This week will be pivotal to the future of Texas at the Capitol, and you can make a difference! We have some good news, and some bad in terms of bills getting hearings this week next week.
The Good
Several of our major priorities this session appear to be making progress. First, the Sierra Club was able to work in conjunction with other conservation organizations and the authors of SB 7 (Sen. Brandon Creighton) and SB 8 (Sen. Charles Perry) to clarify that future Texas water flood planning and funding must include strategies that consider “non-structural” or nature-based solutions. First, Sen. Creighton added an amendment to the flood funding bill (SB 7) that specifically allows nature-based strategies to be included and funded. Thus, land acquisition or land preservation to better control flooding along the Texas coast can be considered along with more “traditional” flood control measures like dams or reservoirs. We felt like the bill might have been headed in the wrong direction so this was a tremendous improvement.
Second, in part due to the efforts of first-term Sen. Nathan Johnson, we were able to establish legislative intent that SB 8 also includes such non-structural flood control strategies through a floor discussion. We thank both Sen. Perry and Sen. Johnson for these efforts to improve the Senate’s legislation on flood control.
The legislation goes to the House next, but the House has their own version -- HB 13 and HJR 4 -- by Rep. Dade Phelan. We and others are already working with Phelan’s office to add similar language to his bills. Assuming that bill -- which has already been approved by the Committee on Natural Resources -- gets to the House floor soon, the House and Senate will need to work out the differences between the bills.
In addition, in a feel-good hearing, SB 26 and SJR 24 -- which guarantee that the sporting goods sales tax is dedicated largely to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department -- passed the Senate Committee on Finance and is expected to make it to the Senate floor soon. This has been a major effort to fully fund our parks and create a constitutional amendment to permanently dedicating funding to parks.
There are three great bills coming up next week supported by the Sierra Club and many allies. First, Rep. Richard Raymond’s HB 2860 is up Monday in the House Committee on State Affairs. A consumer bill of rights for onsite solar and other generation owners, the bill guarantees fair treatment of electricity consumers in most of the state, including both inside and outside of ERCOT.
Similarly, two great bills by Chair Brian Birdwell are up Wednesday in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development. First, one of the Sierra Club’s priorities this session is continuing the fees that fund the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP), which allows grants to clean up older vehicle engines and other mobile sources. Unfortunately, those fees will not continue if the Legislature does not take action such as through SB 531, and then allocate those fees to TCEQ to clean up the air.
Second, Birdwell is working to create a statewide PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy District) program through SB 1281 whereby counties and cities that wanted could join a statewide program that would continue to make Texas a leader on “Property-Assessed Clean Energy Districts,” where commercial buildings can be made more energy or water-efficient (even add solar) and then pay back a private loan through a special fee on their property tax bill. There are already dozens of counties around the state that run these programs but having a single administrator overseen by the State Energy Conservation Office (through a contract) would put the PACE program on a new level.
Also up this week is the state budget, which goes to the floor on Wednesday. We are working with a variety of offices to improve the budget for issues like local parks and water conservation, and will keep our members informed about the final budget approved by the House, but we generally like a lot of what is in the budget.
Stay up to date with our legislative efforts. Sign up for our legisilative udpates emails here.
The Ugly
We and our allies spent many hours last week opposing an ugly bill by Rep. Kyle Kacal that would have required all contested case hearings over pollution permits being considered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to be held at the TCEQ itself, rather than at the State Office of Administrative Hearings, which is current law. While Kacal seems to believe this will lead to efficiencies and use of agency expertise in these hearings, community outrage and opposition from multiple local citizens and conservation organizations was strong: having TCEQ be the judge and jury of contested pollution permits undermines fairness. Want to help? Let members of the Committee on Environmental Regulation know that you oppose HB 3114. See our fact sheet here.
Unfortunately, HB 3114 is not the only ugly bill in contention for consideration at the Texas Legislature.
Even in the wake of the recent disasters along the Houston Ship Channel, punctuated by explosions and fires at ITC, Rep. Greg Bonnnen -- brother to Speaker Dennis Bonnen -- is holding a hearing first thing Monday morning on HB 2826, which puts limits on how effectively county or city environmental attorneys can take such industries to court. In other words, at the very moment we are witnessing the failure of our state agency -- the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality -- to take action against chemical companies which routinely violate state laws, HB 2826 would put limits on what local political subdivisions are able to do in terms of environmental enforcement. The hearing will be at the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Monday morning. Harris County, the Council on Urban Counties, and the Sierra Club will be there in opposition.
The very next day some other ugly bills will rear their heads. Continuing the theme of undermining local authority, HB 2723 by Rep. Drew Darby would prevent local governments or other political subdivisions from passing any rules regulating municipal solid waste facilities leaving it up to -- you guessed it -- the TCEQ to be the sole judge of landfill rules.
