Close
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Local ground-level ozone policies: Governance structure and institutions In achieving federal attainment
(USC Thesis Other)
Local ground-level ozone policies: Governance structure and institutions In achieving federal attainment
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
LOCAL GROUND-LEVEL OZONE POLICIES: GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
AND INSTITUTIONS IN ACHIEVING FEDERAL ATTAINMENT
by
Young Joo Chi
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(POLITICAL SCIENCE)
December 2010
Copyright 2010 Young Joo Chi
ii
Acknowledgements
A journey that started eight years ago would not have been possible without
the love and encouragement from numerous individuals in my life. I would like to
take this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to professors, friends, and
loved ones who supported me through my graduate study.
I would like to thank my committee members for their support and guidance
on my dissertation project. Professor Jefferey Sellers graciously accepted to be my
dissertation advisor and provided me the support, expertise, and guidance to finish
my dissertation. At times when I felt the task ahead of me was impossible, he gave
me the assurance that it could be done. For this I am grateful and could not have
asked for a better advisor. Professor Jeb Barnes gave me encouragement to complete
my dissertation during one of the hardest times of my graduate study. He freely
shared his time with me to listen and at the end of the conversation would always
assure me that everything would work out. Professor Lisa Schweitzer agreed to be
part of my committee despite her busy schedule. I am grateful for her willingness to
take the time to provide helpful insights and suggestions. My dissertation project
would not have been possible without the support and guidance of my committee
members.
In addition to my committee members, I had the honor of meeting wonderful
professors who were also my mentors. I had the opportunity of being Professor
Michael Preston’s Teaching Assistant for his Urban Politics course. This opportunity
has not only heightened my interest in local governments, and eventually became my
iii
dissertation, but he nurtured me to become not only a graduate student but a future
educator. His teachings and guidance have given me the courage to become a
educator who is compassionate and engaged with students. I have learned many life
lessons from him and am thankful that I met a wonderful mentor. My first
environmental policy course with Professor Kamieniecki enabled me to further
develop my interest in the field. He provided me the opportunity to explore the issues
of environmental policy, which have become my interest and passion.
I would not be here without the love and support of my parents, Eun Ha and
Chae Sook Chi. They immigrated to the U.S. in the hope of providing the best
education that a parent can give to their children. They always encouraged me to aim
high and achieve the goals that I have set. Throughout my graduate study, my
parents have been my rock and anchor. They were part of every step of the process
and provided me the strength to finish the task that I started eight years ago. Their
sacrifice is the reason that I was able to finish my graduate study and I dedicate this
dissertation project to my parents.
There were other friends and family that supported me throughout my
graduate study. My little sister Iris Chi in her own way provided encouragement
throughout my study. At times when things got too tough for me, she made me laugh
and realize that everything will be okay. She has grown from a little sister to a friend
and confidant. My future sister and brother-in-law Kirsten Kao and Will Wang gave
me their love and support throughout my academic career. They were always willing
to listen no matter how crazy things became. HyeYoung Chang and Euisouk Han
iv
were always willing to listen and give feedback on my research ideas. They made my
time at USC enjoyable and memorable. Ashley Pak, Chae Lee, Cindy Salazar, and
Seung-Ah Chung were patient and understanding even if I did not call them back for
months at a time. They stood by me as friends as I completed my dissertation. Thank
you and I cherish the love and friendship that you guys have provided me.
Finally, there is one person who stood by me and cheered me on to finish the
goal that I set for myself. His love and support helped me through one of the most
stressful times in my study. His patience, love, and encouragement are never ending
and for this I am forever grateful. I could not have asked for a better best friend and
life partner. Thank you Charlie.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures x
Abstract xii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Analytical Overview 22
Chapter Three: A Closer Look at the City of Dallas and City of Houston 52
3.1 Texas and Air Quality 52
Chapter Four: Business, Economy, and the Fight to Reduce Ground-Level 91
Ozone
4.1 Overview of Business and Economy in Relation To 91
Environmental Policy
4.2 Cities of Dallas and Houston Industries and Economy 102
4.3 Cities of Dallas and Houston’s Ground-Level Ozone and 112
Economy
4.4 Comparative Analysis of Dallas and Houston’s Business and 136
Economy and Ground-Level Ozone
Chapter Five: Local Government Capacity and Ground-Level Ozone 145
5.1 Defining Local Capacity 146
5.2 Local Government Capacity of Dallas and Houston 153
5.3 Comparative Analysis of Dallas and Houston’s Government 188
Capacity
Chapter Six: Regional Governance and Ground-Level Ozone 199
6.1 Regionalism Throughout History: An Examination Of Past 200
Literature
6.2 Examination of Dallas and Houston Metropolitan Regions 213
6.3 Comparative Analysis of Dallas and Houston’s Regional 250
Governance for Ground-Level Ozone Reduction
6.4 Conclusion 262
vi
Chapter Seven: Conclusion 269
References 320
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. EPA Region Ground-Level Ozone Trend 26
Table 2. Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area Population and Ozone 32
Trend
Table 3. PMSA AQI and Ozone Trend 34
Table 4. PMSA and Ground-Level Ozone Trend 36
Table 5. Population of Houston PMSA and City of Houston 56
Table 6. Population of City of Houston and Pasadena 56
Table 7. Houston Metropolitan Area’s Top Industry Clusters 2005 59
Table 8. Houston Metropolitan Area Labor Force 2003 60
Table 9. City of Houston Annual Ground Level Ozone 63
Table 10. 1990 and 2000 Dallas Population 70
Table 11. Population of City of Dallas and Dallas PMSA 71
Table 12. Location Quotient of City of Dallas Industries 73
Table 13. Dallas PMSA Annual Ground Level Ozone 80
Table 14. Measures and Initiatives City of Dallas Implemented 81
Table 15. City of Dallas and City of Houston Population Trend 83
Table 16. Houston PMSA and Dallas PMSA Population Trend 84
Table 17. Houston and Dallas Location Quotient 86
Table 18. Ground Level Ozone Design Values 87
Table 19. Dallas and Houston PMSA Ground-Level Ozone Trend 88
Table 20. Dallas Metropolitan Region Emissions Sources 88
viii
Table 21. Houston Metropolitan Region Emissions Sources 89
Table 22. Dallas MSA Location Quotient 104
Table 23. Largest Employers in Dallas Metropolitan Region 2003 105
Table 24. Targeted Industries in Dallas-Fort Worth Region 107
Table 25. GDP of the Dallas Metropolitan Statistical Area 108
Table 26. Dallas MSA Emissions For NOx and VOC 114
Table 27. Houston MSA NOx and VOC Emissions 123
Table 28. Houston Region Top 10 Grandfathered Plants' Air Emissions 132
(1997)
Table 29. 1990 Dallas and Houston MSA Emissions 138
Table 30. Business Involvement in Dallas and Houston 139
Table 31 Four Sections of the City of Houston Bureau of Air Quality 156
Control
Table 32. City of Houston Mayor’s Powers and Duties 165
Table 33. City of Dallas Air Pollution Control Program 177
Table 34. Office of Environmental Quality Functions 180
Table 35. Services Provided By Climate Change and Ozone Reductions 181
Section
Table 36. Overview of Administrative Capacities of Cities of Dallas and 189
Houston
Table 37. City of Houston Annual Expenditure and Revenues 192
Table 38. City of Dallas Annual Expenditure and Revenues 193
Table 39. Dallas-Fort Worth Non-attainment Region for Ground-level 214
Ozone
ix
Table 40. Regional Transportation Council’s Programs and Strategies 217
Table 41. Annual Ground-Level Ozone Reading For Dallas-Fort Worth 223
Non-attainment Area
Table 42. Houston Primary Statistical Area 231
Table 43. Houston-Galveston Area Council’s Air Programs 234
Table 44. Annual Ground-Level Ozone Readings of Houston 240
Non-attainment Region
Table 45. Dallas Non-attainment Area Facilities Annual VOC & NOx 254
Emissions
Table 46. Houston Non-attainment Area Facilities Annual VOC & NOx 257
Emissions
Table 47. Petroleum Refineries In the Houston Metropolitan Area 258
Table 48. Summary of Dallas and Houston Regional Cooperation Variables 263
Table 49. Local Variables and Impacts on the Cities of Dallas and Houston 283
Table 50. PMSA Ground-Level Ozone Trend 285
Table 51. PMSA and Non-Attainment 286
Table 52. Annual Metropolitan Region Revenue Per Capita 296
Table 53. State Centralization 1995 301
x
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Houston-Galveston Region Non-Attainment Area 63
Figure 2. City of Houston Emissions Estimate 1999 65
Figure 3. Dallas Metropolitan Area Labor Force 74
Figure 4. Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area 75
Figure 5. 1996 Dallas-Fort Worth Emissions Sources 76
Figure 6. Dallas-Fort Worth 1990 NOx Emissions 77
Figure 7. Dallas-Fort Worth 2009 NOx Emissions 78
Figure 8. 2008 Houston MSA Gross Area Product 111
Figure 9. Dallas Region Emissions Sources 113
Figure 10. 1999 Houston-Galveston Region Man-made Emissions of VOCs 124
Figure 11. 1999 Houston-Galveston Region Man-made Emissions of NOx 125
Figure 12. Dallas Non-Attainment Region Facility Locator (2002) 253
Figure 13. Dallas MSA NOx Sources 255
Figure 14. Houston Non-Attainment Region Facility Locator (2002) 256
Figure 15. Houston PMSA NOx Emissions Sources 260
Figure 16. PMSA Ground-Level Ozone Trend 287
Figure 17. Percentage of Manufacturing Sales, Shipment, and Receipts 290
Figure 18. 2002 PMSA Revenue from Manufacturing 291
Figure 19. Industrial NOx Emissions Levels 292
Figure 20. 2002 Per Capita Revenue and Ground-Level Ozone 298
Figure 21. Local Government Level of Centralization 302
xi
Figure 22. Municipal Government Activities 304
Figure 23. 1990-2000 Change in Population 310
Figure 24. PMSA Change in Population Per Square Mile 313
Figure 25. 1990-2000 Per Capita Income 315
xii
Abstract
The objective of this dissertation is to provide an explanation for the variation
in ground-level ozone in the nation’s metropolitan regions. Despite federal
regulations that limit emission that contribute to the formation of ground-level
ozone, significant numbers of metropolitan regions have been experiencing a steady
increase in their ground-level ozone. This dissertation attempts to answer why such
variation exists amongst metropolitan regions in the U.S. in their outcomes to reduce
ground-level ozone. While past research has examined the effects of the Clean Air
Act of 1970 and its amendments, emphasis has been placed on the role of the federal
and state governments in the process of reducing ground-level ozone. Although
research on the involvement of federal and state governments provides imperative
analysis on the reduction of ground-level ozone, the analysis is not complete without
an examination of local contexts and their impact on ground-level ozone outcomes.
Thus, this dissertation proposes that local institutions, actors, and governance
structures must be examined when analyzing the outcomes of ground-level ozone
reductions.
This dissertation proposes that local contexts are critical in the examination
of the outcomes of ground-level ozone reductions. The local business and economy;
local government’s capacity, and the availability of effective regional governance
structures all contribute to the variation of localities’ outcomes in reducing ground-
level ozone. Through in-depth case analyses of the Cities of Dallas and Houston and
their regions, this dissertation provides an empirically-based explanation of local
xiii
context and the influence it has on the outcomes of localities’ ground-level ozone
reduction. The case study analyses provide empirical evidence of the impact of local
businesses, actors, governments, and regional governance structures on the outcomes
of the two cities and their regions’ ground-level ozone reduction rates. The
interaction of local variables, such as institutions, economy structure, and regional
governance structures, contributed to the two cases’ outcomes in ground-level ozone
trends. Thus, research on environmental issues and policies, in conjunction with the
involvement of federal and state governments, must also take into account the local
context when examining the outcomes of environmental regulations and policies.
1
Chapter One
Introduction
The passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970 has brought about an era of
command-and-control regulation as a mechanism to improve the nation’s
environment. Since the enactment in 1970 and subsequent amendment in 1990, the
nation’s air quality has dramatically improved. The federal government has set
stringent national standards for air quality and states and localities have been given
the responsibility to oversee the day-to-day enforcement of the national standards.
Furthermore, 247 air quality regions were created, with the primary responsibility
given to states to improve and maintain the overall air quality in the regions. Despite
such efforts, not all state and local governments are in compliance with the national
standards. While states like California have taken the lead in innovative policies and
programs, other states in the Midwest are not as concerned with the air quality trend.
The disparities increase when localities are examined. Los Angeles-Long Beach
Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) has one of the most serious air
problems, especially ground level ozone. Like Los Angeles, Houston PMSA has one
of the most serious ground level ozone problems in the nation. Both PMSAs’ annual
ozone emissions are well above the national emission standard of 0.08 parts per
million (ppm). However, both PMSAs are leaders in implementing innovative
measures to reduce their ozone level. Los Angeles took a revolutionary turn by
implementing new smog-control regulations, a shift toward a market-driven plan,
rather than the traditional command and control plan. Houston, like Los Angeles, has
2
taken measures to work closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the state
government, to avoid sanctions on their transportation funds. Chicago, another
PMSA with a large urban population, has not experienced the severity of ozone
problems compared to other, larger PMSAs. The Chicago metropolitan area’s
ground-level ozone emission has been decreasing despite the fact that population has
been increasing. The reduction of ozone in the Chicago metro area is attributed to the
implementation of the requirements under the Clean Air Act and the Ozone Action
Day program, which began in 1995.
1
The state of Illinois has vigorously
implemented a series of regulatory and voluntary programs targeting both industrial
and vehicular sources to reduce the level of primary chemicals to reduce ground-
level ozone.
2
Why do these PMSAs have such varying levels of ground-level ozone
despite efforts by the federal government to set national standards?
The Clean Air Act of 1970 has resulted in an improvement of the overall
national air quality. By 2000, EPA has been regulating almost two hundred types of
air pollutants that were identified in the 1990 amendment to the original Clean Air
Act. Of these two hundred or so pollutants, the criteria pollutants are given particular
attention due to the impact they have on public health.
3
Even these criteria pollutants
1
Illinois EPA (2000).
2
Illinois EPA (2001).
3
The criteria-pollutants are the following: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particular
matters, sulfur dioxide, and lead.
3
have decreased between 1980 and 1999, with the most significant decrease in lead.
Furthermore, America’s urban environments have significantly improved in air
quality, especially since “the mid-1980s as the cumulative effect of earlier regulation
began to appear”
4
Despite much improvement in air quality, various regions and urban areas
regularly do not meet the air quality standards set by the EPA and the Clean Air Act.
Urban localities are still battling to decrease the level of ground-level ozone, the
primary component of smog. Furthermore, “low-level ozone poses significant human
health risks and produces over $1 billion in agricultural crop damages” (Rosenbaum,
191).
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, and the 1977 and 1990 amendments,
created a complex and technical regulatory program by the federal government to
improve the nation’s air quality. “The CAA creat(ed) a standards-and-enforcement
program in which the federal government establish(ed) national air-quality standards
for major pollutants”
5
. The state government assumes primary responsibility to
implement the programs under the CAA; both the federal and state governments
share responsibility for enforcement. Furthermore, the enactment of the CAA called
for the EPA to set national standards for the following seven pollutants: “carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, lead, nitrogen oxide, particulates, ozone, and sulfur
4
Rosenbaum (2002), p. 189.
5
Ibid., p. 194.
4
oxides”
6
. While the federal government - specifically the EPA - set the national
standards for the permissible levels of pollutants, each state is required to create a
state implementation plan outlining how they will achieve the standards set by the
federal government. Furthermore, 247 air-quality regions were set up, with primary
responsibility given to the states to either maintain the clean air in the region or to
regulate pollutants in the non-attainment regions. The 1990 amendment to the
original CAA added additional features, which include Title I: non-attainment areas.
Title I of the 1990 amendment to the 1970 CAA established a stricter classification
of areas that are not meeting the national air quality standards. Furthermore, “unlike
the original act, which required only that cities make reasonable further progress in
meeting air-quality standards, the new amendments set specific air-quality goals and
deadlines”
7
. Under the original CAA, state and local governments can define
reasonable progress in meeting the air quality standards. However, under the 1990
amendment, they are not given much discretion; at the same time, it does create
uniformity in the application and implementation to meet the national air quality
standards. Despite such efforts, air quality and the mechanisms instituted to improve
local air quality are not uniform. While some local governments, such as New York
City and Denver City, are experiencing success in lowering the levels of air pollution
within their jurisdiction, in other localities, such as Houston and Los Angeles, air
quality is still considered to be below the national standard. Furthermore, in addition
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid, p. 197.
5
to the difference in air quality in each locality, while levels of some pollutants such
as lead and Particulate Matter 10 (PM10) have decreased dramatically, the level of
ground-level ozone continue to pose health threats to urban cities.
