|
Chapter 10: Environment and Natural Resources
Improve Measurement of
Innovative Environmental
Programs
Summary
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has developed
several innovative programs to reform the state’s approach to
environmental regulation. These programs are intended to improve the environment
while making compliance easier for regulated entities. It is difficult to
determine whether some of these programs are achieving these goals, however,
because program results are not being measured adequately. TNRCC and the
Legislative Budget Board should work to create adequate performance measures for
all innovative environmental programs.
Background
TNRCC, the state’s lead environmental agency, has developed a number of
innovative programs for environmental regulation. These programs include
technical assistance on pollution prevention; compliance assistance for small
businesses; environmental self-audits, which allow regulated entities to
voluntarily assess their compliance with environmental, health, and safety
regulations; and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), which allow
regulated entities that violate pollution regulations to invest the fines, fees,
and penalties they would otherwise have to pay in projects to improve the
environment.
Performance Measures
Performance measures are quantifiable indicators of achievement that can be
applied to an agency’s programs to allow policymakers to see how well it
is performing. Since fiscal 1994, Texas agencies have been required to develop
performance measures as part of the state’s strategic planning process.
The Legislative Budget Board’s Guide to Performance Measure
Management encourages agencies to use performance measures as an integral
part of their strategic and operational
management.[1]
TNRCC has developed some performance measures for its innovative programs
and, as part of its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2001-2005, recognized
the need for new measures. But the agency’s present measures do not
adequately measure the results of most of TNRCC’s innovative programs.
Instead, too often they rely on counts of visits made or workshops held instead
of quantifying resources saved and reductions in pollution.
TNRCC uses the following performance measures for its innovative
programs:
- Tons of waste reduced or minimized through the
Pollution Prevention Program;
- Tons of hazardous waste reduced as a result of
pollution prevention planning;
- Tons of waste collected by local and regional
collection and cleanup events assisted by TNRCC;
- Number of pollution prevention and recycling
assistance visits and presentations;
- Number of businesses assisted by the Small
Business Assistance Program;
- Number of governmental entities, industries,
businesses, institutions, and organizations joining the Clean Texas voluntary
environmental leadership program; and,
- Amount of environmental fines, fees, and
penalties to be invested in environmental improvement through
SEPs.[2]
TNRCC does have effective measures for its innovative Pollution Prevention
Program, which provides on-site assistance visits by TNRCC inspectors, who
distribute information about pollution prevention technologies and resources.
The results reported by facilities to TNRCC for 1999 show the program was
successful:
- 86,000 tons of hazardous waste reduced.
- 152,000 tons of nonhazardous waste reduced.
- reductions in Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) air
emissions of 303 tons.
- 85 million kilowatt-hours of energy
saved.[3]
These reductions saved $88 million in overall energy costs and 1.5 billion
gallons of water. As TNRCC notes, reducing VOCs is critical in battling
ground-level ozone in areas of Texas that are not meeting federal standards, and
conserving water is critical in dealing with drought conditions and improving
water quality.[4]
Unfortunately, the measures used for the Pollution Prevention Program are an
exception to the general pattern.
New Measures Needed
TNRCC’s SEP program allows environmental violators to redirect fines,
fees, and penalties they have incurred for violations toward environmentally
beneficial projects.[5] Program participants must
explain and quantify, as much as is practical, the expected environmental
benefits of such projects.[6] Participants must
also provide a written report to TNRCC showing that the SEP has been properly
implemented within an established timeframe. TNRCC’s monitoring of SEP
compliance, however, consists primarily of the review of quarterly progress
reports; generally the agency does not physically inspect the projects.