Also of great concern to the Sierra Club is HB 2771 by Chair JM Lozano, which would, for the first time, allow TCEQ to authorize the discharge of wastewater from oil and gas operations into our state’s streams, rivers, reservoirs, and bays. What’s wrong with some treated oil and gas wastewater getting into our intermittent streams and rivers you ask? Well, this has been so controversial for so long that the EPA has only allowed a couple of states, in very unique circumstances, to authorize such discharges ever, and the U.S. EPA has yet to delegate such a program to the TCEQ, and currently oil and gas operators would have to seek a permit from the US EPA. In fact, even Trump’s EPA is still studying the issue and has yet to enact new rules. Sierra Club would support studying the issue, but we wouldn’t support suddenly opening up our state to discharge wastewater from oil and gas operations, which includes chemicals used in “fracking” that can contain chemicals that can cause cancer and birth defects. Now, taking wastewater from oil and gas, and treating and recycling it for further oil and gas development is one thing, but discharging it in state waters is quite another.
The Bad
Also of concern to Sierra Club is what we have started calling the “Dump More, Pay Less Plan” -- HB 2269 -- a bill by Rep. Brooks Landgraf. This bill would allow Waste Control Specialists, which runs the private low-level radioactive waste facility in Andrews County, to stop collecting and remitting a 20 percent surcharge to the state on imported radioactive waste, and to use up to two-thirds of the dump for imported waste, as opposed to waste from our own Texas radioactive waste. In addition, the bill would reduce an “income” tax fee of 10 percent, reducing it to five percent. Thus, in the sad history of WCS, a promise to build a “compact” facility only for Texas waste and waste from other states that formally joined our compact (Vermont) would become the defacto dumping ground for the entire nation. And let’s not forget that WCS is concurrently attempting to license an “interim” storage facility for the nation’s high-level waste right next door through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Unfortunately, also on the dock next week is the companion to Rep. Landgraf’s bill -- SB 1021 -- by Sen Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo) This bill will be heard on the Senate side at the Texas Committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development starting at 9 AM on Wednesday.
More Bad
Rep. Ken King has introduced and received a hearing for a bad bill -- HB 1971 -- that would force Texans who own electric vehicles to pay a $200 per vehicle extra fee, and force hybrid vehicle owners to pay $100 extra. So Tuesday at 2 PM, in the House Committee on Transportation, Sierra Club will be arguing for a study instead. We are in full agreement that, with the transition to electric vehicles, electric vehicle owners need to pay something to help invest in transportation infrastructure because they don’t pay as much (or any) gasoline taxes. However, $200 is way beyond what a normal gas-guzzling car spends over the course of a year in gas taxes. Instead, DPS should study what electric car drivers are actually driving and come up with an equivalent fee that helps pay for roads. Because electric vehicles tend to be smaller, and tend only to be used in urban areas, in reality EV owners probably use our highways much less than the ubiquitous Ford F-150 or Ram 1500 HB 1971 is essentially an EV tax!
Finally, a couple of similar bills we don’t like, SB 1993 by Sen. Birdwell, and HB 3557 by Paddie, will also get a hearing next week in Birdwell’s committee. The Birdwell bill, which he calls the “Critical Infrastructure Protection Act” (we call it the “silence peaceful protesters at future pipelines” scheme), creates criminal offenses if a person intentionally or knowingly damages, destroys, vandalizes, defaces, or tampers with a critical infrastructure facility; or the person intentionally or knowingly impedes, inhibits, or interferes with the operation of a critical infrastructure facility.
Sound reasonable? Sure, except it would even include in its broad definition even entering a property and seeking to impede a future infrastructure project -- read pipeline, chemical plant, or even power plant -- and could be used to chill peaceful demonstrations and protests. Thus, the bill expands the definition of “critical infrastructure” to include a “facility that is being constructed and all of the equipment and appurtenances used during that construction” (Sec. 424.001). This broadens the reach of the bill beyond protests and demonstrations at existing pipelines and other infrastructure, which is broadly defined, and includes locations where infrastructure is under construction. The broad definition could be read to include, for example, a peaceful protest or demonstration that “impedes” construction of a pipeline or other facility, or that “interferes” with access to a facility by blocking a road. Under the bill, “damage to critical infrastructure” is a second degree felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
While not quite as broad, Rep. Paddie’s bill (HB 3557) is quite similar and is being heard today in the Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence.
Protesting a future LNG facility or creating a camp to protest a future pipeline shouldn’t lead to 20 years in jail. It also creates guilt by association -- and potential liability -- for organizations like the Sierra Club that often have members who protest future projects.
Stay up to date with our legislative efforts. Sign up for our legisilative udpates emails here.