The increase in population in urban cities, increasing dependence on
automobiles, and locations of manufacturing sites, play a role in the increasing levels
of ozone in urban cities. Ground-Level Ozone (O
3
) is a gas that is not emitted
directly into the air, but is created at the ground level due to a chemical reaction
between “oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the
presence of sunlight”.
8
Depending upon its location in the atmosphere, ozone can be
good or bad. In combination with sunlight and hot weather, ground-level ozone
creates smog, which is one of urban cities’ main air pollution problems. The
enactment of the CAA granted the EPA the responsibility to set a protective standard
for the level of ozone in the air we breathe. The EPA has established two types of
national air quality standards for ground-level ozone. The primary standards
(0.08ppm) “set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive
populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly”
9
and a secondary standard
sets limits to protect public welfare, such as animals, crops, and visibility
impairment. In addition to setting up primary and secondary standards, EPA uses
attainment and non-attainment designation to describe the air quality in a given area.
Areas are given the classification of attainment if they have not violated the ozone
8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution.
9
Ibid.
6
standard for three years or more, or if there is not enough information to determine
the air quality of that area. The designation process serves the important function of
informing the public of the level of air quality in their community and also “becomes
an important component of state, tribal and local governments’ efforts to control
ground-level ozone”.
10
Despite the command-and-control regulation by the federal
government and other mechanisms instituted to combat ground-level ozone, some
localities are experiencing continuous increases in ozone. Furthermore, with the
devolution of federal policies, the variation between localities can further increase.
This dissertation attempts to answer why some of these localities are experiencing
increases in their ozone emission.
The devolution of federal policies had an impact on environmental protection
policies and the relationship between state and federal government in solving
environmental problems. New Federalism cutback policies were grounded in the
notion of returning the power to make decisions about what types of functions and
policies to provide to people to local and state governments (Demetrios, 4). This
change in policymaking and the relationship between federal and lower level
governments was also evident in environmental protection laws and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA focused on reinventing
“environmental regulations and to encourage community-based environmental
protection as a more effective and acceptable approach to environmental
10
Ibid.
7
policymaking”.
11
Policies and programs, such as the Common Sense Initiative,
Project XL, and Performance Partnership Agreements with the states, were initiated
as an effort to respond to the criticisms of policy-making processes of the 1970s and
1980s.
12
These initiatives were in stark contrast to the enactment of environmental
protection laws during the 1970s and 1980s.
Environmental protection laws of the 1970s and 1980s were predominately
command-and-control regulations. Such regulations gave the EPA and the federal
government the authority to set national environmental quality standards, while the
day-to-day responsibilities were given to the states, but only after they had
demonstrated their ability to implement the regulations. In some cases, the federal
government required states take certain measures without giving them sufficient
federal assistance.
13
The Clean Air Act of 1970 is an example of a command-and-
control regulation with federal authority to clean the nation’s air, by setting national
standards for the states to regulate.
Such measures were taken because the federal government did not trust the
state’s ability to protect the environment. The federal government feared that local
governments were too beholden to special interests to be able to protect the
11
Kraft and Scheberle (1998), p. 131.
12
Ibid., p. 132.
13
Ibid.
8
environment.
14
This created tension between the two levels of governments into the
1990s.
The conflict between federal and local government increased in the 1990s, as
the number of environmental laws increased. Furthermore, the federal government
during the Reagan and Bush presidencies supported the New Federalism ideology,
returning the power to make choices for the people to local and state governments.
However, it came with a consequence of cutbacks on federal grants and aids, thus
placing a strain on local governments' budgets.
15
The change in the role of state governments in the implementation of
environmental policies has increased the amount of research examining the role of
state governments.
16
Crotty (1987) and Hays et al. (1996) both examine the roles of
states and their levels of commitment in the implementation of federal environmental
policies at the state level. Crotty (1987) examines the issue of primacy, and why
states accept primacy. Similarly, Hays et al. investigates why some states are more
committed to the implementation of environmental policies than others. They
differentiate their research by taking a broad range of environmental policies, rather
than conducting their research based upon a single policy, such as air pollution or
clean water. However, like Crotty (1987), the role of local or regional governance is
not examined. Weber and Khademian (1997) examine the successful collaboration
14
Scheberle (2005) p. 72.
15
Demetrios (1992).
16
Crotty (1987); Lowy (Date); Hays et al. (1996).
9
for the development and use of reformulated gasoline as a way to reduce urban
smog, and identify three critical components necessary for the formation and
maintenance of the collaboration. However, the authors fail to mention local
government and its role in the collaboration process in environmental policies. The
policy at hand dealt with the reduction of urban smog in cities such as Los Angeles,
Chicago, and Houston. The relevant actors did not include local government,
citizens, or businesses that feel the direct impact of the implementation of the
collaboration. Rather, state and federal actors are incorporated into the collaboration
efforts.
17
Similar to the works on broader environmental policies, research on CAA has
also focused more on the roles of federal and state institutions and actors, leaving out
the role of local government in the process. Previous research has examined the
Clean Air Act in relation to intergovernmental relations and the role of the states, and
the possibility of a race to the bottom if air protection is left to the states.
18
Kamieniecki and Ferrall (1991) examine the adoption of the Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) by the state of California, to bring Southern California in
compliance with the federal air quality standards by 2007. The development of
AQMP required extensive cooperation between many regional, local, and state
government units. While the authors give an in-depth analysis of the creation of
AQMP, the role that it played in improving Southern California air quality, and the
17
Weber and Khademian (1997).
18
Kamieniecki and Ferrall (1991); Potoski (2001); Rosenbaum (2002); Lowy.
10
influence it had on the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act, limited emphasis is
placed on the actual process of achieving the regional cooperation necessary for the
adoption of AQMP.
Others, such as Mazmanian (1999), examine the strategies used for the
implementation of CAA. Mazmanian examines Los Angeles’ transition from the
traditional command-and-control strategies to market-based strategies. However,
little if any emphasis is given to local government's role in the adoption and
implementation of market-based strategies such as RECLAIM, and, by focusing on
just Los Angeles, it is difficult to generalize whether this strategy works in other
localities.
Research on the Clean Air Act and the implementation of the policies
provides valuable knowledge. The role of state government is vital to the success of
the CAA, since it is the state government which creates the State Implementation
Plan for the successful implementation of the CAA. However, little if any research is
conducted on the role of the local governments in implementing the State
Implementation Plans and the differences in commitment among cities. Although
detailed analysis of the CAA, the challenges that scientific innovation places on
improvements to air quality,
19
and the role of state and federal government, provides
an insight into the complexity of air pollution and regulations, the analysis is not
complete without addressing the issue of local government involvement. While
19
Rosenbaum, (2002).
11
urban politics literature does explore the variance of local government in the policy
making and implementation process, emphasis is placed more on economic and other
social issues, such as racial tension or affordable housing. Limited research has been
conducted on the effects of local institutions, contextual factors, and regional
cooperation in the effort to combat ground-level ozone in urban metropolitan areas.
Both fields are trying to solve the same problem, but only examine the issue
from their own perspective. Rather, by examining the socioeconomic contexts of
metropolitan areas, the role of institutional and non-institutional actors in regional
cooperation, and types of regional governance, the variation in metropolitan areas'
efforts to reduce ground-level ozone can be understood.
The devolution of federal programs such as the Clean Air Act has changed
the roles of state and local governments in the effort to reduce ground-level ozone.
Although the Clean Air Act of 1970 was established as a command-and-control
regulation, local governments have played a bigger role in reducing ground-level
ozone. Despite this, some localities have been continuously experiencing ozone
problems, while others have been successful in maintaining the national standard.
Through an examination of the Dallas and Houston PMSAs, which have consistent
ozone problems, and their efforts to meet the national standards, this dissertation
attempts to examine the impact of local government and its characteristics on policy
development and implementation to reduce ground-level ozone. Specifically, this
dissertation sets out to examine whether the political, social, and economic
characteristics of the localities and their governments have an impact on the
12
formation and implementation of policies to reduce the levels of ground-level ozone
within their regions.
The variation between the Cities of Dallas and Houston and their regions can
be explained by examining their economies, institutions, actors, and the regional
governance structures within each of the regions. The interactions of the different
variables have produced the differing results of the two cities and their regions. The
local economies and businesses have a significant impact on localities’ efforts to
reduce ground-level ozone.
Businesses play a significant role in the policy process, often supporting or
impeding policies such as regulations to limit emissions, which can create negative
consequences to the local economy. Furthermore, while some types of businesses
might not experience negative consequences from regulations, others will be
negatively impacted and thus will further impede policies that can limit emissions.
Industries, such as the manufacturing sector - compared to the service sector - are
often viewed as producing more pollution and often face stricter regulations,
resulting in a greater economic burden. The service sector is viewed as causing less
damage to the environment, and is often ignored during the formulation of
environmental regulations.
20
Thus, for the service sector, stricter environmental
regulation does not increase operation costs. However, while service industries do
not produce significant amounts of direct emission, the amount of indirect emission
20
Rosenblum, Horvath, and Hendrickson (2000).
13
produced is substantial. Businesses such as trucking and courier services, or retail
trade, produce environmental emissions that in some cases can be comparable to the
direct emissions produced by manufacturing firms.
21
Unlike the service sector, stricter environmental regulations have a greater
negative effect on the manufacturing sector. The enactment of the CAA and the
stricter regulation in air quality has increased manufacturing plants’ air pollution
abatement expenditures and operating costs. The increase in cost for pollution
abatement is especially high for plants in non-attainment areas with the potential to
produce emissions that are regulated by the CAA.
22
While relocation of plants can be
used to reduce the cost of environmental regulations, “planning, building and
operating at a new location is expensive and risky, involving considerable
redistribution of existing resources, and dedication of resources for many years to
come”.
23
Thus, a firm’s first preference is to remain in their existing locations,
expand its facilities and work out problems or issues that the plant is facing.
Relocation is especially difficult for firms that are heavily dependent on “locational
advantages”. Houston’s petrochemical industry's dependence on its proximity to the
oil field and access to shipping networks, helps to explain the clustering of industry
21
Ibid., pp. 4673-4674.
22
Becker (2001).
23
Salvesen and Renski (2003), p. 6.
14
in the region.
24
The clustering of specific industries brings new businesses and
investment into the region, thus making it even harder for the existing industries to
relocate.
25
Thus, the interests of businesses, their structure, and the sources of pollution
that contribute to ground-level ozone formation, determines the role of businesses
and their influence in the process of reducing ground level ozone. The locational
advantages provided to the energy and extraction industries makes relocation less
economically sound. Therefore, these industries will be more involved and in
opposition to any new measures or initiatives to lower ozone emission. Furthermore,
manufacturing industries with more direct emissions will be more involved in the
policy process, in order to reduce their overall costs. The service industries, however,
which consider quality of life as an important aspect when recruiting employees and
consumers to the city, will support aggressive policies to reduce ozone emission.
Nevertheless, the service industries' emissions are indirect, which results in lower
involvement in the process of reducing emissions.
In addition to the local economy and businesses, local government capacity is
also vital in the efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. Capacity is a vague term that
recurs in the literature of urban politics and public administration. Past literature
states that the federal government assumed a larger number of functions due to the
state and local governments’ unwillingness or inability to address political, social,
24
Meyler et al. (2007).
25
Assenie and Yucel (2005).
15
and economic issues.
26
Furthermore, indecisiveness and ineffectiveness of state and
local governments has limited their ability to provide services and implement
policies at the local and state level. While some studies have focused on the
relationships between the different levels of government, and the impact they have
on the capacity of each level of government, other research has focused on the
administrative capacity of local government and the impact this has on local
government’s ability to implement policies and programs.
27
Furthermore, because
local governments are political entities, with regular elections, local leaders need
political capacity, in addition to administrative capacity, to implement policies such
as those trying to combat ground-level ozone.
Local government capacity measures both the administrative and political
capabilities of local government to implement policies and programs to reduce
ground-level ozone in the region. The administrative capacity of local government
measures the availability of personnel and technical expertise that can be used to
implement policies and programs. In addition to technical expertise and personnel,
the availability of resources is vital for local government. In the era of New
Federalism, the federal government has been given the power to make policy
decisions for local and state governments, in the process decreasing the federal
resources that are given to state and local governments. However, with the limitation
26
Streib and Waugh (1991), p. 62.
27
Lovell and Tobin (1981); Newell and Ammons (1987); Felbinger (1989a).
16
on taxes, local governments cannot implement all policies and programs,
28
especially
environmental policies that may not have immediate effects, such as those related to
crime and economic development. Thus, “real choices are open only to wealthy
jurisdictions with modest poverty needs, while poor jurisdictions have choices only
in theory”
29
. Localities with budgetary and technological resources are better able to
combat their ozone problems, and find possible solutions to reduce their ozone
emission to the national standard. Those that do not have such capacity are not able
to combat their ozone problem as efficiently. However, the sophistication of
techniques of local government, levels of management capability, and the
availability of budgetary resources, as measurements of capacity, are incomplete
without the consideration of issues such as the role of local officials, voter
constituencies, and public opinion. Local government officials, especially mayors
and other elected officials, play an essential role in bringing the issue of ground-level
ozone to their constituents. Localities with higher levels of involvement of elected
officials on ground-level ozone plans and programs are able to promote the issue to
the general public and thus tend to be more successful in reducing ground-level
ozone.
Studies of governments in metropolitan areas have gathered much support by
scholars of urban politics, especially with the devolution of federal programs. During
the 1960s, research on metropolitan areas placed emphasis on the fragmentation of
28
Demetrios (1992).
29
Ibid., p. 4.
17
local governments and the chaos and confusion created by the multiple
responsibilities to provide services to the local constituencies. The solution to
making governance more effective was to streamline all types of government, with
fewer tiers of authority. Emphasis was placed on three forms of metropolitan
government as solutions for more effective local governance: City-county
consolidation, the federation plan, and the three-tier plan. These different types of
metropolitan institutions were successful in many aspects, but were not the ideal
metropolitan government that many envisioned
30
.
While the 1960s movement called for a consolidation of governments and a
creation of a regional level government, the 1990s movement calls for regional
governance. The concept of metropolitan governance has become a widely accepted
phenomenon. “The growing acceptance of this phenomenon is associated in part
with the development of the new regionalism, which recognizes that metropolitan
areas are able to create governance structures not tied to a single, dominant unit of
metropolitan government”
31
. In essence, supporters of new regionalism believe that
governance can be created without having an actual metropolitan government
structure, even in a fragmented metropolitan area. “Much of today’s discussion of
regionalism focuses on alternatives to creating metropolitan governments -
30
Ross and Levine (2001), Chapter 11.
31
Oakerson (2004), p. 17.
18
arrangements that facilitate regional governance but that fall short of establishing a
true metropolitan government”
32
.
The resurgence of the move toward regional governance has brought about
much research on the topic,
33
which focuses on various aspects of regional
governance, such as types of cooperation, and the actors involved in such
cooperation.
Furthermore, work on regional politics tends to focus on networks formed by
localities to govern together in clusters to solve complex issues such as economic
growth, to deliver services, and to solve social issues.
34
Other issues, such as air
pollution, which is not limited to the geographical boundaries of a locality, are not
among the focal points of studies of regional governance.
Regional governance extends beyond the boundaries of a single metropolitan
statistical area. It is the collaboration of metropolitan areas within a region to combat
ozone. Ground-level ozone is not just a metropolitan level problem; it stretches far
beyond the boundaries of a PMSA. Thus, not only are efforts at the metropolitan
level important in combating the increasing levels of ozone, but regional efforts are
also influential. The involvement of actors, their political and economic strength
relative to others, and their preferences, have an influence in regional governance to
reduce ground-level ozone. Actors, and their preferences, will be examined to
32
Alpert et al. (2006), p. 144.
33
Feiock, Jill, Tao, and Johnson (2004); Oakerson (2004); Post (2004).
34
Savitch and Vogal (1996); Alpert et al. (2006).
19
determine the influence they have in the formation of a regional collaboration and
the degree of success in the reduction of ground-level ozone.
Actors such as business interests, environmental groups, and governmental
institutions, are involved in any form of collaboration to combat regional problems.
The heterogeneity of the actors involved in the collaboration acts as a contextual
condition in achieving regional cooperation. The actors involved can have
differences in preferences with regard to policy itself, and the outcome or goals of
the policy. Because of their limited taxing powers, local governments tend to focus
more on economic development than other types of policies. Localities, when
dealing with economic development, often compete with the surrounding
jurisdictions. In such situations, involvement in regional cooperation to improve the
economy of the region might not necessarily agree with the policy or the division of
the policy outcomes.
35
The gain of one PMSA can be a loss of opportunity for
another PMSA in the region, making cooperation difficult.
The political strength of actors can also have an impact on the efforts to
reduce ground-level ozone. If there is too much asymmetry of powers, then
collaboration amongst the actors within a region will be difficult. Powerful actors
might demand more than the gains through collaborative actions, especially if they
can achieve the projected gains individually without collaborative efforts.
Institutions within a region also vary in power. Some cities within a region might
35
Steinacker (2004).
