Volkswagen plant in Wolfsburg, Germany. (JULIAN STRATENSCHULTE / EPA)

Earlier this month, the Texas Commission on Environmental Policy (TCEQ) released it’s long-awaited plan to spend Volkswagen settlement funds–$209 million in all for Texas. Our first impression was that the plan was a mixed bag: some good elements, but also some head scratchers.

A preference for electric vehicles.

On the good side of things, Texas’ plan to spend VW funds charts a future for electric vehicles in Texas. The plan dedicates 15% of the funding–the maximum allowable amount–to the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) program, which will build electric vehicle (EV) charging stations around the state. Notably, while the plan does allow that ZEV funding could be used for hydrogen fueling projects, it includes the caveat that funding will only be given to hydrogen projects “where there will be a sustainable market for use of the hydrogen fuel.” Houston, with it’s robust petrochemical infrastructure that includes hydrogen pipelines, may be such a place.

The bulk of the ZEV funding, though, will go to electric vehicles charging stations. This means that Texas will spend $31 million on EV charging in the next few years, along with a 1-to-1 match of local funding for each project. You may also know that, due to a separate portion of its settlement agreement, Volkswagen has also started Electrify America, a company that will invest $2 billion in EV charging in the next ten years. (We have commented previously that allowing VW to start a for-profit company to install infrastructure for the benefit of its own products is hardly a punitive measure appropriate to the scale of its illegal acts, but for now we will just take note of the investment in EV charging that will ultimately benefit us all.)

The ZEV program in Texas will spend $31 million. The bulk of our VW funds, some $180 million, will go into a program that allocates funding to priority areas for a variety of clean transportation projects. The projects eligible for funding are:

1. Class 4 – 7 Local Freight Trucks
2. Class 8 Local Freight Trucks and Port Drayage Trucks
3. Class 7 – 8 Refuse Vehicles
4. School Buses
5. Transit and Shuttle Buses
6. Electric Forklifts and Port Cargo Handling Equipment
7. Electric Airport Ground Support Equipment
8. Ocean-Going Vessel Shore Power

These categories create some very interesting possibilities. A few months ago we were critical of Houston’s proposal to purchase more than 75 diesel refuse trucks. Perhaps incentives for electric refuse trucks will encourage the city to purchase those in the future. And shore-power for ocean-going vessels could mean cleaner air for residents of the Houston Ship Channel, or even a cleaner cruise ship terminal in Galveston.

Our research in communities over the years has shown, unsurprisingly, that school bus projects are always very popular with the public. And I know from my days monitoring air quality in the Houston area that clean freight and drayage trucks are sorely needed in ship channel communities. All told, the $180 million eligible for projects in the above eight categories will, if invested wisely in zero-emissions technologies, be very good for public health in Texas.

There are three project categories eligible for funding under the VW Settlement Agreement that Texas has decided not to include in its draft plan. These are:

1. Freight Switchers
2. Ferries and tugs
3. Diesel Emissions Reduction Act

We know from research by our friends at Environmental Defense Fund that freight switchers and ferries/tugs are among the most cost effective options available, measured by cost per tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) reduced. TCEQ states that it left these projects out of the VW plan because they are already eligible under the TExas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP), another state program for clean transportation projects. But in fact these projects are limited under TERP, with a stricter cost per ton of NOx cap than that for other projects. The rationale for this treatment in TERP is that these vehicles do not pay into the TERP fund as do passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles. The result is that freight switchers, ferries, and tugs are not eligible for VW funding and are disfavored under TERP. This is a shame, as these may be among the most cost effective projects.

Texas also left projects out of its plan that require a match with federal Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funds. Texas says that it doesn’t want to bear the cost of administering DERA funding and that’s why those projects are left out of the VW draft plan. In fact Texas has declined DERA funds for the last few years, unrelated to the VW Settlement. We think that it is foolish to leave federal money on the table, but Texas does seem to have a habit of it (witness our disastrous decision to reject federal Affordable Care Act funding). We also don’t agree with Texas excuse that it doesn’t want to pay to administer DERA funds. Texas administers TERP, and now VW, at a cost of about 4% of the total funding available. Texas could administer DERA as well if it wanted Texans to have access to those clean transportation funds. Doing so would provide cleaner air to more Texans.

Austin is left out and Houston is left wanting.

When Texas allocated 81% of the VW funds to priority areas, it did so to within a hundredth of a percentage point, as follows:

Those percentages, along with what we know about the timing of the plan’s release, suggest that careful deliberation went into these allocations.

I don’t want to pit one region of the state against another, but I can’t help but wonder why San Antonio gets more funding than Dallas and Houston combined. Was Houston slighted because, in the words of Harris County Judge Ed Emmet, “They wrote us off as a lost cause.”?

And why was Austin left entirely out of the plan? It is well known that Austinites purchased more VWs per capita than other areas of the state. Texas’ VW plan takes great pains to define “impacted community” as one that has offending VWs AND doesn’t meet ozone pollution standards, a definition that could be used to exclude Austin. Texas also points out that VWs could have moved around the state after purchase, though the state offers no evidence to indicate that there are fewer VWs in Austin today than past purchase records would suggest. Taken altogether, the state’s justifications for which areas it included and excluded don’t add up. Governor Greg Abbott’s disdain for Austin is not a secret, and I wonder if this was another not political slight by him.

