| Vote Recommendation | Economic Freedom | Property Rights | Personal Responsibility | Limited Government | Individual Liberty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Negative | Neutral | Neutral | Negative | Neutral |
The fiscal note, which is worth reading in its entirety, indicates a moderate cost to the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan over the next two years with a substantial increase beginning in 2020 as indicated below.
Fiscal Year Probable Savings/(Cost) from Texas Emissions Reduction Plan:
2016 ($277,668)
2017 ($265,068)
2018 ($265,068)
2019 ($265,068)
2020 ($78,883,495)
2021 ($78,883,495)
HB 14, if passed, would modify a number of sections of the Health
and Safety Code, all of which relate to the Texas emissions reduction plan in
some way. (The bill is quite long and only the highlights will be dealt with in
this analysis.)
The bill would extend the Texas emissions reduction plan for
light-duty motor vehicles until 2023. Specific counties would be added to the
county list, namely Bell, McLennan, and Webb. The bill would also introduce a
new hydrogen fuel cell incentive program for light-duty vehicles. Incentives
would also be doubled (from $2,500 to $5,000) for light-duty motor vehicles
powered by natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas.
The bill would also adjust the allocation program which
would provide for natural gas fueling stations associated with the clean energy
triangle program. Allocations would be doubled from 5% to 10%. Also specified
in this section is a requirement that $500,000 from the fund be deposited to
the clean air account to supplement funding for air quality planning
activities.
Another section of the bill deals with the Texas clean fleet
program. The bill increases the amount of time a vehicle must have left as
useful life from two years to five years, among other smaller changes. A
verification program must be put into place which would be managed by the Texas
Department of Environmental Quality. TCEQ would also be required to monitor the
alternative fueling program which would establish alternative fueling
facilities. Further “strategically placed facilities” would be required.
The bill also modifies the grant regime for the alternative
fueling facilities program. Compressed natural gas facilities or liquefied natural
gas facilities could receive up to $400,000 in grant money. Facilities which
handle both natural gas and liquefied natural gas could receive up to $600,000
in grant money.
Other sections of the bill deal with road vehicle
eligibility requirements, criteria required for qualifying vehicles, and other,
less notable aspects of the Texas emissions reduction plan regimes.
We take serious issue with the Texas emissions reduction
plan, namely the egregious costs, questionable benefits, effective cronyism,
and market distorting effects. That said, HB 14 does not create the plan but
merely make a series of modifications. A few of these changes are beneficial,
namely that vehicles considered for the Texas clean fleet program must have a
minimum of five years useful life remaining. Most of the changes though are
problematic and only exacerbate the issued with the plan. More money would be
spent on crony, boondoggle programs, such as natural gas fueling facilities and
hydrogen fuel cells. On the balance, HB 14 is a problematic and expensive bill
that makes moves the emissions reduction plan from bad to worse and constitutes a direct subsidy program. For these reasons we oppose the bill.