20
have more economic resources than other localities. Under such circumstances,
localities with fewer economic resources can be forced into bearing a
disproportionate share of the cost, thus creating an issue of fairness and and uneven
distribution of cost and gains.
36
This creates an environment where collaboration
becomes difficult.
Despite the efforts of the Clean Air Act, localities throughout the U.S. have
experienced different outcomes from their efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. In
order to examine the variation of localities’ outcomes in ground-level ozone
reduction, this dissertation will analyze the impact of local contexts, businesses,
institutions and actors in local governments’ efforts to reduce ground-level ozone.
Exclusion of such local variables in determining the outcomes of ground-level ozone
policies and programs does not provide a complete analysis of the situation - not
least for future policy making processes.
This dissertation presents empirical evidence to support the importance of
examining local variables when evaluating the ground-level ozone outcomes of
localities. Specifically, by examining the Cities of Dallas and Houston and their
regions, this dissertation investigates the influence of local variables in local
governments' efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. The dissertation is structured in
the following manner. Chapter Two provides an analytical overview examining the
central puzzle of the dissertation, and its proposed hypotheses. In addition, an
36
Ibid.
21
explanation of the case selection process will be outlined. Chapter Three presents an
overview of the two cases, Dallas and Houston and their regions. Chapter Four
examines the role of the businesses and the economies of the two case studies, and
provides an empirical conclusion on the relationship between ground-level ozone
reduction outcomes and businesses and economy. Chapter Five examines the impact
of local government’s administrative and political capacities to carry out programs
and policies to reduce ground-level ozone. The capacity present within a locality
significantly impacts the outcome of local government. Chapter Six examines the
regional governance structures that are present in the two cases, and the effectiveness
of the governance structures to promote an agenda for regional efforts to reduce
ground-level ozone. Chapter Seven presents the findings of the dissertation in
relation to ground-level ozone reduction. Furthermore, a national comparison of the
results from the case analysis will also be examined to further investigate the impact
of local variables in the reduction of ground-level ozone.
22
Chapter Two
Analytical Overview
Since the enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1980 and its subsequent
amendments, the nation’s air quality standards have improved significantly. Under
the CAA, the U.S. EPA assumed the responsibility to set the national standards for
the criteria pollutants specified in the CAA
37
, while the state and local governments
were given the responsibility to implement programs to improve the air quality.
38
Furthermore, 247 air-quality regions were set up, with the primary responsibility
given to states to either maintain the clean air in the region or to regulate pollutants
in non-attainment regions. The 1990 amendment to the original CAA added
additional features such as Title I: non-attainment areas, which established a stricter
classification of areas not meeting the national air quality standards. Furthermore,
“unlike the original act, which required only that cities make reasonable further
progress in meeting air-quality standards, the new amendments set specific air-
quality goals and deadlines”.
39
The CAA has been successful and resulted in an improvement of the overall
national air quality. By the year 2000, EPA has been regulating almost two hundred
types of air pollutants that were identified in the 1990 amendment to the original
37
Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ground-level ozone, particular matters, sulfur dioxide, and lead
are designated as criteria-pollutant.
38
Each state is required to create a state implementation plan outlining their reduction for the criteria
pollutants that does not meet the national standards.
39
Rosenbaum (2002), p. 197.
23
Clean Air Act. Urban environments have seen significant improvements in air
quality, especially since the mid-1980s.
However, not all criteria pollutants have experienced a decrease. While the
levels of lead in the air have seen the most significant decrease, other pollutants,
such as ground-level ozone (ozone)
40
are still threatening the health of the citizens,
especially in urban localities.
The CAA and its amendments tried to bring all states’ and localities’ air
quality into compliance with the regulations set forth by the federal government.
Under the original CAA, state and local governments define what constitutes
reasonable progress in meeting the air quality standards. However, under the 1990
amendment, they are not given much discretion; at the same time, the 1990
amendment does create uniformity in the application and implementation of the
national air quality standards. Additionally, EPA uses attainment and non-
attainment designation to describe the air quality in a given area. The designation
process serves the important function of letting the public know the level of air
quality in their community and also “becomes an important component of state,
tribal and local governments’ efforts to control ground-level ozone”
41
.
40
Ozone (O
3
) is a gas that is not emitted directly into the air, but is created at the ground level due to a
chemical reaction between “oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the
presence of sunlight” (www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution). Depending upon its location in the
atmosphere, ozone can be good or bad. In combination with sunlight and hot weather, ozone creates
smog, which is one of urban cities’ main air pollution problems.
41
www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution
24
Despite such efforts, air quality, and the mechanisms instituted to improve
local air quality, are not uniform. While states like California have taken the lead
with innovative policies and programs, other states in the Midwest are not as
concerned with the air quality trend. The disparities increase when localities are
examined. Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA has one of the most serious air quality
problems, especially with respect to ground-level ozone. Like Los Angeles, Houston
PMSA also has one of the most serious ground-level ozone problems in the nation.
Both PMSAs’ annual ozone emissions are well above the national emission standard
of 0.08ppm. However, both PMSAs are among the leaders in implementing
innovative measures to reduce their ozone levels. Los Angeles took a revolutionary
turn by implementing new smog-control regulations, a shift toward a market-driven
plan rather than the traditional command-and-control plan. Houston, like Los
Angeles, has taken measures to work closely with U.S. EPA, the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the state government to avoid sanctions on
their transportation funds. The City of Dallas’ ground-level ozone is also above the
national standard. The geographical locations and weather conditions of both
Houston and Dallas make the localities conducive to ozone formation. Like Houston,
Dallas has been working closely with TCEQ and U.S. EPA to reduce its ground-level
ozone emission. However, unlike Houston, which has seen some success in the
reduction, Dallas has seen an increase in ground-level ozone. Even with the
command-and-control regulation by the federal government, and other mechanisms
instituted to combat ground-level ozone, some localities such as Dallas are
25
experiencing continuous increases in ozone. This dissertation attempts to answer
why such disparities exist among localities, by examining Houston and Dallas
PMSAs’ policies and processes to bring the areas into attainment status for ozone.
National and regional ozone emissions have both shown reductions. The
national 8-hour ground-level ozone trend has been decreasing over the past decades;
in 2003, nationwide ozone levels were the lowest since 1990. In addition to a
reduction in ozone, VOC and NOx, the precursors of ozone, have also shown
reductions of 54% and 25% respectively. This decrease has occurred in conjunction
with increases in vehicle miles traveled, population, and energy consumption: 155%,
39%, and 45% respectively. The national ozone emission level decreased 21%
between 1980 and 2003, and 9% between 1990 and 2003 (Table 1). Similar to the
national ozone trend, regional trends have also been decreasing. Although all regions
have experienced reductions, some areas have made greater advances. EPA Regions
1, 9, and 10 have made significant improvements compared to the other regions. In
general, areas that had the highest ozone concentrations in the early 1980s have
shown the greatest reductions. Furthermore, on average, all regions made greater
reductions in the 1980s than the 1990s.
42
While the national and regional ozone
trends are decreasing, this does not mean that all states and localities meet the
NAAQS on ground-level ozone. “More than 100 million people live in counties with
42
Ozone Report (2003), p. 11.
26
high ozone emissions, with the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and California
having the most.”
43
Table 1. EPA Region Ground-Level Ozone Trend
Region 1980-2003 Percent Change 1990-2003 Percent Change
1 -20% -13%
2 -11% -11%
3 -14% -7%
4 -13% -6%
5 -11% -6%
6 -17% -7%
7 -17% No Change
8 -12% -4%
9 -37% -16%
10 -22% -10%
National -21% -9%
Source: EPA A Closer Look
Examination of national and regional ozone emission trends gives a broad
overview of the ground-level ozone story. However, although focusing on the
national and regional levels does give a broader overview of national efforts to
combat ozone emissions, examining only national trends does not completely
describe the ozone problem. “Although trends by EPA Region provide important
insight into different rates of improvement across the country, even these depictions
43
Ibid., p. 2.
27
mask interesting differences in air quality at more local levels”
44
. Because of the
impact of weather patterns and other geographical conditions, generalizing trends at
the national and regional levels often overlooks the local trends and the impact that
local weather patterns, political, economic, and social characteristics have on local
air quality. In essence, all three levels - national, regional, and local - need to be
examined to establish a complete ozone story. National level examination is
necessary to establish the overall trend and to analyze whether the CAA and the
regulatory regime set is effective and efficient. Examining the regional level
provides a mechanism to group similar urban areas to examine regional patterns.
This allows for examination of specific regional characteristics and their impact on
ozone emissions. Furthermore, the results are imperative for regional issues such as
transportation policies. However, the EPA Regions encompasses several states,
which differ in geographic and weather patterns. These differences can make it
difficult to determine emission reductions at the local level.
45
Furthermore,
generalizing at the national and regional levels, and creating regulations without
taking the local conditions and characteristics into account, may not be effective or
efficient. Thus, it is vital that localities and their efforts to combat ground-level
ozone be examined, especially as more and more Americans are moving from rural
communities to more urbanized areas.
44
Closer Look, p. 12
45
Ozone Report (2003).
28
Research Question
The devolution of federal programs such as the Clean Air Act has changed
the roles of state and local governments in the implementation of federal policy.
Although the Clean Air Act of 1970 was established as a command-and-control
regulation, the role of local government has increased to participant in the
formulation and implementation of policies to fulfill the requirements of the CAA.
Nevertheless, the rate of participation by local governments has varied. This
dissertation attempts to address the significance of local context and characteristics
in the implementation of the Clean Air Act, in particular, the reduction of ground-
level ozone. Through an examination of the Cities of Dallas and Houston and their
PMSAs, which have consistent ozone problems, and their efforts to meet the national
standards, this dissertation attempts to examine the impact of local government and
its characteristics on policy development and implementation to reduce ground-level
ozone.
Specifically, this dissertation extensively examines the social, political, and
economic characteristics of a locality's impact on policy formation and
implementation to reduce ground-level ozone. The dissertation asks whether these
characteristics influence the outcome of policies and procedures in formation, and
the implementation of policies geared toward reducing ground-level ozone. To
address the question, focus will be placed specifically on PMSAs with ground-level
ozone emissions that are above the national standards set by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
29
This dissertation presents an empirically-based explanation of local contexts
in ground-level ozone policies implementation. An in-depth case study is conducted,
examining the local variations in ground-level ozone. The Cities of Dallas and
Houston and their regions are analyzed. Houston and Dallas were chosen based on
Mill’s most similar case. A process tracing method is primarily used to identify the
reasons why certain decisions were made in efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. To
test the variables that impact the decisions and policies, a narrative description of the
implementation process is extensively examined. To gather evidence in support of
the explanation, archival research was conducted to validate the hypotheses.
Case Selection
In order to determine the impact of local context in reducing ozone
emissions, a case study analysis is utilized. Initial selection of cases was based on the
population of the PMSA and the severity of the emission problem. An extensive
justification is given on the selection of two cases - Houston PMSA and Dallas
PMSA - from an initial pool of PMSAs that were selected based on population.
Although the small N size analysis limits the ability to generalize the results, it
provides an opportunity to comprehensively examine the local context and the
influence it has on the process of reducing ozone emission.
Since 1920, the majority of the U.S. population has resided in urban areas.
46
This trend of population movement to urban cities has been increasing; by 2050, it is
46
Stephens and Wikstrom (2000), p. 15.
30
predicted that 80 percent of the U.S. population will reside in the nation’s 284
metropolitan areas.
47
With an increase in population, urban cities face economic
development issues and other social issues such as housing, income, disparities, and
the deterioration of their environment.
As the urbanized areas’ populations increase, and dependency on motor
vehicles also increases, air quality in these areas has deteriorated. Furthermore, as the
relationships between the three levels of government shift, local governments are
taking a more active role in implementing federal environmental mandates such as
the Clean Air Act, and the reduction of ground-level ozone to the national level or
below.
PMSAs with a population of one million or more are initially examined (see
Table 2). Large metropolitan areas are examined for several reasons. First, with a
larger population, these regions have to deal with not only economic development
issues, but also with the deteriorating environmental problems. Furthermore, urban
areas tend to attract more businesses, creating more single point source pollution,
and also more residents and greater dependency on automobiles, thus creating
problems of multiple point source pollution.
The 26 PMSAs in Table 2 vary not only in their population but also in
ground-level ozone readings. While some areas have average ozone levels below the
47
Porter (2000), p. 7.
31
national standard
48
, other areas are above the national levels or have been classified
as non-attainment areas. For example, New York PMSA, Los Angeles PMSA, and
Chicago PMSA have the largest populations; however, their ozone levels are quite
different. While Chicago PMSA’s ozone level has consistently been below the
national standard, with a minimal increase, the ozone levels of New York PMSA and
Los Angeles PMSA are above the national standard and have shown increases since
1992. Los Angeles PMSA has shown the most decrease in ozone from 1992 to 2001;
however, the overall level is still above the national standard. Smaller population
PMSAs also shows significant variations. Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA, which
has a population of about one million, has had a 17.5% increase in its ground-level
ozone, while San Francisco, CA PMSA has seen a 6% increase and is below the
national standard. Although the variation amongst the different PMSAs is
significant, because weather plays a critical role in the formation of ground-level
ozone, comparison of PMSAs within different regions will not give a complete
analysis.
48
The NAAQS for ground level ozone is 0.08ppm.
32
Table 2. Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area Population and Ozone Trend
Primary Metropolitan
Statistical Area
2000
Population
1992
OZ
2001
OZ
Percent
Change
Baltimore, MD PMSA 2,552,994 0.094 0.106 12
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 4,923,153 0.09 0.096 6.66
Boston, MA-NH PMSA 3,405,985 0.078 0.1 28.2
Newark, NJ PMSA 2,032,989 0.091 0.101 10.98
New York, NY PMSA 9,314,235 0.091 0.095 4.39
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 5,100,931 0.087 0.098 12.64
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA 1,500,741 0.08 0.094 17.5
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA 9,519,338 0.119 0.08 -32.77
Orange County, CA PMSA 2,846,289 0.099 0.068 -31.31
Dallas, TX PMSA 3,519,176 0.09 0.097 7.77
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 1,702,625 0.086 0.098 13.95
Houston, TX PMSA 4,177,646 0.109 0.101 -7.33
Chicago, IL PMSA 8,272,768 0.071 0.072 1.4
Detroit, MI PMSA 4,441,551 0.077 0.088 14.28
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA 1,646,395 0.078 0.078 0
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA 2,250,871 0.086 0.097 12.79
Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA 1,623,018 0.08 0.074 -7.5
Miami, FL PMSA 2,253,362 0.075 0.067 -10.66
Oakland, CA PMSA 2,392,557 0.065 0.066 1.53
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA 3,254,821 0.181 0.127 -29.83
Sacramento, CA PMSA 1,628,197 0.096 0.091 -5.2
San Francisco, CA PMSA 1,731,183 0.05 0.053 6
San Jose, CA PMSA 1,682,585 0.07 0.079 12.85
Denver, CO PMSA 2,109,282 0.068 0.075 10.29
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA 1,918,009 0.097 0.097 0
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA 2,414,616 0.08 0.066 -17.5
Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Census Bureau
33
Ground-level ozone is produced through the chemical reaction of NOX and
VOC in the presence of sunlight. The level of ozone is higher during the warm
months and in areas with higher temperatures. Thus, a PMSA with higher
temperature months would experience more problems with ozone than a PMSA with
cooler months. As a measure of control for temperature, 26 of the PMSAs are
categorized according to the EPA Regions and the Air Quality Index (AQI)
49
is used.
AQI is a useful measurement that can be used to track ozone emission for selected
localities and regions. Furthermore, the use of AQI enables the comparison of recent
ozone measurements with historical measurements.
50
The average number of days a PMSA has experienced an AQI of 100 is listed
in Table 4. Similar to the percent change of ozone, the AQI average also shows
variation between the 26 PMSAs. While Boston PMSA on average has not
experienced a day with an AQI of 100, Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA has
experienced 128.1 days with an AQI of 100 or more. PMSAs with fewer days when
the ozone level reaches 0.08ppm or more will on average have less of an ozone
problem than a PMSA such as San Bernardino-Riverside, for example, whose
average is 128.1 days.
49
AQI 100 represents the days when the ground-level ozone reading was 0.08ppm or more.
50
Doll and Fitz-Simons (2003), p. S35.
