BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 2877 By: Holzheauser 4-4-95 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND Under current law, facilities which are required to obtain an air permit must go through an extensive process to obtain an initial permit. This process includes among other things extensive health effects modelling, review to determine whether the facility will contain best available control technology ("BACT"), as well as notice requirements and opportunity for a contested case hearing offered to affected persons. Facilities obtaining preconstruction permits also are required to renew that permit every ten years. This procedure normally involves a review by the Texas natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) staff and the Commission. In addition, however, permittees are subject to the costly opportunity for a contested case hearing required for preconstruction permits. This requirement applies regardless of whether or not an increase in emissions is anticipated to result from the renewal. There also has been some confusion as to whether an applicant must undergo technology review as part of the renewals process. PURPOSE HB 2877 will provide that a contested case hearing is not required absent substantial compliance problems or an increase in emissions. The bill also clarifies that technology review is only required to avoid a condition of air pollution or to ensure compliance with other applicable state or federal statutes. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency or institution. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Section 382.055 (e), Health and Safety Code by prohibiting the TNRCC from imposing requirements for a renewal of a preconstruction permit more stringent than the existing permit, unless additional requirements are necessary to comply with state or federal air quality requirements. SECTION 2. Amends Section 382.056 (d), Health and Safety Code, by changing duties of the TNRCC from holding a hearing on "review" applications upon request to only permit "renewal" applications; changes an option to a prohibition regarding whether the TNRCC may hold a hearing on a preconstruction permit if the hearing request is unreasonable; a request is considered unreasonable if an amendment, modification, or renewal does not result in an increase in emissions or an air pollutant not previously emitted. SECTION 3. Effective date on September 1, 1995. SECTION 4. Emergency clause. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE The substitute makes minor language changes to the original; the substitute changes duties of the TNRCC from holding a hearing on "review" applications upon request to only permit "renewal" applications; the substitute broadens language so that a hearing request is unreasonable for reasons "including but not limited to" those enumerated. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION HB 2877 was considered by the House Committee on Environmental Regulation in a public hearing on April 4, 1995. The chair recognized Rep. Holzheauser to explain the bill. The committee considered a substitute to the bill. Jim Kennedy, representing Texas Chemical Council testified in favor of the bill. Jeffrey Anthony Saitas with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission testified neutrally on the bill. The substitute was adopted without objection. HB 2877 was reported favorably as substitute with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed by a record vote of eight (8) ayes, no (0) nays, no (0) pnv, and one (1) absent.