting a requirement of the fund that it target populations that experience a disproportionate share of the air pollution burdens. But the burden of pollution isn’t equally distributed even within a city. Folks who live in housing right next door to a major highway or spend a significant amount of time in a heavily industrialized area, often low-income communities of color, are exposed to breathing dirtier air than those that live in a more suburban subdivision, removed from traffic and industry.
Plan Doesn’t Explain Geographic Priorities
Third, TCEQ’s decision to spend the money in five areas - and the respective amounts - seems arbitrary, and the agency hasn’t been transparent in how it decided which cities get how much. Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston have the most people and relatively higher levels of pollution than do other areas, but the plan distributes the bulk of the money to San Antonio (35%).
Furthermore, there are other areas which don’thave as high levels of pollution as Dallas, Houston or San Antonio, but do on occasion have high levels of ozone, with lots of of VWs polluting their air, that should have access to at least some funds. As an example, the Austin area has higher ozone levels of Beaumont (which receives 6%) and had the most VWs in the state on a per-capita basis,yet it was not considered a priority area (aka, there is $0 designated for Austin in the draft plan). Other areas that could make a case for getting access to some money would include Corpus Christi, Waco and Tyler-Longview. At the very least, TCEQ should better explain its methodology for favoring San Antonio over other areas and excluding areas like Austin.
The Ugly Details: Traditional Fuels Could Be Favored Over Electric
Finally, TCEQ is proposing a methodology for cost-effectiveness that relies on old data that might end up favoring the continued use of diesel vehicles rather than clean, zero-emission electric vehicles.
While the grants allow for different technologies to compete in theory, the details in action might mean that diesel vehicles get favorable treatment.
First, methodology only considers NOx reduction compared to the vehicle being replaced and the initial cost of the vehicle, but does not take into account the operations and maintenance costs, which are lower for electric vehicles. Essentially, electric vehicles at the moment cost more upfront but have lower lifetime costs due to fuel savings and lower operations costs. They’re also far better for our environment. Unfortunately, TCEQ is discounting these savings (good for our bank accounts, our health and our planet!).
Second, TCEQ is using the same methodology they use on the estimated NOx reduction for their other existing incentive programs, but many believe they should be updating those models to better reflect real-world conditions of vehicles. Instead, many recommend that TCEQ use for quantification of on-road projects NOx reduction work performed by the Argonne National Lab, which is known as the AFLEET tool.
This is better at capturing some of the real-world research where new diesel is actually emitting much higher pollution than it’s certified to, so it’s not as clean in real life as it is on paper. Some other states, such as Louisiana, have adopted this more modern tool.
For the non-road categories, many are suggesting that TCEQ use the EPA Diesel Emissions Quantifier, as it provides multipollutant benefits of moving to cleaner vehicles, as opposed to the TCEQ model.
Moreover, we’re not sure the level of proposed grants is enough to spur adoption of some of the newer technology. It’s fine that the TCEQ isn’t proposing to pay the whole cost of any replacement vehicles or equipment,but the proposed levels of 25 percent to 60 percent may not be enough to get local governments or private fleets to actually act towards electrifying vehicles and public transit.
What Are Other States Doing?
While some other states are proposing to do what Texas does,essentially create some eligible activities and let everyone compete and/or participate in a first-come first-serve process,others have developed more targeted plans that prioritize equity by focusing, as an example, on school buses or transit buses in certain areas, or helping low-income communities impacted by air pollution.
Below are some good examples of state plans that Texas could borrow from...
-
California: at least 35% of allocated funds must benefit low-income or disadvantaged communities that are disproportionately impacted by air pollution
-
Massachusetts: allocates electric transit bus funding in communities impacted by pollution
-
New Mexico: very strong environmental justice approach to prioritizing project locations (specifies "environmental justice areas"), and devotes part of the plan to discussing the concurrence of EJ communities and air pollution
-
Pennsylvania: considers environmental justice communities into their scoring system for selecting projects
-
Rhode Island: allocates 3/4 of the funding to replacing 20 diesel powered transit buses with all-electric zero-emission vehicles, and will be considering environmental justice principles when deciding on the location of this investment
So What’s Next?
Sierra Club will be reaching out to allies, including our members, and developing in-depth comments on the draft plan. We will also be urging our supporters, members and allies to attend upcoming public hearings and listening and speaking on their views. Whether or not TCEQ makes significant changes to the draft plan, we will need all of our supporters engaged to make sure that local governments and even some private fleets take advantage of the opportunities to make our vehicles - and our air - cleaner.