34
Table 3. PMSA AQI and Ozone Trend
EPA Regions and PMSA 1992-2001 Ozone 1990-2000 AQI
Region 1 -13%
Boston, MA-NH PMSA 28.2 0
Region 2 -11%
Newark, NJ PMSA 10.98 16.3
New York, NY PMSA 4.39 15
Region 3 -7%
Baltimore, MD PMSA 12 35.5
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 6.66 26.6
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 12.64 32.5
Region 4 -6%
Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA -7.5 1.2
Miami, FL PMSA -10.66 2
Region 5 -6%
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA 17.5 8.2
Chicago, IL PMSA 1.4 9.4
Detroit, MI PMSA 14.28 11.7
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA 0 10.9
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA 12.79 14.8
Region 6 -7%
Dallas, TX PMSA 7.77 13.4
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 13.95 17.4
Houston, TX PMSA -7.33 40.9
Region 8 -4%
Denver, CO PMSA 10.29 2.2
Region 9 -16%
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA -32.77 74.2
Orange County, CA PMSA -31.31 15.3
Oakland, CA PMSA 1.53 3.1
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA -29.83 128.1
Sacramento, CA PMSA -5.2 33.2
San Francisco, CA PMSA 6 0.2
San Jose, CA PMSA 12.85 3.8
Region 10 -10%
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA 0 2.6
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA -17.5 0.5
Source: U.S. EPA
35
Thus, this analysis will only examine PMSAs with an ozone level that is
above the national standard
51
and has an AQI of 5 days or more. Table 4 lists the
PMSAs according to their corresponding EPA Regions that will be analyzed.
Regions 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9 contain PMSAs that exceed the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) on ground-level ozone. Within the different Regions,
variations exist not only in the percent change of ozone emission, but also the
population. For example, Region 5 consists of large PMSAs, such as Chicago, and
smaller PMSAs, such as Cincinnati. Although Region 6 does encompasses several
states, only three PMSAs within the state of Texas are included in the analysis, thus
controlling for variation in state implementation plans. Furthermore, in the 2003
EPA Ozone Trend Report, the Cities of Houston and Dallas (along with City of Los
Angeles) were treated as individual cities due to their unique geographical
locations.
52
Both cities are in the State of Texas, and Region 6, and thus a similar
State Implementation Plan (SIP) process is applicable. Although the two cities and
their regions are classified as being unique, examination of the two cities can further
our understanding of policies and programs that are effective in reducing ground-
level ozone. Thus, this dissertation conducts a detailed case study of the Cities of
Dallas and Houston and their efforts to combat ground-level ozone.
51
The National Standard of ground-level ozone is 0.08ppm.
52
Doll and Fitz-Simons (2003), p. S46.
36
Table 4. PMSA and Ground-Level Ozone Trend
EPA Regions and PMSA
2000
Population
1992-2001
Ozone
1990-2000
AQI
Region 2 -11%
Newark, NJ PMSA 2,032,989 10.98 16.3
New York, NY PMSA 9,314,235 4.39 15
Region 3 -7%
Baltimore, MD PMSA 2,552,994 12 35.5
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV
PMSA
4,923,153 6.66 26.6
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 5,100,931 12.64 32.5
Region 5 -6%
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA 1,500,741 17.5 8.2
Chicago, IL PMSA 8,272,768 1.4 9.4
Detroit, MI PMSA 4,441,551 14.28 11.7
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA 1,646,395 0 10.9
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH
PMSA
2,250,871 12.79 14.8
Region 6 -7%
Dallas, TX PMSA 3,519,176 7.77 13.4
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 1,702,625 13.95 17.4
Houston, TX PMSA 4,177,646 -7.33 40.9
Region 9 -16%
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
PMSA
9,519,338 -32.77 74.2
Orange County, CA PMSA 2,846,289 -31.31 15.3
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
PMSA
3,254,821 -29.83 128.1
Sacramento, CA PMSA 1,628,197 -5.2 33.2
Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Census Bureau
37
This dissertation examines the Cities of Houston and Dallas and their efforts
to attain NAAQS for ground-level ozone. Both cities and their regions are currently
in non-attainment of the eight-hour ground-level ozone. The City of Houston is
classified as severe non-attainment while the City of Dallas is classified as moderate
non-attainment. Both cities are located in the State of Texas and EPA Region 6. The
State of Texas is actively involved in both cities’ efforts to bring their region into
attainment. TCEQ is the main state regulatory regime that oversees the efforts of the
two cities. Both cities, in conjunction with the TCEQ, developed a SIP that takes into
consideration the local conditions in efforts to reach attainment of ground-level
ozone.
The Cities of Dallas and Houston are geographically situated in the
Southwest, with extreme summer temperatures. Both cities and their regions’
summer temperatures reach high 90°F - ideal conditions for the formation of ground
level ozone. The EPA classified the Dallas and Houston regions as special cases due
to the weather patterns that make them especially vulnerable to ground-level ozone
formation.
53
In addition to the warm summer months that are ideal for ground-level
ozone formation, both cities are expansionist cities that often contribute to urban
sprawl. With massive roadway systems and sufficient land space, Houston and
Dallas were able to expand tremendously. In 2000, the size of Dallas was measured
53
U.S. EPA, www.epa.gov.
38
at 342 square miles and Houston at 579.4 square miles.
54
Both cities have a
population of just under two million (Dallas 1,188,580, and Houston 1,953,631).
Compared to other cities with similar populations, Dallas and Houston have more
land space. Furthermore, their population per square mile is relatively low (Dallas
3,470.3 population per square mile and Houston 3,371.8 per square mile). One
reason for such low density is the rapid development and extensive road system that
allows the cities to develop further out. This creates a dependency on motor vehicles
as a means of transportation, contributing to the ground-level ozone problem.
While measures have been taken by both cities to limit the impact of motor
vehicles on ozone emission, such heavy dependency on private motor vehicles - and
in the case of Houston a lack of city planning - makes it quite difficult. Furthermore,
both cities are pro-growth cities that place great emphasis on development and
growth.
Despite the similarities of the two cities, their trends in eight-hour ground-
level ozone are quite different. While the City of Houston has a more serious
problem with its ground-level ozone, it has been successful in decreasing ozone
emissions. The City of Houston is still classified as severe non-attainment for eight-
hour ozone, but when the annual trend of ozone emissions from 1990 to 2000 is
compared, there is a steady decrease. The City of Dallas, although categorized as
moderate non-attainment, has not seen a decrease in ozone emissions. The annual
54
U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov.
39
average has remained the same or increased; when the average from 1992-2001 is
compared to that of Houston and the state average, Houston has shown a slight
decrease while Dallas has shown an increase.
To examine the variation of the two cities’ outcomes in ground-level ozone
reduction efforts, three hypotheses are proposed that measure different elements of
local context and institutions. Each of the three hypotheses is examined in relation to
the two cities’ efforts to reduce ground-level ozone and what impact they have had
on the outcomes of the two cities.
Business and Local Economy
Local politics involves the interaction of local government institutions and
nongovernmental actors such as businesses and voluntary associations. Of the
various actors, businesses tend to play a dominant role, with a significant amount of
influence on local governments and policies. The relationships that these various
actors have with city government and each other can influence different types of
policies that local governments implement. The actors involved can have differences
in preferences with respect to a policy itself, and to the outcome or goals of the
policy. Furthermore, with limited taxing powers and revenue making venues, local
governments tend to focus on economic circumstances and objectives in the policy
making process. Hence, economic priorities dominate local politics, which
40
emphasize developmental policies rather than allocation or redistributive policies,
55
making businesses an integral part of local politics.
Local governments’ lack of taxing and revenue-making powers make
businesses a vital partner in local politics. Scholars such as Stone (1989) and
Motolch (1976) observed the economic policies of cities and the weight that
businesses had on decision making in local policies. Motolch (1976), in his growth
machine theory, states that development policy is dominated by real estate and local
businesses, which manipulate or control the local government to create a political
environment that is conducive for economic expansion. Furthermore, Clarence Stone
(1989) makes similar arguments in that in order to understand local politics, one
must examine the informal governing coalitions, which he refers to as urban regimes.
Within a regime, business interests tend to be the focal point because business
investments need to be encouraged “in order to have an economically thriving
community. A second reason is the sometimes overlooked factor that businesses
control politically important resources and are rarely absent totally from the scene”
56
.
In localities where economic resources are limited, businesses can play an influential
role in the policy making process, and at times both local government and businesses
can have the same goal of improving the economic conditions of localities.
Furthermore, businesses can play a vital role in brokering an alliance between
cities and suburbs, as illustrated in the creation of the Detroit Area Regional
55
Peterson (1981).
56
Stone (1989), p. 7.
41
Transportation Authority. The metropolitan business leaders were able to negotiate a
compromise and gather the support of the suburban Republicans in support of the
creation of the regional transportation authority.
57
Despite the influence that businesses have on the local policy making
process, environmental regulations such as the Clean Air Act do limit this role.
Furthermore, while some types of businesses might not face negative economic
consequences from the regulations, other businesses might feel the consequences,
which can lead to relocations to other localities. Under the CAA, the EPA and local
governments “must only consider the public health benefits of its air quality
regulation and not, for example, any of the compliance costs they impose on
businesses”
58
. Furthermore, the NAAQS of criteria pollutants only considers the
health benefits from the reduction of air pollution and is prohibited from factoring in
potential costs that can occur from the implementation of the regulation. The
manufacturing sector, which is often viewed as producing more pollution compared
to the service sector, faces stricter regulations, resulting in a greater economic
burden.
59
Thus, the success of the implementation of ground-level ozone policies
depends on a locality’s economic make-up and the main industry’s preferences.
Different industries are portrayed as contributing to a region’s overall
ground-level ozone production. The service sector is viewed as causing less damage
57
Weir et al. (2005).
58
Becker (2001), p. 1.
59
Rosenblum, Horvath, and Hendrickson (2000).
42
to the environment than the manufacturing sector, and is often ignored during the
formulation of environmental policies.
60
Furthermore, the service sector - especially
high-technology firms - considers quality of life factors, including clean
environment, as important business criteria. Among the different quality of life
criteria, both high-tech and non high-tech firms consider environmental quality to be
the most important. Corporate headquarters and other service industries employing
individuals with high levels of education and managerial elites often choose
localities with a cleaner environment. A strong preference from managerial elites and
a highly educated workforce for a cleaner environment cannot be disregarded by
firms, and failure to do so is likely to result in losing that workforce.
61
Workers with
a strong preference for higher environmental standards tend to migrate to regions
with better quality and standards. Therefore, if firms want to maintain their
workforce for long durations, they cannot disregard environmental amenities.
62
Thus,
for the service sector, stricter environmental regulation does not increase operational
costs and results in the ability to attract a workforce with higher education levels.
However, while the service industries do not produce significant direct emissions,
the indirect emissions produced are substantial.
Businesses such as trucking and courier services, or retail trade, produce
environmental emissions that in some cases can be comparable to the direct
60
Ibid.
61
Salvesen and Renski (2003).
62
Pagoulatos (2004).
43
emissions produced by manufacturing firms.
63
Despite the significant indirect
emissions from the service industries, regulations that target service industries are
not in place.
64
Unlike the service sector, stricter environmental regulations have a greater
negative effect on the manufacturing sector. The enactment of the CAA and the
stricter regulation of air quality has increased manufacturing plants’ air pollution
abatement expenditures and operating costs. The increase in cost for pollution
abatement is especially high for plants in non-attainment areas with the potential to
produce emissions that are regulated by the CAA.
65
This has resulted in an increase
in the overall cost for the plants, which are less competitive than plants in regions
where environmental restrictions are less stringent. In contrast to the service sector,
“quality of life is generally of lesser importance for traditional manufacturing
sectors”
66
. Rather, manufacturing firms are more sensitive to traditional economic
factors such as labor costs, transportation costs, and supply of raw materials.
Relocation of plants in search of cheap labor and less stringent environmental
standards has been used to reduce production costs. Furthermore, improvement in
63
Rosenblum, Horvath, and Hendrickson (2000), pp. 4673-4674.
64
Specific regulations that target the service industries have not been put in place. Rather, general
regulations such as limiting vehicle emissions can be used to decrease the amount of emissions that
the service industries produced. However, actions taken by the service industries to regulate vehicle
emissions are voluntary and failure to reduce vehicle emissions does not call for sanctions or
penalties. Thus, service industries are not as restricted by ground-level ozone regulations.
65
Becker (2001).
66
Salvesen and Renski (2003), p. 11.
44
transportation and communication has made location possible and profitable. While
theoretical models assume that relocation of plants is possible and cost effective, the
actual relocation of plants comes with a high cost. “Planning, building and operating
at a new location are expensive and risky, involving considerable redistribution of
existing resources, and dedication of resources for many years to come”
67
. Thus, a
firm’s first preference is to remain in its existing locations and to expand its facilities
and work out problems or issues that it is facing. Relocation becomes especially
more difficult for firms that are heavily dependent on “locational advantages”. For
example, Houston’s petrochemical industries are dependent on their proximity to the
oil field and access to shipping networks, which helps to explain the clustering of the
industries in the region.
68
The clustering of specific industries brings new businesses
and investment into the region, thus making it even harder for the existing industries
to relocate.
69
Thus, the interests of businesses, their structure, and the sources of pollution
that contributes to ground-level ozone formation, determine the role of businesses
and their influence in the process of reducing ground-level ozone. The locational
advantages provided to the energy and extraction industries make relocation less
economically sound. Therefore, these industries will be more involved in, and in
opposition to, any new measures or initiatives to lower ozone emission. Furthermore,
67
Ibid., p. 6.
68
Meyler et al. (2007).
69
Assenie and Yucel (2005).
45
manufacturing industries with more direct emissions are more involved in the policy
process to reduce their overall costs. Service industries, however, consider quality of
life to be an important aspect when recruiting employees and consumers to the city,
and support aggressive policies to reduce ozone emission. Nevertheless, because the
emissions of service industries are indirect, this results in less involvement in the
process to reduce emissions.
Local Government Capacity
The administrative and political capacity of local government plays a
significant role in the formation and implementation of policies. Capacity of local
government is generally defined as the ability of a locality to carry out its core
functions. Administrative capacities pertain to management skills and operation of
the bureaucracies and agencies, while political capacities are defined by the actions
or lack of actions of political figures within the local government. Studies
emphasizing local government’s administrative capacity have focused on the quality
of management in implementing major functions of the cities. These studies have
shown that local governments are adopting more sophisticated management tools
and are better able to address issues faced by their constituents.
70
Local officials are
redefining their roles to be more responsive to the needs of local constituents.
Research has suggested that the role of city managers needs to be broadened to
70
Poister and Streib (1989a); (1989b); (1989).
46
include more policy making and administrative authority, in order to be more
responsive to the needs of the local community.
71
Furthermore, Banovetz (1994)
suggests that there is a shift in the roles of city managers from technical expert to
more of a political generalist. In other words, “the professionalization of the public
sector at the local level is affecting the capacities of local governments to address the
needs of their constituents”
72
.
In addition to the professionalization of local bureaucrats and agencies,
availability of resources is vital for local government capacity. In the era of New
Federalism, the federal government has been giving the power to make policy
decisions for local and state government, and in the process to decrease the federal
resources that are given to state and local governments. However, with the limitation
on taxes, local governments cannot implement all policies and programs, especially
environmental policies that may not have immediate effects, such as those related to
crime and economic development. Thus, “real choices are open only to wealthy
jurisdictions with modest poverty needs, while poor jurisdictions have choices only
in theory”
73
. Localities with budgetary and technological resources are better able to
combat their ozone problems and find possible solutions to reduce their ozone
emissions to the national standard. Those that do not have such capacity are less able
to combat their ozone problem as efficiently. However, the sophistication of
71
Lovell and Tobin (1981).
72
Streib and Waugh (1991), p. 63.
73
Demetrios (1992), p. 4.
47
techniques of local government, levels of management capability, and the
availability of budgetary resources, as measurements of capacity, are incomplete
without consideration of issues such as the role of local officials, voter
constituencies, and public opinion.
The institutional structure of local governments and leadership plays a
significant role in the policymaking and implementation process. Most local
governments are set up in a mayoral system or a manager-council system. Under the
manager-council system, power is dispersed to prevent a machine-like structure that
reformers sought to get rid of in local politics. However, in cities with a manager-
council system, the mayor’s formal authority to make policy decisions is limited.
Thus, city managers are compelled to play a more active role in the policy process.
However, city managers are less visible to the public; also, compared to the mayor,
they are often more constrained in their ability to play an active role in the policy
process. The lack of clear distinction in the power and leadership arrangement is
often cited as a weakness of the manager-council system.
74
In comparison, a mayoral
system with a publicly-elected mayor provides more cohesiveness and a clear
distinction of power and leadership. Often in a manager-council system of
government, nonexecutive mayors are perceived to be incapable of providing
74
Morgan and Watson (1992); Ross and Levine (2001).
48
leadership.
75
Thus, compared to a mayoral system, localities with a manager-system
can have less political leadership, authority, and direction.
The institutional structure and capacity of local government significantly
impacts efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. Local governments with institutional
capacity such as wealth, resources, and administrative capabilities, have more
success in implementation of policies to reduce ozone emissions. Furthermore,
localities with historical experience or policies in similar areas are more efficient and
successful. Along with capacities, the institutional structures of local governments
also influence the course to reduce ozone emissions. Whereas a strong mayoral
system has the ability to shape the local governance regime and the actors that are
involved, a manager-council system with limited power and cohesion can create a
system of dispersed power and authority, enabling more actors to get involved and
leading to inefficiencies.