If the people of Austin have become players in a political chess match, then our children and elderly are the pawns that will pay first, and most dearly.

What you can do.

Between now and October 8, you can share your thoughts about Texas VW draft plan with the TCEQ. Send comments on the plan to VWsettle@tceq.texas.gov. You can also attend one of a series of meetings on the plan happening across the state (below). In the coming weeks, we will share more thoughts about what’s in Texas’ VW plan: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Houston
September 10, 2018 2:30PM
Tracy Gee Community Center
3600 Westcenter Drive
Houston, TX 77042

Beaumont
September 11, 2018 2:00PM
South East Texas Regional Planning Commission
2210 Eastex Freeway
Beaumont, TX 77703

Arlington
September 14, 2018 2:00PM
North Central Texas Council of Governments
616 Six Flags Drive
Arlington, TX 76011

San Antonio 
September 17, 2018 2:00PM
Alamo Area Council of Governments
8700 Tesoro Drive, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78217

El Paso 
September 19, 2018 10:00AM
Rio Grande Council of Governments
8037 Lockheed, Suite 100
El Paso, TX 79925

Austin 
September 26, 2018 2:00PM
TCEQ Austin, Building E, Room 201-S
12100 Park 35 Circle
Austin, TX 78753

The Texas Hill Country is 18,000 square miles of natural wonders, economic resources, and a cherished way of life. In this unique place, the boom of construction and growth is sweeping in. In fact, Comal County is now the second fastest growing county in the United States.

Unfortunately, the Hill Country’s natural resources and beauty are endangered by the aggressive aggregate industry seeking air quality permits for quarries and cement plants throughout the region. The aggregate industry includes concrete batch plants, rock crushing operations, and hot mix asphalt plants. The 17-county expanse of the Hill Country is located just to the north and west of fast-growing San Antonio, Austin, and the rapidly urbanizing Interstate Highway 35 corridor connecting these cities. Many unincorporated areas of the Hill Country are now in the crosshairs of the demands of the aggregate and concrete industry, putting public health and natural resources at risk.  

In 2017, Vulcan Construction Materials (VCM) submitted a permit application to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to convert Comal County’s “White Ranch”, a 1500-acre parcel of pristine ranchland between Bulverde and New Braunfels, into a limestone rock crushing plant.

(The proposed site will reside amongst 6,000 properties and have about 12,000 residents within a 5-mile radius. Vulcan Quarry -center)

More

Taking a Stand

On Friday, June 2, 2017, Mayor Mike Rawlings released a statement in response to the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement regarding reducing global warming emissions. Under the title of “Dallas will continue to be a leader on climate action,” the Dallas Mayor noted:

“Climate change should not be a partisan issue.  I disagree with any decision that undermines our nation’s leadership role in the fight to mitigate the effects of climate change.  Dallas is a leader in emissions reduction efforts, and we have had significant success in reducing our carbon footprint. I am asking our staff to continue to develop and maintain programs that improve regional air quality, reduce carbon emissions and otherwise address climate change.  This is a common-sense approach that is good for our citizens, our businesses and our planet.”

The Dallas Mayor’s statement came on the heels of 406 Mayors, representing 70 million Americans across the country, as they committed to adopt, honor and uphold the Paris Climate Agreement goals.  These Mayors all made a commitment to intensify efforts to push for new action to meet the 1.5 degree Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) reduction target, and work together to create a 21st century clean energy economy.

Other Texas Mayors that signed onto the 2017 Climate Mayors agreement included Mayor Steve Adler of Austin, Mayor Ron Nirenberg of San Antonio, Mayor Sylvester Turner of Houston, Mayor John Thormaides of San Marcos, and Mayor Scott Saunders of Smithville.

Texas Cities at Work

Today, San Antonio is in the midst of working on their first climate plan.   Austin was ahead of the curve, having started working on a climate plan in 2014, long before the Paris Agreement, setting a goal of achieving net-zero community wide emissions by 2050.

Dallas Needs to Develop a Stand Alone Climate Plan with a Net Zero Goal

Dallas is in the midst of finishing its third global warming emissions inventory.  The first inventory the city conducted was an assessment for the years 1990 through 2005.  Dallas’ second inventory, which was taken from 2006 to 2010, illustrated a 7% reduction in community-wide greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, meeting the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement signed in 2006.

When Dallas completes its latest and third inventory, it will determine if the city met its goal of a 39% reduction by 2017.   From there a new “stand alone climate plan” with a “net zero” goal should be adopted by the Mayor and City Council; and Dallas should take the necessary steps to meet that goal.

Dallas Can Take Credit for Recent Initiatives in a Climate Plan

Dallas can take credit for its latest inventory along with projects recently put forward such as its Resiliency plan, its adoption of new building codes, green procurement and energy efficient programs and its commitment to purchase electric vehicles when the City decides to take on designing its “stand alone climate plan.”  Dallas has also purchased 100% renewable energy credits, but purchasing actual renewable energy would be even better.

