Today, the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) held an open meeting during which the Sierra Club’s Lone Star Chapter demanded that the oil and gas agency be stricter on pollution enforcement and be more transparent about their actions with the public. The Chapter's comments were delivered just days before the public Texas Railroad Commission Candidates Forum.
Interim director Cyrus Reed issued the following statement to the Commissioners:
“Basic aggregated data on enforcement has disappeared from the RRC website, and the agency has insufficient data in its annual monitoring and enforcement report. There is virtually no way for the public to know about enforcement data related to pipelines, a major concern for the public. The Commission’s enforcement and transparency is not sufficient as is.”
Comments on the Commission’s Annual Oil and Gas Division Monitoring and Enforcement Plan are due Thursday, May 21st, and Reed used the public hearing to talk about the Sierra Club’s major issues with the Commission’s enforcement strategies.
Among the recent positive developments Reed cited in his public testimony were:
-
The expansion of the database known as OIL (Online Inspection Lookup), which allows the public and regulated industry to see inspection and enforcement data related to oil and gas and related infrastructure. The Sierra Club has been advocating for nearly 10 years for the Commission to put searchable enforcement data online, and the OIL database is a major step forward in accessibility and enforcement. Reed noted that improvements are still needed to make the database more user friendly.
-
The Railroad Commission of Texas' Case Administration Service Electronic System (RRC CASES), which allows you to search and view the agency's case information online, including processed case documents related to enforcement and permit decisions. However, RRC Cases does not allow the public presently to view decision documents that the Commissioners vote on until after they have approved them. The database is scheduled to be improved by September, which will allow better access for the public. Currently, for example, one can not see the exact amount of gas that could be flared in Rule 32 Flaring Exceptions until after the Commissioners have already voted.
Among the concerns that Reed cited in his testimony were:
-
The disappearance of the so-called Rider 11 enforcement data. Rider 11 was a rider to the RRC’s budget that required the agency to post detailed quarterly and annual enforcement data on its website, but that data was removed after 2019 when the rider was not included in the budget, with the Commissioners arguing it was no longer needed, due to the requirement for an annual enforcement and monitoring report. However, Reed noted that the date contained in the report did not include key metrics like complaints, resolved complaints, total penalties and repeat violations going back 7 years.
“There is no reason for the Commission to hide this data from the public and the Legislature. Enforcement trends on a quarterly and annual basis are very important to see how the agency is doing in its basic function to assure compliance with the law,” Reed noted. “I know the Commission still collects this data, because I requested it through Chairman Christian’s office, and I received it. Sierra Club provides this data on our site-- but this should not be our responsibility. It is the responsibility of the regulators.”
-
Complaints and response. The failure to provide a process for those making complaints about real or potential violations. Reed pointed out that at the TCEQ, complaints are logged and made accessible to the public through a searchable website, while protecting the identity of the complainant. At the RRC, complaints are handled at the field office level, but there is no way for the public to learn what happens with those complaints, as complaint policy at the agency is a “black box.”
-
Pipeline violations. The public is very concerned about both existing pipeline safety and new pipelines, some of which are cutting through areas of the state where traditionally pipelines have not been present. There is no equivalent to OIL for pipelines and no way for the public to have access to inspection or violations of pipelines, which is one of the major functions of the agency.
-
Penalties are too low. In addition to these comments about accessibility of information, Reed called on the Commission to review and open up a stakeholder process on its penalty matrix. “The Commission's penalties for pollution violations are far too small to ensure compliance and deterrence of future lawbreakers,” noted Reed. “Tiny fines for operating without a permit for example means it becomes part of the cost of business for oil and gas companies, and it is time to revise the level of fines both at the Commission, and at the Legislature, which should raise the maximum penalties -- last adjusted in 1983 -- from $10,000 to $25,000.”
-
Agency should shoot for higher goals on inspections. While improvements have been made on the number of inspectors and inspections over the last two years -- in part due to decisions by the legislature to increase budgets to hire more inspectors -- inspecting wells only once every five years should not be the agency’s goal. Instead, the agency should aim for a more robust inspection regime, such as inspecting wells at least every 3 years. If more inspectors are needed to achieve these goals, then the agency should request that they be allowed to spend more money to hire those inspectors.
-
Agency decisions must involve all stakeholders. Finally, Reed expressed his disappointment about the Commission’s reliance on input from the industry, without giving full consideration of other points of view. “Recently, the Commission passed two resolutions involving regulatory relief in which industry was consulted, but the public and even the press were not allowed to see the orders until after the Commission had already made a decision,” Reed noted. “This is unacceptable policy, and could even be a violation of basic open government policy.”
Reed noted that in the case of proration, the public and all stakeholders were given multiple opportunities to give their opinion and advice, and the Commission should follow the same policy for major decisions that impact the state. “We are very concerned that, for example, the Chairman has asked the industry for input on how to reduce flaring and waste for a discussion on June 16th, but there appears to be no public input mechanism for the other 30 plus million Texans who are not part of one of the major industry associations to give our input.”