Regional Governance
Studies of governments in metropolitan areas have garnered much support by
scholars of urban politics, especially with the devolution of federal programs. During
the 1960s, research on metropolitan areas placed emphasis on the fragmentation of
local governments and the confusion and instability created by the multiple
responsibilities in providing services to local constituencies.
76
The solution to
making governance more effective was to streamline all types of governments, with
75
Svara (1985).
76
Ross and Levine (2001), Chapter 11.
49
fewer tiers of authority. Emphasis was placed on three forms of metropolitan
governments as solutions for more effective local governance: City-county
consolidation, the federation plan, and the three-tier plan. These different types of
metropolitan institutions were successful in many aspects, but were not the ideal
metropolitan government that many envisioned.
77
While the 1960s movement called for a consolidation of governments and a
creation of a regional level government, the 1990s movement calls for regional
governance. The concept of metropolitan governance has become a widely accepted
phenomenon. “The growing acceptance of this phenomenon is associated in part
with the development of the new regionalism, which recognizes that metropolitan
areas are able to create governance structures not tied to a single, dominant unit of
metropolitan government”
78
. In essence, supporters of new regionalism believe that
governance can be created without having an actual metropolitan government
structure, even in a fragmented metropolitan area. “Much of today’s discussion of
regionalism focuses on alternatives to creating metropolitan governments -
arrangements that facilitate regional governance but that fall short of establishing a
true metropolitan government”
79
.
Regional governance extends beyond the boundaries of a single city or
county government. It is the collaboration of metropolitan areas within a region to
77
Ibid.
78
Oakerson (2004), p. 17.
79
Alpert et al. (2006), p. 144.
50
combat ozone. Ground-level ozone is not just a local level problem; it stretches far
beyond the boundaries of one or two local governments’ jurisdictions. Thus, not only
are efforts at the local level important in combating the increasing levels of ozone,
but regional efforts are also influential. The involvement of actors, and their political
and economic strength relative to others and their preferences, also influence
regional governance to reduce ground level ozone. Actors, and the preferences of
these actors, need to be examined to determine the influence they have in the
formation of a regional collaboration and its degree of success in the reduction of
ground-level ozone.
The relationships among the various localities is imperative in regional
governance. When new problems or issues emerge, new governance structures are
not created; rather, existing networks and structures are used to combat the new
problems. Furthermore, a degree of trust needs to be present that all members
involved in the cooperation will fulfill their obligations.
80
However, with localities
with differing interests, needs and resources, it is difficult to trust that all members
will fulfill their obligations. Furthermore, with an increase in political fragmentation
in metropolitan areas, it becomes nearly impossible to address regional problems.
81
Thus, regional organizations and strong leadership from local governments are
necessary to consolidate the differing opinions and priorities of local governments.
Regional organizations such as Council of Governments and Regional Planning
80
Stone (2003).
81
Rich (2003).
51
Organizations can serve as mediators in regional issues. Furthermore, the availability
of a strong political leadership can further increase the probability of local
governments working collectively to reduce ground-level ozone and bring a region
into compliance with federal standards.
To understand the variation of local governments’ outcomes in their ground-
level ozone reduction programs and policies, identifying and examining the three
variables mentioned above is pertinent. Although analysis of ground-level ozone at
the national and state level does provide invaluable explanation of the overall trend
of ground-level ozone, it does not shed light on localities’ experiences and results.
Thus, it is vital that in addition to the national and state level analysis, local
level analysis should be conducted. This dissertation conducts a local level analysis
of the outcomes of local governments’ varying outcomes in their ground-level ozone
reduction efforts.
Through an in-depth case analysis of the Cities of Dallas and Houston and
their regions, this dissertation provides an empirically-based explanation of the
influence of the local economy, actors, and governance structure on efforts to reduce
ground-level ozone. To situate the analysis of the dissertation, the following chapter
provides an overview of the two cases: Dallas and Houston.
52
Chapter Three
A Closer Look at the City of Dallas and City of Houston
This chapter provides an overview analysis of the City of Dallas and the City
of Houston. The overview of the two cities examines contextual factors to situate the
analysis of the outcome of the two cities and their regions in ground-level ozone
reduction policies and programs. In addition, a brief historical overview of the
involvement of the State of Texas in improving air quality is presented.
3.1 Texas and Air Quality
Even before the passing of the federal Clean Air Act, the State of Texas was
committed to improving the air quality of the region. Since the 1960s, Texas has
taken the issue of air pollution seriously and looked for ways to deal with the
problem. In 1953, Texas started its first efforts to combat air pollution with the
establishment of the “Stream and Air Pollution Section” as part of the Health
Department.
82
In 1965, the State of Texas signed its first legislation to clean the air
quality of the state. The Texas Clean Air Act, which was signed in 1965, created the
Texas Air Control Board (TACB), which had the principal authority in the State of
Texas on matters dealing with air quality.
83
This Act was signed before the 1970
Clean Air Act was put into place by the federal government. Those involved in the
passing of the Texas Clean Air Act supported the federal legislation, which would
eliminate “the overlapping responsibilities of the national agency and the various
82
Forswall and Higgins (2005), p. 6; TCEQ 2007.
83
TCEQ, (2007).
53
states by requiring EPA to set NAAQS to apply nationwide and then requiring states
to prepare SIPs to achieve those standards”
84
.
The enactment of the Federal Clean Air Act in 1970, and the Texas Clean Air
Act (TCAA) in 1965, allowed the TACB to take on national efforts to improve the
state air quality. According to the Federal Clean Air Act, any region that exceeds the
specified levels of ambient air pollution is required to set a control strategy that
provides emission-reducing measures for attainment and maintenance of the national
standards.
85
This responsibility to set control strategies and SIP not only involves the
local governments, but also the state government. With two regions, Dallas and
Houston, classified as non-attainment areas for ground-level ozone, the State of
Texas needed to provide a SIP to the federal government to get the two regions into
compliance. The TACB, acting as the principal agent of the state, took on various
measures to bring the localities and the State of Texas in compliance with the federal
CAA. By 1972, the first air monitoring station was set up by the TACB, and in 1973
the Texas legislature made the TACB an independent state agency with a staff of
366. As an independent state agency, the TACB was given more authority. For
example, in 1982 they were “authorized to charge administrative penalties for
84
Forswall and Higgins (2005), p. 7.
85
TCEQ (2003).
54
violations of state and national air quality regulations and to review operating
permits every 15 year”
86
.
Throughout the 1990s, the state of Texas took on various measures to combat
air pollution in the state. In 1991, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 2, which
“authorized the consolidation of state agencies and boards dealing with the
environment and health”
87
. This consolidation created the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC), a nationally recognized state environmental
program. Thus the TACB was abolished and all its powers and functions were
transferred to the TNRCC.
88
In addition to the creation of the TNRCC, the TCAA
gave the TCEQ the “legal authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the national
ambient air quality standards”
89
. This gave TCEQ powers such as the authority to
“collect information to enable the TCEQ to develop an inventory of emissions; to
conduct research and investigations; to enter property and examine records; to
prescribe monitoring requirements”
90
. Like TCEQ, local governments were given
similar authorities, such as the power to enter properties and make inspections. In
addition, local governments can “enact and enforce ordinances for the control and
abatement of air pollution not inconsistent with the provisions of the TCAA and the
86
Forswall and Higgins (2005), p. 23.
87
Ibid., p. 25.
88
TCEQ (2007).
89
Ibid., p. IV.
90
Ibid.
55
rules or orders of the Commission”
91
. The passing of the 1990 amendment to the
Clean Air Act further strengthened efforts to combat ozone problems. The 1990
amendment gave the federal EPA the authorization to designate areas that failed to
meet the NAAQS for ozone based on severity. Thus, the Houston region was
designated a severe non-attainment area, while Dallas was designated a moderate
non-attainment area. Despite such efforts by the national and state governments,
regions such as Houston and Dallas are experiencing continuous deterioration of air
quality, especially with respect to ground-level ozone.
Houston
The city of Houston is the fourth largest city in the United States, with a
population of 1,954,848.
92
The Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which
consists of Galveston, Fort Bend, Harris, Brazoria, Liberty, Waller, and Montgomery
counties, ranks as the tenth most populous metropolitan region in the nation, and the
largest in the state of Texas. When the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area first
formed in 1949, it only consisted of Harris County, with a population of 806,701.
Currently, the MSA covers seven different counties. The City of Houston, with a
population of 1,954,848 (Table 5), is the largest city within the Houston Primary
Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), making up 47% of the PMSA’s total
population. Due to its aggressive annexations, the City of Houston has expanded its
91
Ibid.
92
According to the 2000 Census, the City of Houston’s population was listed as 1,954,848. Houston
has seen continuous growth with a 2008 population of 2,242,193.
56
territorial boundaries to surround other cities and limit the territorial expansion of
other cities.
Table 5. Population of Houston PMSA and City of Houston
1990 Population 2000 Population
Houston PMSA 3,301,937 4,177,646
Harris County 2,818,199 3,400,578
City of Houston 1,697,873 1,954,848
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
As evident in Table 6, the City of Pasadena, the second largest city in the
region, has only a fraction of Houston’s population. Houston is not only the most
populous city in the region, but is also a “center of economic, social, cultural, and
political activities”.
93
Table 6. Population of City of Houston and Pasadena
City
1990
Population
2000
Population
Population
Change
Houston PMSA 3,322,025 4,177,646 25.80
Houston 1,697,873 1,954,848 15.1
Pasadena 119,389 141,731 18.7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
93
Thomas and Murray (1991), p. 18.
57
The advancement of transportation systems, plentiful natural resources within
the area, and an entrepreneurial spirit, helped to develop the area into one of the
commercial Mecca in the nation, and thus contributed to the rapid growth of the city
and the region. In its early history, Houston was dependent on cotton production and
commerce as the main source of revenue. Despite the shallow depth of the Buffalo
Bayou, Houston was able to become a commercial port with the efforts of local
businessmen.
94
In 1941, the Houston Ship Channel was opened and is currently
ranked in the top three largest deepwater ports in the nation. In addition to the
expansion of the Buffalo Bayou, Houston also invested in other means of
transportation, such as railroads, an international airport, and an expansive highway
system, making Houston a transportation hub. These advancements in the
transportation system, and other communications systems such as mail and
telegraph, helped to develop Houston’s cotton and lumber market. However, all this
changed with the discovery of oil at the Sprindletop oilfield, changing Houston's
economy and further increasing the growth of the region.
95
Economy
The discovery of oil at the Sprindletop oilfield brought momentous change to
the Houston economy. The abundance of oil in the region shifted the economy that
94
Houston’s waterway, the Buffalo Bayou, was too shallow, making it difficult to navigate, and thus
was not ideal for a commerce destination that Houston is today. However, with the support of local
businessmen, the channel was dredged to deepen and widen the channel to support commerce.
95
Handbook of Texas Online, s.v.,
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/hdh3.html. Accessed Sept. 3, 2009.
58
was had been centered on cotton, to oil and petroleum products. Since the postwar
period, Houston’s economic growth was centered on three dominant industries:
“petroleum products, petrochemicals and allied products, and nonelectrical
machinery which includes oil field machinery and tools”
96
. Oil companies relocated
their refineries to the Houston Ship Channel, which not only offered proximity to the
oil fields, but also refuge from the Gulf storms. After WWII, Houston had one of the
largest concentrations of petrochemical industry in the U.S., and became the world
energy capital in the 1970s.
97
In addition to the oil and energy industries that resulted
from the discovery of oil in 1901 in the region, the shipping and port activities
constitute another industry that cannot be ignored. The port generates a large amount
of commercial activity, including the shipping of oil from the local refineries and
other products from the oil extraction industry.
98
Since the discovery of oil in 1901, energy has been the main industry in
Houston’s economy. Major U.S. energy firms in every segment of the industry are
headquartered in Houston. There are about 3,600 energy-related companies, 600
exploration and production firms, and 170 pipeline companies within the Houston
area. Table 7 list the major industrial clusters present in the Houston Metropolitan
area. Pipeline transportation is the dominant industrial cluster in Houston, with a
96
Feagin and Beauregard, p. 163.
97
Handbook of Texas Online, s.v.,
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/hdh3.html. Accessed Sept. 3, 2009.
98
Feagin and Beauregard (1989) p. 164.
59
location quotient of 10.22. Oil and gas extraction is the next largest cluster in the
region.
Table 7. Houston Metropolitan Area’s Top Industry Clusters 2005
Industry Location Quotient
99
Pipeline Transportation 10.22
Oil and Gas Extraction 8.44
Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles 8.29
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 5.08
Support Activities for Mining 5.07
Source: Laila Assanie and Mine Yucel
Although the energy and oil industries have created a strong economic
condition for the region, Houston has also taken on initiatives to diversify its
economy. Financial and other services, such as health care, also make up a
significant percentage of the Houston economy. Table 8 represents the Houston area
labor force. Although energy and oil industries and their counterparts do employ a
significant number of employees of the Houston region, other industries, especially
the education and health services, employ 11.15% of the workers of the region.
99
“Location quotients compare an area's economy with a larger, more diversified one—for example,
Dallas with the U.S.—to identify areas of specialization. Location quotients above 1 indicate
industries with concentrations above the national average. These industries are part of the area's
economic base and deemed local exports. The higher the location quotient, the higher the industry's
concentration” (Laila Assanie and Mine Yucel).
60
Despite this, Houston is still considered one of the leaders in the energy and
chemical industry.
Table 8. Houston Metropolitan Area Labor Force 2003
Industry Number of Workers Percent
Natural Resources and Mining 63,400 3.03%
Construction 158,300 7.55%
Manufacturing 188,900 9.01%
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 440,900 21.04%
Information 37,300 1.78%
Financial Activities 124,500 5.94%
Professional and Business Services 293,000 13.98%
Educational and Health Services 233,600 11.15%
Leisure and Hospitality 178,000 8.49%
Other Services 86,300 4.12%
Government 291,700 13.92%
Size of Nonagricultural Labor Force 2,095,800
Source: City-Data.com
The growth of Houston’s population came during the peak of private
automobile travel, freeways, and cheap energy. This enabled residents to move rather
quickly from suburban residences to the downtown business district, relying on
automobiles and extensive highway systems. Land developers, without restriction on
development, spread the city and the surrounding suburbs. Furthermore, Houston
61
used aggressive annexation powers to annex all unclaimed lands in Harris County.
100
However, this growth came with consequences. The decades of steady growth not
only increased the city’s productivity and population, but also the environmental
harms that come with growth.
Ground-Level Ozone
Although Houston is heavily dependent on automobile transportation and the
prominence of the refining and petrochemical industries, the City and the region are
in compliance with all criteria pollutants, except for ground-level ozone.
101
Ground-
level ozone is the only criteria pollutant that the Houston-Galveston region currently
fails to meet. The Houston region is often referred as the smog capital of the U.S.
102
In 1999, the Houston-Galveston region became the first metro area to have more
ozone violations than the Los Angeles region. While Los Angeles had 43 days of
ozone violations, the Houston region had 52 days. Furthermore, the Deer Park
monitoring station in Houston recorded an ozone level of 251 parts per billion, one
of the highest readings in the nation and twice the maximum national health
standard.
103
The title of smog capital is not something that Houston and its people
are proud to have. Efforts have been made over the last three decades with stringent
regulatory controls, but there still remains a “broad-based consensus among
100
Handbook of Texas Online, s.v.,
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/hdh3.html. Accessed Sept. 3, 2009.
101
Tolley and Smith (2001).
102
The only other region that has taken the title of the smoggiest city in the U.S. is Los Angeles, CA.
103
Vojnovic, p. 614.
62
knowledgeable experts and the general public that air pollution concentrations in
Houston are by and large unacceptable”
104
.
Houston’s geographical location and extended summer months, in
combination with high emissions of NOx and VOCS, are ideal for the formation of
ground-level ozone. Motor vehicles, incinerators, power generation, and industrial
processes are some sources of NOx and VOCs, which are the two pollutants that
combine with sunlight to produce ground-level ozone. Furthermore, Houston’s large
oil reserves, and its facilities that extract and export the oil, also contribute
significantly to the City’s and the region’s ozone problem. According to the national
standard, the level of 8-hour ozone should be below 0.08ppm. However, in the case
of Houston, the annual ozone measurement significantly exceeds the national
standard (Table 9). Furthermore, the AQI, which counts the number of days when
the daily ozone level is unhealthy, is quite high (Table 9).
Thus, the federal EPA has classified the Houston-Galveston region as a
severe non-attainment area. This region not only encompasses Harris County, which
the City of Houston belongs to; seven other counties (Figure 1) collectively are
classified as severe non-attainment for 8-hour ground level ozone.
104
Mayor’s Task Force, p. 8.
63
Table 9. City of Houston Annual Ground Level Ozone
Year 8-Hour AQI
1992 0.11 32
1993 0.094 27
1994 0.101 38
1995 0.12 65
1996 0.11 26
1997 0.106 46
1998 0.11 38
1999 0.1 50
2000 0.107 41
2001 0.1 N/A
92-01
105
-7.33 40.9
Source: www.epa.gov
Figure 1. Map of Houston-Galveston Region Non-Attainment Area
Source: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/texas-sip/hgb/sip-hgb
105
Average of annual ozone reading from 1992 to 2001.