Now is the time, as the City finishes its most recent emissions inventory, to put these recent measures and others into a plan that will help Dallas achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or some other date certain.

Advancing Dallas As a Leader – Leaving a Legacy for the Future

Without a stated net zero goal set with a projected date for achieving that goal and supported with a detailed action plan, Dallas cannot be certain it is doing all it can to achieve to combat climate change.  

Mayor Rawlings did the right thing by signing onto the Mayors Climate agreement. As he enters his last year in office, we have the opportunity to make his goal to advance Dallas as a leader in mitigating the effects of climate change a reality and an important part of his legacy.  Now is the time for Dallas to take the next step with a “net zero” plan to show it is doing all it can to secure a cleaner, brighter future for its citizens and generations to come.

Students and faculty at universities across the United States have been at the forefront of implementing solar energy at their schools. And for good reason, with increasing attendance at colleges and universities, it is a growing concern to many that these institutions be environmentally conscious.

So what makes solar energy remarkable?

Solar energy has seen increased popularity among institutions due to its ability to “pay back” to an institution over time. Once initial installation costs have been paid, an institution which chooses to adopt solar energy can then save money by not having to buy energy from an electric company. With solar panels warrantied at 25-years, the institution can reap the reward of solar energy payback for several years. Not only do solar panels make for a smart investment over time, they have low maintenance and repair costs.

Although there are several advantages with the use of solar energy, there can also be administrative and fiscal challenges in the push for renewable energy in the form of solar power. For many of those pushing to implement renewable energy at their own universities, and even wider community, it can be asked: “How did they do it?”

The following universities have excelled in the realm of implementing solar energy:

Stanford University, Stanford CA:

In 2009, Stanford began their renewable initiative by launching their “Energy and Climate Action” which planned to transition away from using 100% fossil fuels. Since 2009, Stanford has transitioned to using 65% of its total electric use to renewable sources. Of the renewable energy used by Stanford, 50% of it comes from solar energy. Stanford has been able to provide 200 kWh of solar electricity to its campus by use of both onsite roof top solar along with offsite solar power procurement:

• The onsite rooftop solar can be found on 16 various locations on campus, and accounts for 2% of solar energy produced.

  

• The offsite solar power procurement is where Stanford is able to get 48% of its solar electricity. The project is a part of a partnership with SunPower, a solar panel manufacturer and contractor. The offsite solar array is a 67 megawatt plant and is comprised of 155,000 panels, located in the Mojave Desert. This array is considered an “individual model”, meaning it provides electricity to Stanford University exclusively.

  

Stanford leases the panels from SunPower, and initial costs required by the initiative were allocated from the university’s annual facilities budget.

George Washington University & American University, Washington DC:

In June of 2014, George Washington University and American University created a partnership called the “Capital Partners Solar Project”. This partnership would make the large-scale implementation of solar energy fiscally possible. As a result, 52 megawatts of energy are provided by Duke Energy Renewables to both AU and GWU. The energy is produced off-site in North Carolina electric grid. The universities get the financial benefits from the energy produced.

•  American University:

American University is the first university in the United States to become “Carbon Neutral”. Meaning, AU has achieved net zero greenhouse emissions. Electricity used at AU comes from 100% renewable sources, 50% of which comes from the Capital Partners Solar Project solar energy deal.

• George Washington University:

Along with American University, George Washington University also receives 50% of its electricity from the solar energy deal. The solar panels aren’t present on campus due to lack of space required for energy demands. The desire by students for solar power, along with administrative support, paved the way for the partnership for solar energy with American University. The partnership gave the perfect opportunity to increase renewable energy consumption and do so more affordably.

Even for schools without large endowments, solar energy can still be made financially feasible:

Huston-Tillotson University, TX:

Funding can be a huge obstacle in the push for solar, as initial installation costs can be huge. In Texas, many schools have used a number of local renewable energy incentives to afford the initial costs of solar.

Huston-Tillotson University, a small private university in Austin, Texas has installed a 240 kWh array, which has 736 panels. The university has a student body population of just under 1,000 students. With a small student body, the university wanted to incorporate green energy while also being cost effective.

Huston-Tillotson was able to finance their solar array will no upfront costs. The university was able to make installing solar panels a possibility by earning PBIs (performance based incentive credits) offered by the City of Austin, along with the commercial VoS (Value of Solar), which is rate Austin Energy uses to compensate customers for the value of the energy the panels produce. These two revenue streams from Austin Energy (the city-owned utility) equal at least what HT pays for the lease on the solar installation.

Karen Magid, director of STEM and Sustainability at Huston-Tillotson, stated a to two-prong approach was used when giving the pitch for solar energy. The first, that green energy would pay back to the university over time and allow them to discontinue purchasing electricity from the grid. Second, the use of green energy is a major selling point to environmentally conscious prospective students. HT is able to boast more solar panel energy per student than fellow Austin area universities: The University of Texas, St. Edward’s, and Concordia.