A 1998 joint audit by TNRCC and the State Auditor’s Office recommended
that TNRCC develop an accountability mechanism to verify that SEPs achieve the
intended results.[7] A recent review of TNRCC by
the Sunset Advisory Commission also recommended that TNRCC improve
accountability and controls for SEPs by finding ways to measure, track, and
report project results.[8]
Through its Small Business Assistance program, TNRCC offers free,
confidential site visits to businesses to assess their difficulties in complying
with environmental regulations and identify cost-effective ways to prevent
pollution. In fiscal 1999, TNRCC conducted 225 site visits for businesses with
100 or fewer employees.[9] Instead of directly
measuring the results of these visits, TNRCC relies on compliance rates to
indicate the success of this program.[10] While
compliance with regulation is important, the real-world results of such
compliance are far more important. By contrast, TNRCC measures the actual
environmental impact of its enforcement actions. In fiscal 1999, for example,
TNRCC enforcement actions resulted in the elimination or reduction of more than
222 million pounds of pollutants.[11]
Environmental self-audits are another innovative program where results are
not measured.[12] The Texas Environmental,
Health, and Safety Audit Privilege Act provides incentives for regulated
entities to conduct voluntary self-audits of their compliance with
environmental, health, and safety regulations and take prompt corrective
actions. Participation in a self-audit gives a regulated company some immunity
from penalties that would normally apply to violations uncovered as a result of
the audit. TNRCC has received notices from 1,112 regulated facilities of their
intent to perform voluntary self-audits, and 273 self-disclosures have been made
to TNRCC as a result.[13] Unfortunately, TNRCC
does not measure the results of
self-auditing.[14]
A 1998 federal audit report on alternative enforcement approaches found that
Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas all have implemented innovative programs that
reduce the emphasis on enforcement while improving compliance and environmental
quality. However, officials from these states noted that without tangible,
measurable proof of improvements, they find themselves vulnerable to criticism
of being “soft on polluters.”[15]
The report found that most alternative strategies either were unevaluated or
were assessed by outputs, such as the number of facilities participating or the
number of workshops conducted, rather than by results.
Recommendation
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) should work with the Legislative Budget Board to create performance
measures that assess the improvements in environmental quality achieved by the
agency’s innovative regulatory programs.
If TNRCC does not adequately measure the results of its innovative programs,
the agency, the public, and the regulated community will not know whether
innovative programs are improving on the results achieved by traditional
enforcement techniques.
Fiscal Impact
This recommendation could be accomplished by TNRCC using existing agency
resources.
[1] Legislative Budget Board,
Guide to Performance Measure Management, 2000 Edition (Austin, Texas,
December 1999), p. 7.
[2] Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2001-2005, Volume 1
(Austin, Texas, June 2000), pp. D-1–D-44.
[3] Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, Annual Enforcement Report of the TNRCC, Fiscal Year
1999 (Austin, Texas, 1999), p. 1.
[4] Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2001-2005, Volume 1
(Austin, Texas, June 2000), p. 11.
[5] Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, “Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP)”
(http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/legal/sep/sepindex.htm).
(Internet document.)
[6] Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, “SEP Proposal Guideline for Respondents”
(http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/legal/sep/sepguidl.html).
(Internet document.)
[7] Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission and Texas State Auditor’s Office, Compliance
and Enforcement Review: A Joint Project by TNRCC Internal Audit and the Texas
State Auditor’s Office (Austin, Texas, August 1998), pp.
29-30.
[8] Sunset Advisory
Commission, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Staff Report
(Austin, Texas, May 2000), p. 38.
[9] Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, Biennial Report to the 77th Legislature, Volume I:
Protecting a Thriving Texas (Austin, Texas, March 2000), p. 42.
[10] Interview with
Tamra-Shae Oatman, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin,
Texas, February 2, 2000.
[11] Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, Annual Enforcement Report of the TNRCC, Fiscal Year
1999, p. 10.
[12] Interview with Ann
McGinley, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, January 27,
2000.
[13] Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, Environmental Audit Log (Austin, Texas, January
3, 2000), p. 28.
[14] Interview with Ann
McGinley, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, Texas, January
27, 2000.
[15] US General Accounting
Office, Report to Committee on Commerce, US House of Representatives,
Environmental Protection, EPA’s and States’ Efforts to Focus
State Enforcement Programs on Results (Washington, DC, May 1998), p.
6.
|