64
There is much debate surrounding Houston’s ozone problem. “Almost
everything about Houston’s air pollution problem - its causes, sources, extent,
impact, and solution, and whether the city and metropolitan area are making enough
progress - is a matter of significant debate”
106
. The response of the City with regard
to the ozone problem is to either deny that there is a problem, or to emphasize that it
is a private matter, not a public one; therefore, the City should not get heavily
involved. Houston’s characteristics of a “private city” and emphasis on “pro-growth”
are evident in its response, which reinforces the claims that air pollution is a private
matter in which the City does not need to get involved.
107
However, despite the
controversies and debates on whether ozone is a public or private matter, efforts have
been made, and the CAA mandates that Houston implement policies and programs to
reduce ozone emissions.
Efforts have been made to improve the air quality in the Houston region,
however the results did not always show improved air quality. Since the early 1970s,
air in the Greater Houston region has been monitored, and currently the area has 140
air monitors in the region. These air monitors are owned and operated by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), local governments, or private
industry, making Houston’s air quality one of the most closely monitored in the
106
Fisher (2007), p. 70.
107
Fisher (2007).
65
nation.
108
Unlike most major cities, which consider emission from automobiles as the
primary cause of high levels of ozone, Houston’s emission sources are from other
activities. This is evident when one examines cities like Los Angeles and Dallas.
However, in the case of Houston, industrial pollution from the hundreds of
petrochemical plants and refineries (Figure 2) are considered to be a major source
109
Figure 2. City of Houston Emissions Estimate 1999
Source: City of Houston. 2000 “Emission Reduction Plans”, p. 10.
A controversy with respect to the source of ozone emissions is not the only
matter that Houston needs to address. Although studies have shown the negative
108
Institute for Health Policy. p. 9.
109
Fisher (2007), p. 70.
66
effects of ozone emissions on human health, not everyone agrees that Houston’s air
quality caused health effects. In 1976, the Houston Chamber of Commerce
established the Houston Area Oxidant Study (HAOS) in response to the federal
standards, which the Chamber of Commerce felt were too stringent to attain. By
investing $6 million in the HAOS, major industries in the city wanted to investigate
the sources of ozone in Houston. While the City of Houston and the TACB agreed
with the conclusion of the report, in 1980, the EPA conducted a critical review of the
HAOS. The EPA concluded, “that the assumptions made in regard to achieved
emissions reductions were unfounded. Outside contributions to Houston’s ozone
were not large, and the health effects conclusions were unjustified”
110
. Thus, from its
early history, the City of Houston and the region had differing opinions on whether
air quality was a concern that needed to be addressed.
The Houston-Galveston Area started to get more organized in the 1990s.
Regional committees and coalitions were formed to combat ground-level ozone. In
1991, the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), which historically has been
devoted to solving environmental issues, created the Regional Air Quality Planning
Committee (RAQPC). The main purpose of RAQPC was to advise the H-GAC board
of directors and Transportation Policy Council on air quality issues. The RAQPC can
be seen as the one of the first local multi-stakeholder groups created to tackle air
quality issues. Local governments, environmental groups, public health, citizen
110
Forswall and Higgins (2005), p. 19.
67
groups, business and industry stakeholders from all the 8 counties that composed the
non-attainment area were part of RAQPC.
111
In addition to the local efforts to reduce ozone in the Houston region, the
state government also actively got involved. However, the localities did not always
accept or implement programs that the state developed without a fight. In 1993, the
TNRCC developed the Ozone Advisory Program (OAP). The main purpose of the
program was to disperse information to residents on the likelihood of high ozone
levels. This information would be passed to local authorities, and from there to local
residents. With such information at hand, residents could take voluntary measures,
such as carpooling, or taking public transportation, to help reduce ozone the next
day.
While areas such as Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and Tyler-
Longview Marshall were issuing public alerts, the OAP was met with opposition in
Houston. “The GHP opposed the use of the alerts, citing the science behind the
forecasting as inexact and worried that issuing numerous warnings could be
‘deceptive’ and a ‘scare tactic’ to the public and could also hurt attempts to draw
new business to Houston”
112
. In order to work out the issues that were being raised, a
111
Ibid., p. 26.
112
Ibid., p. 31.
68
multi-interest group was set up, but this soon dispersed, citing reluctance of local
businesses leaders to participate as a major factor in disbanding the group.
113
While the business community was reluctant to issue smog alerts, others in
the legal and medical groups thought otherwise. This resulted in the formation of
The Smog Action Task Force, one of the largest environmental coalitions in recent
Houston history. The task force was comprised of “42 health, legal, and medical
groups, focused on the program more as a measure to protect public health and less
as a means of voluntary ozone prevention”
114
. Furthermore, in August 1995,
Houston Mayor Bob Lanier approved Houston’s participation in OAP and delegated
to the Houston Health Department the responsibility of disseminating the
information. The smog alert program started in mid-August of 1995 and focused on
the health implications of ozone, not as a voluntary preventive measure for ozone.
As a pro-growth oriented city, local businesses were wary of environmental
legislations that would interfere with businesses in the community. Houston has
often denied the existence and the extent of air pollution, emphasizing air pollution
as a private matter, not a public one.
115
However, this idea is slowly changing as
those in support of the pro-growth agenda realize that the negative publicity the city
is gaining is actually harming the businesses and the economy. The designation of
Houston as the smoggiest city is raising new concerns for the business community
113
Ibid., pp. 30-31.
114
Ibid., p. 31.
115
Fisher (2007), p. 69.
69
for the potential loss of tourism and new business investments. As Houston
diversifies its economic base, particularly in the high-tech industries, professional
services, and tourism, quality of life indicators such as crime and pollution become
key determinants of new businesses moving to the region.
116
Furthermore, potential
federal sanctions, such as loss of federal transportation funding and reductions in
permits for new emissions sources, can generate additional economic loss to the
region.
Thus, the local perception is that “improving environmental quality will
satisfy a dual purpose, enabling Houston to avoid federal penalties while also
ensuring that the city enhances its ability to attract corporate headquarters, high tech
industries, and professional services”
117
. Houston is realizing that a healthy
environment and strong economy are interdependent.
Dallas
The City of Dallas, located in North Texas, is the ninth largest city in the
nation and is seated in Dallas County. It is part of the fourth largest metropolitan area
(Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Metropolitan Statistical Area) in the nation and is
often referred to as the “Metroplex”. The City covers approximately 343 square
miles of the region. With an average summer high temperature of 96°F, the region is
116
Vojnovic (2003), p. 617.
117
Ibid., p. 617.
70
conducive for ground-level ozone formation.
118
Within Dallas PMSA, the City of
Dallas is the largest city, with a population of 1,006,964 in 1990 and 1,188,623 in
2000 (Table 10). The City of Dallas population makes up 54% of the 1990 County of
Dallas population and 53% of the 2000 total population of the county. While the City
of Dallas population makes up 50% of the total Dallas County population, the City
population only makes up 39% (in 1990) and 34% (in 2000) of the total Dallas
PMSA population.
Table 10. 1990 and 2000 Dallas Population
1990 Population 2000 Population
Dallas PMSA 2,553,362 3,519,176
Dallas County 1,852,810 2,218,899
City of Dallas 1,006,964 1,188,623
Source U.S. Census Bureau
The City of Dallas is the largest city within Dallas County and the Dallas
PMSA. The population of the second and third largest cities, Garland and Irving, is
18% and 15% of the City of Dallas’ 1990 population, respectively (Table 11).
118
City of Dallas. http://www.dallascityhall.com/info/about.html.
71
Table 11. Population of City of Dallas and Dallas PMSA
City
1990
Population
2000
Population
Population
Change
Dallas PMSA 2,676,248 3,519,176 31.50
Dallas 1,006,964 1,188,623 18.1
Garland 180,886 215,794 19
Irving 155,130 191,611 23.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Since its early history, Dallas has been a service center for the region. In the
1800s, Dallas provided dry goods, insurance, boots, and other goods to the
surrounding areas. To further expand the local economy, improvement in the mode
of transportation in and out of the region was necessary. Dallas attempted to use the
Trinity River, which the city sits on, as the main source of transportation; however,
this proved to be impractical. Instead, Dallas business leaders turned to securing rail
services as the main mode of transportation in and out of the region, and were
successful. Dallas had one of the first rail crossroads in Texas, which made the city’s
location strategic in transporting products to the surrounding regional manufacturing
plants. The new rail services in the region significantly increased the population of
Dallas, and by 1880 the population tripled.
Throughout history, Dallas prospered, providing goods and services in the
region. In the late nineteenth century, banking and insurance emerged as the main
industry in the region. In the early twentieth century, consumer goods such as books,
rugs, and liquor became the main trading goods that supported the local economy.
72
Up until World War II, manufacturing did not play a significant role in Dallas's
economy. However, with the start of WWII, war-related industries expanded,
increasing the size of the manufacturing industry and dramatically increasing the
population of the city. During the 1950s and 1960s, Dallas saw an increase in high
technology industries, becoming the third-largest technology center in the nation.
The completion of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in 1974 further
expanded the economy, attracting numerous headquarters to the region and gaining
the reputation as the financial and business center of the nation.
Economy
From the late 1930s to the 1970s, city politics in Dallas focused on promoting
the economic growth of the city. Public officials and local businesses formed
alliances to pursue economic growth, eliminating distractions and problems that
other cities faced. Public officials and local businessmen had similar views on
growth. Furthermore, many leading businessmen were also the elected officials of
the city, furthering the economic growth agenda. This atmosphere created a city
conducive for businesses to flourish
119
.
The entrepreneurial and pro-business atmosphere made the City of Dallas
conducive for businesses, enabling Dallas to have a diverse business climate. The
central location of Dallas within the region also enabled Dallas to serve as the trade
119
Elkin (1987), pp. 27-28.
73
and distribution center. Furthermore, with historical ties to defense electronics and
oil, the telecommunications industry became very prominent (Table 12).
Table 12. Location Quotient of City of Dallas Industries
Industry Location Quotient
Oil and Gas Extraction 3.05
Air Transportation 2.78
Information and Data Processing Services 2.45
Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing 2.11
Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles 1.82
Source: Laila Assanie and Mine Yucel
Other major industries in Dallas include: “defense, financial services,
information technology and data, life sciences, semiconductors, telecommunications,
transportation, and processing”
120
. Thirteen private companies with annual revenues
of $1 billion or more are also headquartered in Dallas. Nineteen Fortune 500
companies, such as Advance PCS, Dean Foods, ExxonMobil, Kimberly-Clark,
Neiman Marcus, Southwest Airlines, and Texas Instruments, are also headquartered
in Dallas. In addition to the service and high technology industries, transportation
services is another industry that is prominent in the Dallas region, and Dallas is often
120
City-Data.com.
74
considered to be the “mid-continent gateway to the world”
121
. The transportation
services industry employs 23% of the Dallas region’s work force (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Dallas Metropolitan Area Labor Force
Source: City-Data.com
The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, the transportation hub of the
region, had 244,515 metric tons of cargo shipped in 2004. Furthermore, Dallas is the
leading distribution center for Southwest Airlines. In addition to air transportation,
the trucking industry offers services to other major destinations in the United States.
The heavy activities of the transportation industry, in conjunction with personal
motor-vehicles, contribute significantly to the city and region’s ground-level ozone
problems.
121
Ibid.
75
Ground-Level Ozone
The City of Dallas has been classified as a non-attainment area for ground-
level ozone. The Dallas-Fort Worth region is currently classified as a moderate non-
attainment area for eight-hour ground-level ozone. This non-attainment area includes
four counties - Dallas, Denton, Collin, and Tarrant - that were classified as non-
attainment for one-hour ozone, and five other counties (Figure 4)
122
Figure 4. Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area
Source: Regional Mobility Initiative. 2007.
122
Regional Mobility Initiative (2007), p. 2.
76
Of the six criteria pollutants, ground-level ozone is the only pollutant for
which the region did not meet the NAAQS. Compared to other large cities, such as
Houston, Dallas has little industrial pollution; however, emissions from motor
vehicles continue to increase. Forty-one percent (Figure 5) of Dallas’s emissions
come from on-road sources such as cars, trucks, buses, and other registered motor
vehicles. Stationary sources such as factories and industrial facilities produce 12% of
the region’s total emissions. The increases in air pollution not only have impact on
health, but also impact the economy of the city. Air pollution “hampers local
competitiveness as businesses that might otherwise locate here choose to invest
elsewhere to avoid the penalties of having to cut operations on bad air days”
123
.
Figure 5. 1996 Dallas-Fort Worth Emissions Sources
Source: Regional Mobility Initiative (1996).
123
Booz, Allen, Hamilton (2004), p. 8.
77
Significant efforts have been made both regionally and by the City of Dallas
to meet the compliance deadline as a moderate non-attainment area. Since 1996, the
Dallas-Fort Worth region has set up eight monitoring stations to measure air
pollutions on an hourly basis.
124
Furthermore, actions such as stricter permits, car inspections, and reduced gas
evaporative measures, were taken to reduce VOC emissions, and resulted in a
reduction of VOC emissions by more than 50% in the last two decades. The Dallas-
Fort Worth region has also significantly reduced on-road mobile sources of NOX
(Figure 6 and Figure 7).
Figure 6. Dallas-Fort Worth 1990 NOx Emissions
Source: Regional Mobility Initiatives Vol. XI, No. 3 September 2007
124
Regional Mobility Initiatives (1996), p. 3.
78
In 1999, on-road mobile sources were the largest contributor (54%) to NOx
emissions in the Dallas region. However, in 2009, NOx emissions from on-road
mobile sources were reduced to 41% (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Dallas-Fort Worth 2009 NOx Emissions
Source: Regional Mobility Initiatives Vol. XI, No.3 September 2007
In efforts to reduce ozone emissions, the Dallas region has been working in
collaboration with the State of Texas (TNRCC), to develop a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that contains numerous strategies to reduce ozone in the region and to
bring the region into compliance. For example, the 1996 SIP contained measures and
programs such as reformulated gasoline, and transportation-related control measures
such as high occupancy vehicle lanes were initiated in efforts to reduce ozone
79
levels.
125
In addition to the SIP measures, the North Texas Clean Air Coalition was
formed in March of 1993. Four North Texas economic development and planning
organizations
126
joined forces to combat the growing concerns of ground-level
ozone. This coalition helped to implement voluntary measures such as the “Ozone
Action Day”.
127
Despite such efforts at the regional level, annual ground-level ozone for the
City of Dallas and its region has been increasing (Table 13). Dallas-Fort Worth has
shown a 7.77% increase in ground-level ozone level from 1992 to 2001.
Furthermore, when the AQI readings are examined, the number of days that the
region is recording ozone levels that are unhealthy for its residents also increased.
Nevertheless, the increasing trend of ground-level ozone in the Dallas region does
not mean the region has not been proactive in combating the issue. Measures such as
designation of high occupancy vehicle lanes and upgrading and coordinating
signalized intersection projects have been implemented in hopes of reducing ozone
levels.
125
Regional Mobility Initiatives (2007), p. 4.
126
The North Texas Clean Air Coalition was formed by the collaborative efforts of the Fort Worth
Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce, the North Central Texas Council
of Government and the North Texas Commission.
127
Regional Mobility Initiatives (2007).
80
Table 13. Dallas PMSA Annual Ground Level Ozone
Year 8-Hour AQI
1992 0.09 5
1993 0.1 10
1994 0.09 24
1995 0.11 2024
1996 0.09 20
1997 0.105 820
1998 0.101 24
1999 0.112 16
2000 0.102 20
2001 0.097 N/A
92-01 7.77 13.4
Source: www.epa.gov
The City of Dallas has taken steps and measures to become a leader in clean
air initiatives in the region. Over the past decades, the City of Dallas has taken
measures such as purchasing natural gas vehicles in 1993 to reduce ozone emissions.
The City also formed the Clean Air Steering Committee, whose main purpose is to
“consolidate and guide the Clean Air Initiatives across the City”
128
. The Committee
is comprised of City Departments
129
and outside entities including the NCTCOG and
Sustainable Dallas. To guide the City of Dallas in their efforts to reduce emissions,
128
City of Dallas, Clean Air Plan, p. 2.
129
The Environmental Health Services, Equipment and Building Services, and Office of
Environmental Quality are actively involved in the Clean Air Steering Committee to reduce ground-
level ozone.
81
the Clean Air Steering Committee provides frequent reporting and evaluation of the
clean air strategies that the City has selected. The City has also been actively trying
to reduce the impact of its operations on the regional air quality. “With 13,000
employees, ownership of many buildings and a large fleet of vehicles”
130
, the City of
Dallas has taken measures to proactively control emissions from its day-to-day
operations (Table 14).
Table 14. Measures and Initiatives City of Dallas Implemented
Clean Vehicles Purchase hybrids or natural gas vehicles
Clean Air Steering
Committee
Collaboration of City Departments and outside
entities
Energy Reduction Reduce energy use by 5% in five years
Idling Vehicles Shut down City vehicles and equipments when not
in use
Construction Contracts Incentives for contractors to use cleanest engines
SIP 101 Training Classes Train Department Directors on SIP process and get
Departments involved in SIP process
Clean Air Day Annually held in May to educate the public
Source: City of Dallas, Clean Air Plan
In addition to implementing measures and initiatives at the city level, the City
of Dallas has been working with regional and state agencies to reduce ozone
emissions in the city and at the regional level. Dallas is a member of the North
Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), and works with other members
130
City of Dallas, Clean Air Plan, p. 3.
82
of NCTCOG to reduce ground-level ozone in the region. NCTCOG, a voluntary
association, was established in 1996 and is made up of local governments within the
16-county North Central Texas region. Since its establishment, the association’s core
function has been to “assist local governments in planning for common needs,
cooperating for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional development”
131
.
However, despite such initiatives and measures that have been implemented by the
City of Dallas, their ground-level ozone trend is not reflective of the actions taken.
Cities of Houston and Dallas: A Comparative Analysis
The Cities of Dallas and Houston, while differing in their ground-level ozone
trends, are similar in many ways within their respective regions. Both the City of
Houston and the City of Dallas are the main central cities in their PMSAs, and have
experienced substantial growth in their population. Dallas has experienced an 18.1%
growth in its population, while Houston has experienced a 15.1% increase in its
population (Table 15). Through its aggressive annexation method, Houston has
significantly increased its geographical size, and thus has a lower population per
square mile than Dallas.
131
Regional Mobility Initiatives (Sept 2007).
83
Table 15. City of Dallas and City of Houston Population Trend
City
1990
Population
2000
Population
Change in
Population
(%)
1990
Population
Per Square
Mile
2000
Population
Per Square
Mile
Dallas 1,006,964 1,188,623 18.1 469.20 617.50
Houston 1,697,873 1,954,848 15.1 421.90 528.20
Source: U.S. Census.gov
Both cities, when compared to other cities in their PMSA, are dominant in
terms of population (Table 16). The City of Dallas population makes up 38% of the
total PMSA population, while the City of Houston’s population makes up 51%. In
comparison to the population of surrounding cities in the PMSA, the City of
Pasadena is the second most populous city in the Houston PMSA. However,
compared to the City of Houston’s population, Pasadena is only a small fraction of
Houston’s population. Furthermore, the City of Pasadena is the only city with a
population of 100,000 or more. Dallas PMSA's composition is similar to that of
Houston PMSA. The City of Dallas, the main central city, is the most populous. The
City of Dallas’s population makes up 38% of the total PMSA population. The next
most populous cities, Garland and Irving, have populations only a small fraction of
the City of Dallas.
84
Table 16. Houston PMSA and Dallas PMSA Population Trend
City
1990
Population
2000
Population
Population
Change
Houston PMSA 3,322,025 4,177,646 25.8
Houston 1,697,873 1,954,848 15.1
Pasadena 119,389 141,731 18.7
Dallas PMSA 2,676,248 3,519,176 31.5
Dallas 1,006,964 1,188,623 18.1
Garland 180,886 215,794 19
Irving 155,130 191,611 23.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The Cities of Dallas and Houston are both entrepreneurial cities in which
economic growth is an important aspect of city politics. The growth and support of
economic development takes a prominent role in the politics of both cities. Houston
and Dallas have a long tradition and history where business leaders played a vital
role in city politics and the development of the region. Private investments, in
conjunction with federal and state support, created the current economy and the
infrastructures of the two cities and their regions.
The City of Houston, with the abundance of oil in the region, is heavily
dependent on oil and gas extraction and other industries that support the extraction.
As shown in Figure 20, of the five industries that have a high location quotient, four
of them are directly related to the oil and gas industry. The pipeline transportation
industry has the highest location quotient of 10.22, followed by oil and gas extraction
85
with a quotient of 8.44. The only non-oil and gas related industry is the financial
industry. Dallas’s economy, on the other hand, is not as heavily dependent on the oil
and gas extraction industry (Table 17). Although the gas and oil extraction industry’s
location quotient is the highest among the industries in Dallas, compared to Houston
this industry does not dominate the region. The difference in location quotient of
other prominent industries such as air transportation and information & data
processing services is small, compared to the oil and gas extraction industry.
Furthermore, while the Houston region’s main industries are mostly related to the oil
and gas industry, the Dallas region’s main industries are service industries.
Furthermore, the Dallas region's industries are more diverse than those of Houston,
which are closely related to the oil and gas industries.
The Cities of Houston and Dallas are both classified as non-attainment for 8-
hour ground-level ozone. The EPA classifies a non-attainment area as “any area that
does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does
not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the
pollutant”.
132
Although neither city meets the national standards for ozone, the City
of Houston’s ozone violation is more severe than that of Dallas. Dallas is classified
as a moderate non-attainment area, an area with a design value
133
of 0.092 to
132
U.S. EPA. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/define.html#Ozone8Classifications. Accessed
Sept. 18, 2009.
133
“A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given area relative to the level
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Design values are especially helpful when
the standard is exceedance-based because they are expressed as a concentration instead of an
86
0.107ppm, while the Houston area is classified as a severe 15 non-attainment area,
with a design value of 0.120 to 0.126ppm.
134
Based upon the classification, it is
apparent that Houston’s ozone emissions are higher than those of Dallas. Comparing
the two regions’ annual design values from 1992 to 2007, Houston’s emission levels
are higher than those of Dallas (Table 18).
Table 17. Houston and Dallas Location Quotient
Location Quotient
Dallas Industry
Oil & Gas Extraction 3.05
Air Transportation 2.78
Information & Data Processing Services 2.45
Computer & Electronic Product Manufacturing 2.11
Funds, Trusts, & Other Financial Vehicles 1.82
Houston Industry
Pipeline Transportation 10.22
Oil & Gas Extraction 8.44
Funds, Trusts, & Other Financial Vehicles 8.29
Petroleum & Coal Products Manufacturing 5.08
Support Activities for Mining 5.07
Source: Assanie and Yucel.
exceedance count, thereby allowing a direct comparison to the level of the standard”
(http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html).
134
EPA. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/define.html#Ozone8Classifications. Accessed on
Sept. 21, 2009.
87
Table 18. Ground Level Ozone Design Values
Year Dallas-Fort Worth Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
1992-1994 0.093 0.101
1993-1995 0.100 0.105
1994-1996 0.097 0.111
1995-1997 0.102 0.112
1996-1998 0.099 0.109
1997-1999 0.106 0.106
1998-2000 0.105 0.107
1999-2001 0.101 0.110
2000-2002 0.099 0.107
2001-2003 0.100 0.102
2002-2004 0.098 0.101
2003-2005 0.095 0.103
2004-2006 0.096 0.103
2005-2007 0.095 0.096
Source: U.S. EPA
Although the City of Houston and its region have a more serious ground-
level ozone problem than Dallas, Houston has also experienced a decreasing trend in
its ground-level ozone readings (Table 19). Dallas, on the other hand, has
experienced an increasing trend in ground-level ozone.
Emissions sources for NOx and VOC present a significant variation for the
two cities and their regions. The Dallas and Houston Metropolitan Regions’ annual
emission sources are presented in Tables 20 and 21. As illustrated in Table 20, most
of Dallas’s NOx and VOC emissions are from non-point and mobile sources. For
88
example, in 1990, 34,076 tons of NOx were emitted from point sources, while non-
point and mobile sources emitted 134,586 tons of NOx.
Table 19. Dallas and Houston PMSA Ground-Level Ozone Trend
Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
1992
OZ
2001
OZ
Percent
Change
Dallas, TX PMSA 0.09 0.097 7.77
Houston, TX PMSA 0.109 0.101 -7.33
Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Census Bureau
Table 20. Dallas Metropolitan Region Emissions Sources
Point Source Emissions Nonpoint + Mobile Source
Year Nox (ton) VOC (ton) Nox (ton) VOC (ton)
1990 34,076 5,975 134,586 206,105
1996 25,598 6,168 133,866 156,004
1997 27,614 6,349 137,838 151,912
1998 31,872 6,357 138,683 149,426
1999 26,612 7,884 141,083 143,525
2000 26,742 8,166 138,573 138,263
2001 22,302 8,556 124,441 126,599
2002 20,377 5,660 130,095 124,881
Source: U.S. EPA.
Unlike its counterpart, the Houston region’s emissions sources are more
dispersed. For the Houston region, both point sources and non-point and mobile
sources contribute to the overall rate of NOx and VOC emissions in the region. Table
89
21 lists the annual NOx and VOC emissions from the Houston region. For example,
in 1990, 178,685 tons of NOx were emitted from point sources, and 173,081 tons of
NOx were emitted from non-point and mobile sources. The differences in the sources
of emissions can have an impact on the regional collaborative efforts by local
governments to reduce ground-level ozone. In addition, with a high level of
emissions from mobile sources, the involvement of businesses in the reduction of
ground-level ozone can also be impacted. Thus, the emissions sources can contribute
to the overall outcomes of the two regions and the involvement of actors and
institutions.
Table 21. Houston Metropolitan Region Emissions Sources
Point Source Emissions Nonpoint + Mobile Source
Year Nox (ton) VOC (ton) Nox (ton) VOC (ton)
1990 178,685 70,501 173,081 215,660
1996 159,422 68,354 202,237 190,923
1997 155,473 69,405 203,685 184,285
1998 153,066 69,227 201,846 179,756
1999 131,451 39,384 166,268 152,989
2000 121,976 33,348 211,969 152,067
2001 109,174 33,409 205,332 145,430
2002 73,618 34,431 188,150 146,263
Source: U.S. EPA.
90
This chapter presents an overview and historical analysis of the Cities of
Dallas and Houston and their regions. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of the
two cities and their regions demonstrates the similarities and the differences that
exist within the two cases. The cities have similar characteristics, such as the strong
presence of a pro-growth and pro-business environment. Furthermore, as the main
central cities within their respective regions, the Cities of Dallas and Houston take on
an active role to promote the interests of the region. However, the two cities also
significantly differ, especially in the types of industries that make up the region.
While service industry is the main industry of the Dallas economy, the oil and
petrochemical industry is prominent in the Houston region. Furthermore, the
differing industries of the two regions are also reflected in the emissions sources of
NOx and VOC in the regions. Building upon the overview of the two cities and their
region, the following chapters of this dissertation will examine local institutions,
actors, and governance structures, and the impact that these variables have on the
differing outcomes of the two cases in their efforts to reduce ground-level ozone.
This overview of the cities will help to anchor the analysis in the following chapters.
91
Chapter Four
Business, Economy, and the Fight to Reduce Ground-Level Ozone
4.1 Overview of Business and Economy in Relation To Environmental Policy
This chapter presents the relationship between the economic structure and
businesses in the Cities of Dallas and Houston, and the impact it has on the two
cities’ endeavors to reduce ground-level ozone. The actions of business leaders and
the industries that are present in the two cities and their regions, their contribution to
the problem and solutions to solving the ground-level ozone problem, are examined.
Since their inception, both cities have had a pro-growth ideology, and business elites
have played an influential role in city politics. Business elites are an integral part of
local politics and are key partners in the decisions or actions of local governments.
With their vibrant economies, both Dallas and Houston have experienced not
only economic growth but also a growth in population. With the growth in economy
and population, both regions have also experienced environmental degradations,
such as an increase in NOx and VOC emissions, the main precursors for the
formation of ground-level ozone. Both cities and their regions are currently out of
compliance with the federal standard on ground-level ozone.
135
If the regions do not
meet the national standards, sanctions such as limiting economic activities and
reduction of highway funds can be imposed.
135
The Dallas region is currently categorized as serious non-attainment while the Houston region is
categorized as severe non-attainment of eight-hour ground-level ozone.
92
This chapter examines the role of the business elites and economy in the
implementation of programs to reduce ground-level ozone in the two regions, and
bring the regions into compliance with federal standards. The economic makeup of
the cities and their regions is examined to determine the impact of economic factors
and local industries, not only in creating the problem, but also with regard to steps
taken to reduce emissions levels. Traditionally, Dallas and Houston have been pro-
business cities, with local business elites involved substantially in city politics.
Often, city politics and its leaders have taken views and positions similar to those of
business leaders, resulting in policies that tend to be favorable for businesses. This
was especially evident in economic policies to further the growth of the cities and
their regions. However, with environmental issues such as air pollution emissions,
industries are one of the main emitters that contribute to the air pollution problem of
the region. This chapter examines whether business elites are engaged in the issue of
solving the ground-level ozone problem, or have taken a more passive approach to
the problem.
In addition to the business elites and their involvement in local politics, the
economic structure of the two cities and their regions not only contributes to ground-
level ozone, but also plays a role in the implementation of programs to reduce
emissions in the regions. The local industries, and the dominance they have on the
cities’ economies, are an important contributor to the success in reducing ground-
level ozone in the region. Industries such as the service and manufacturing industries
play varying roles in the contribution to ozone-causing emissions. Manufacturing
93
industries, especially heavy manufacturing such as oil and petrochemicals, have been
the target of environmental regulation in the United States. The manufacturing of
goods, especially heavy manufacturing industries, often comes with environmental
externalities such as air pollution, making them a target for environmental regulation.
Compared to manufacturing industries, service industries such as high technologies
and retail, create fewer emissions. Service industries are often overlooked during the
policy formulation and implementation process because they do not create as many
emissions as manufacturing industries. The degree of scrutiny on the two types of
industries, and the sources of emissions, impact the degree of involvement of the
business elites and the industries in implementing plans for ground-level ozone
reduction.
Houston, with an economy that is more manufacturing dominant, will have
more business involvement to either support the plan of the local government, or not
support it and hope to come to a compromise to reduce the standards. Thus,
reduction will be in place, although it may not be as stringent as the local
government’s original plan. Thus, seeing the decreasing trend in ozone level can be
supported in Houston. Furthermore, because point source emissions are easier to
target, local governments can have an easier time devising a plan to reduce ground-
level ozone. Dallas, on the other hand, deals with more non-point sources and a
service-dominant economy. Although service-related companies consider quality of
life to be an important factor, because there is no direct way to account for the
amount of pollution each industry contributes, service-related businesses would take
94
on a more hands-off approach, and this will be shown in the policies and actions
taken by the local government. Thus, the reduction in Dallas will be lower compared
to that in Houston.
Businesses and Policy Process
Businesses are an integral part of the policy making and implementation
process at the national, state, and local levels. Although businesses play varying roles
at the different levels, each level plays an important and influential role in the policy
process. Throughout history, businesses have enjoyed a privileged position in
American society. Since the formation of the United States, the government has
recognized the importance of big businesses and has taken measures to protect their
interests.
136
With an abundance of economic and political resources, business interest
groups can overcome some of the difficulties in trying to organize and protect their
interests and influence, compared to other organized groups. In his seminal work,
Olson (1965) illustrates how businesses can organize with ease compared to
consumers and individuals. Olson states that groups such as consumers and
individuals concerned about the environment seek collective benefits and thus are
unlikely to unite, compared to business organizations with significant resources and
organization. Business interest groups are able to overcome many of the difficulties
citizens’ groups might encounter, such as free rider issues.
136
Kraft and Kamieniecki (2007).
95
Some scholars have argued that the influence of business in policy process
has become weaker. Specifically, as citizens’ groups have become active participants
in the policy process, the influence of business has weakened. Berry (1999) argues
that as society becomes more concerned with post material concerns, citizens’
groups gain increased leverage and influence public policy. Furthermore, businesses
are not always unified in all policy issues, thus refuting the argument that businesses
are unified interest groups. Smith (2000) investigates the business dominance in
policy process when they are unified on a specific policy issue. Smith concludes that
when the public supports the position of businesses on issues, they are able to attain
their legislative goals. However, when the public opposes the positions of
businesses, Congress tends to follow the public, even if the businesses have a unified
position on the issue.
Businesses and Environmental Regulation
Businesses have been the main target for environmental regulation policies in
the United States. Since the first generation of modern environmental policy actions,
the role of the federal government was to expand the regulation of air, water, and
land. A command-and-control style of regulation was implemented to clean up the
nation’s air, water, and land. The belief at that time was that pollution was created by
the callous actions of businesses, and only governmental regulations with threat of
penalties for noncompliance would compel businesses to make environmentally
96
sound decisions.
137
Traditionally, environmental regulations and businesses were
viewed in a zero sum assumption. It was believed that businesses were concerned
about their economic interests, which inherently conflicted with the general societal
interests, especially environmental interests. Thus, it was believed that only a
legalistic and deterrence-based regulation would change the behaviors of
businesses.
138
However, critics of the traditional environmental regulations have
often argued that it is “too intrusive, slowing growth and delivering more costs than
benefits”
139
. Critics argue that change needs to be instilled in the environmental
regulatory regime, especially given the change in the institutional landscape. A
variety of organizations have been formed, bridging government, industry, and
environmental activists to combat environmental regulations. Furthermore, many
businesses have taken on an idea of advancing stewardship and sustainability rather
than just meeting the regulations.
140
Unlike other nations, environmental regulations in the United States focus
more on legal compliance and less on the overall environmental performances.
Often, environmental regulation in the United States tends to be narrowly focused on
manufacturing process, with emphasis on specific categories of pollution. Polluting
businesses were tightly regulated, often in non cost-effective mechanisms. Other
137
Ibid.
138
Fiorino (2006), p. 6.
139
Ibid., p. 7.
140
Ibid., p. 13.
97
factors that can influence environmental quality are not taken into consideration.
141
It
is assumed that polluting industries will not act in accordance with societal interests
unless they are threatened with punishment. The lack of trust in businesses was
evident especially during the initial states of the regulatory process. It was believed
that businesses would not clean the environment without legal pressure from the
federal government in the form of national targets and sanctions. Businesses resisted
the regulations, especially pollution-intensive industries such as electric utilities, and
petrochemicals, who have enjoyed tremendous economic growth with little
governmental inference. The relationship between these industries and the
government was largely one of conflict. This became the mold of environmental
regulation in the United States.
142
Business groups and their political allies have mounted vigorous and
persistent campaigns to reform the regulatory process, particularly to lessen the
burden on industries from the environmental regulation laws. Businesses believe that
the present laws and regulations are often too expensive, and place a financial burden
on them. Instead of the strict command-and-control form of regulations, businesses
support a policy approach that takes economic factors into account when formulating
regulations. Approaches such as cost-benefit analysis, market-based incentives, and
public-private partnerships are all approaches businesses support. Businesses have
had successes in lobbying policymakers. For example, American automobile
141
Ibid., p. 29.
142
Ibid., pp. 43-44.
98
companies who have opposed strict regulation to reduce emissions and increase fuel
efficiency have responded with a lack of financial or technological feasibility to
implement the policy. Furthermore, implementing the policy will result in reduced
production and layoffs for workers.
143
However, with a change of perception of
businesses and their views of environmental quality, there is an increasing move
toward corporate stewardship and sustainability. Businesses do not see the
environment and profit as a zero-sum game.
144
However, environmental regulation,
especially air quality regulation, has not changed from the strict command-and-
control model.
Business Influence in Local Environmental Regulation
Business interest groups are influential in federal policy process. However, at
the local level, the role of businesses is different and often viewed as being less
influential.
Peterson (1981) claimed that local politics is “group less politics”. Unlike in
state or federal politics, large, well-organized lobbying groups do not dominate local
politics. However, one should not make the conclusion that businesses are not part of
the political process. Unlike state or national policy making, where a single trade
organization or business interest group represents all businesses, in local politics a
single or collective business or trade interest group is not present. Rather, specific
businesses, with specific interests and resources, advocate in local politics, thus
143
Glazer and Rothenberg (2001).
144
Kraft and Kamieniecki (2007); Fiorino (2006), p. 52.
99
making local politics more accessible to individual businesses.
145
However, when
businesses do lobby local governments, it is individual businesses or specific
business interests that advocate issues pertaining to those specific businesses. It is
rare to find a single association that represents specific business interests, such as
developers or all service industries in the city. However, it should not be inferred that
these individual businesses are powerless in city politics. Rather, they are able to
bring substantial influence to city politics.
146
In the study of city politics, business elites are one of the main players in the
policy process. Because of their limited taxing powers, local governments tend to
focus more on economic development than other types of policies. Hence, economic
priorities dominate local politics, with an emphasis on developmental policies rather
than allocation or redistributive policies,
147
giving business elites an opportunity to
influence the economic policies of localities. Scholars such as Stone (1989) and
Motolch (1976) also provide insight into the economic policies of cities and the
influential role that business elites play. Motolch (1976), in his growth machine
theory, states that development policy is dominated by real estate and local
businesses, which manipulate or control the local government to create a political
environment that is conducive for economic expansion. Furthermore, Clarence Stone
(1989) makes a similar argument that, in order to understand local politics, one needs
145
Portney (2007), pp. 300-301.
146
Portney (2007).
147
Peterson (1981).
100
to examine the informal governing coalitions, which he refers to as urban regimes.
Within a regime, business interests tend to be the focal point because business
investments need to be encouraged “in order to have an economically thriving
community. A second reason is the sometimes overlooked factor that businesses
control politically important resources and are rarely absent totally from the
scene”
148
.
Businesses are able to dominate the process because of their ability to
provide large resources in terms of jobs or direct capital to the city; thus, they are
able to exercise leverage. While local business interest groups are not unified as one
collective voice, their influence and powers are visible in local policy process.
Local Economic Structure and Environmental Policy
The role of business elites is also influenced by the local economic structure
and the amount of emissions by local industries. The role of businesses in efforts to
solve the air pollution problem depends on the amount of emissions produced by the
industries in the region. For example, the manufacturing sector, which is often
viewed as producing more pollution, tends to face stricter environmental regulations
than the service sector, and thus is faced with a greater economic burden. The service
sector, on the other hand, is viewed as causing less damage to the environment and is
often ignored during the formulation of environmental policy.
149
Furthermore, the
service sector, which employs individuals with a higher level of education, who
148
Stone (1989), p. 7.
149
Rosenblum, Horvath, and Hendrickson (2000).
101
value quality of life, often chooses localities with a cleaner environment. Thus, firms
in the service sector cannot disregard the strong preference of the managerial elites
and the highly educated workforce for a cleaner environment.
150
However, although
service industries do not produce significant amounts of direct emissions, the amount
of indirect emissions produced is substantial.
151
Businesses such as trucking and
courier services, or retail trade, produce environmental emissions that in some cases
can be comparable to the direct emissions produced by manufacturing firms.
152
Thus,
although service industries are concerned with providing a clean environment to their
workforce, their involvement in plans and programs to reduce ground-level ozone
will be limited. Rather, a voluntary measure will be taken by the industries to reduce
ground-level ozone.
Compared to the service sector, the manufacturing sector has stricter
environmental regulations placed on it. The cost for pollution abatement is especially
high for plants that are situated in non-attainment areas and produce significant
amounts of NOx and VOC.
153
For traditional manufacturing industries, quality of life
is considered less important; rather, traditional economic factors such as labor costs,
transportation costs, and raw materials are important. To avoid higher operating
costs, plants can be relocated to other regions with less stringent environmental
150
Salvesen and Renski (2003); Pagoulatos (2004).
151
Direct emissions are VOC and NOx that are emitted by industries’ actions taken, while indirect
emissions are produced not by the industries but are the by-products.
152
Rosenblum, Horvath, and Hendrickson (2000), pp. 4673-4674.
153
Becker (2001).
102
regulations. However, the actual moving of plants comes with a high cost.
Relocation becomes especially difficult for industries that are dependent on
“locational advantages”. For example, the petrochemical industries in Houston are
dependent on their proximity to the oil fields and the shipping channels.
154
The
clustering of the oil and petrochemical industries in the Houston region brings new
businesses and investment to the region, thus making it even more difficult for the
existing industries to relocate.
155
Furthermore, extractive industries are limited in
their ability to move their plants or operations because of the “geologically random
distribution of resources”
156
Thus, the ability of industries to relocate to other locations with less stringent
environmental regulations is severely limited, and leads to more involvement of the
industries in the policy process to reduce ground-level ozone. The policies and
programs will have a direct impact on the industries, and thus they will be more
involved to protect their interests.
4.2 Cities of Dallas and Houston Industries and Economy
Dallas Economy
The entrepreneurial and pro-business atmosphere has made the City of Dallas
and its region conducive for businesses. Unlike other regions in Texas, which have
an abundance of oil and gas, Dallas has a very limited oil and gas deposits, and thus
154
Meyler et al. (2007).
155
Assenie and Yucel (2005).
156
Feagin (1998), p. 86.
103
has focused on service industries characteristic of the Sunbelt cities. The
technological industry has become one of the main industries of the region. Other
major industries in Dallas include: “defense, financial services, information
technology and data, life sciences, semiconductors, telecommunications,
transportation, and processing”
157
. The location quotient
158
of Dallas’s industries
(Table 22) illustrates the region’s clustering of service and high technology
industries.
An examination of Dallas’s location quotients confirms that the region is the
Mecca for high-tech, transportation, and telecommunication. As illustrated in Table
22, Dallas’s regional concentration of high-tech (2.45; 2.11), transportation (2.78),
and telecommunication (2.45) industry is higher than that of the national
concentration, making them among the main industries in the region. Despite the
high location quotient of the gas and oil extraction industry, the Dallas region’s
economy depends collectively on high-tech and other types of service industry.
159
157
City-Data.com.
158
The using of location quotients is a method to show the concentration of industries in a specific
region. The location quotient is a comparison of the national concentration of the specific industry in
relation to the local presence. Thus, a quotient of 1 or more indicates that the regional concentration of
the industry is higher than the national concentration.
159
Assanie and Yucel (2005), p. 13.
104
Table 22. Dallas MSA Location Quotient
Dallas Industry Location Quotient
Oil & Gas Extraction 3.05
Air Transportation 2.78
Information & Data Processing Services 2.45
Computer & Electronic Product Manufacturing 2.11
Funds, Trusts, & Other Financial Vehicles 1.82
Source: Assanie and Yucel
Transportation service is another industry that is prominent in the Dallas
region, and Dallas is often considered to be the “mid-continent gateway to the
world”
160
. From its early history, the founders of the city and its region had the
vision of transforming the region into the transportation hub. During the era of water
travel, business elites tried to expand the Trinity River and allow goods in and out of
North Texas. The limited depth of the Trinity River did not provide the waterway
Dallas business elites envisioned. However, with the transition to locomotive
transportation, Dallas and the North Texas region became central in connecting to all
parts of the nation. In addition, the present air transportation system in the Dallas
region became one of the prominent industries in the region. The Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport, the transportation hub of the region, had 244,515 metric tons of
cargo shipped in 2004. Furthermore, Dallas is the leading distribution center for
Southwest Airlines. Airline industries such as Southwest Airlines, American
160
City-Data.com.
105
Airlines, Delta Airlines, and FedEx Corporation are prominent in the region, among
the largest employers in the Dallas metropolitan region (Table 23). In addition to air
transportation, the trucking industry offers services to other major destinations in the
United States.
Table 23. Largest Employers in Dallas Metropolitan Region 2003
Employer Number of Workers
AMR (American Airlines) 26,700
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. 19,200
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. 15,500
SBC Communications Inc. 14,100
Verizon Communications Inc. 13,000
Baylor Health Care System 12,600
Brinker International Inc. 12,000
Citigroup Inc. 9,400
Electronic Data Systems Corp. 9,000
Raytheon 8,000
Bank of America 7,700
Parkland Health and Hospital System 7,350
TXU Corporation 7,000
Southwest Airlines Co. 6,200
Bell Helicopter Texton Inc. 5,950
United Parcel Services, Inc. 5,550
Delta Airlines 5,000
FedEx Corp. 4,050
Source: City-Data.com
106
The City of Dallas, with limited oil and natural resources, has turned to the
service industries, which make up a significant part of its economy. One of the
largest industries is the company headquarters and operations industry (Table 24).
The City of Dallas’s Office of Economic Development identified the company
headquarters and operations industry as one of the main targeted industries of the
city and the region. The headquarters of numerous Fortune 500 companies, such as
AT&T, Comerica, and Tenet Healthcare (Table 24), are located in Dallas. These
Fortune 500 companies employ 751,810 workers, making them one of the largest
employers, and bring in revenue of $645,583,290,000 annually. In addition to
company headquarters and operations, other industries targeted by the City of Dallas
are services providing scientific and medical instruments, IT Services, building
design, construction, and furnishings.
The GDP of the Dallas Metropolitan Statistical Area (Table 25) further
illustrates the dominance of the service industries in the region. While the natural
resources and mining industries make up 3% (2001) and 5% (2006), professional and
business services make up 12% (2001 and 2006) of the GDP of the region. Other
industries such as financial activities, leisure and hospitality, and the trade industries
also contribute significantly to the total GDP of the region.
107
Table 24. Targeted Industries in Dallas-Fort Worth Region
Industry
Number of
Employees
Total Industry
Sales Major Employers
Building Design,
Construction
and Furnishings
24,200 $4,334,195,784
Dallas Market Center;
Texas Industries;
Fluor Corp;
Centex Corp.
Company Headquarters
and Operations
751,810 $645,583,290,000
161
AT&T;
Comerica;
Tenet Healthcare
Food Manufacturing 20,417 $5,755,165,807
Mission Foods;
Brinker International;
Tom Thumb
Scientific and Medical
Instruments
68,410 $1,864,559,277
Texas Instruments;
Plexon Inc.
IT Services 120,870 $11,817,437,114
Affiliated Computer Systems;
CompuCom System;
Perot System
Logistics 326,018 $3,170,915,559
5 interstate highways;
3 Class 1 rail lines;
2 major airports;
4 intermodal facilities
Media 39,420 $1,238,050,000 Belo Corp
Telecommunication 42,800 $8,884,468,483 AT&T
Transportation
Manufacturing
and Assembly
27,540 $7,137,392,175
Source: Economic Development Profile: Dallas. Office of Economic Development.
City of Dallas. November 2008.
161
Total revenue of 25 top public companies in Dallas/Fort Worth region. Dallas Fortune 1000 firms’
annual revenue exceeds $120 billion.
108
Table 25. GDP of the Dallas Metropolitan Statistical Area
Industries 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Natural resources
and mining
7,853 7,058 10,192 11,989 (D)
162
18,486 (D) (D)
Trade 39,543 40,471 40,988 42,126 44,657 47,212 48,768 48,927
Transportation and
utilities
13,321 14,371 15,650 17,031 (D) 19,462 (D) (D)
Financial activities 55,602 59,198 60,389 62,908 64,892 68,765 72,718 74,393
Professional and
business services
30,947 30,907 32,780 34,538 (D) 41,936 (D) (D)
Education and health
services
13,894 15,249 16,272 17,747 (D) 20,064 (D) (D)
Leisure and hospitality 8,858 9,170 9,482 9,834 (D) 11,216 (D) (D)
Information,
Communication,
and Technology (ICT)
1,627 16,147 14,880 16,905 17,926 19,776 20,167 n/a
Private goods-producing
industries
163
50,316 51,746 53,769 63,538 72,704 81,029 84,255 89,923
Private services-providing
industries
164
187,247 194,013 199,583 209,415 220,176 235,607 252,097 262,492
All Industries total 255,038 264,806 273,362 294,201 315,710 340,639 362,075 379,863
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.
162
Not shown in order to avoid the disclosure of confidential information; estimates are included in
higher-level totals.
163
The private goods-producing sector consists of agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; mining;
construction; and manufacturing.
164
The private services-producing sector consists of utilities; wholesale trade; retail trade;
transportation and warehousing, excluding Postal Service; information; finance and insurance; real
estate, rental, and leasing; professional and technical services; management of companies;
administrative and waste services; educational services; health care and social assistance; arts,
entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services, except
government.
109
Houston Economy
Houston became the fourth largest city in the U.S. by becoming the global
energy center. Houston is the administrative energy center and has acquired
numerous headquarters and plant facilities. Houston is the home to 34 of the 35
largest oil companies, and firms that provide various energy-related services. Other
segments of the energy industry, such as petrochemical and pipeline transmission,
are also present in the region. The expansion of the energy industry not only
contributed to the increasing number of energy-related industries and plant facilities,
but also contributed to the growth of banking, real estate, construction, and
international trade.
165
The energy-related industry provided approximately two thirds
of the city’s manufacturing employment. “The city became increasingly dependent
on energy as the number of jobs created in the local economic base for every new job
in the primary sector increased from two to three”
166
. Energy industry is the primary
job provider in the region, and many energy companies consider Houston to be
essential, thus creating a constant flow of new jobs for the local economic base.
167
Since the discovery of oil in 1901, energy has been the main industry of
Houston’s economy. Major U.S. energy firms in every segment of the industry are
headquartered in the City of Houston and its region. There are about 3,600 energy-
related companies, 600 exploration and production firms, and 170 pipeline
165
Schaffer (1989), p. 23.
166
Ibid.
167
Schaffer (1989), p. 24.
110
companies within the Houston area. While the energy and oil industries have created
a strong economic condition for the region, Houston has also taken on initiatives to
diversify its economy. “In 1981 upstream energy represented 68.7 percent of the job
market, while downstream energy represented 15.6 percent. By 2004 upstream
energy’s percentage was reduced to 31.4 percent while downstream energy increased
to 17 percent and diversified industries nearly quadrupled to 51.6 percent”
168
.
Despite such, Houston is still considered one of the leaders in the energy and
chemical industry.
The gas and oil industry has been the main industry in Houston. During the
1980s, 35% of the all jobs in Houston were tied to oil and gas industries.
Furthermore, roughly 70% of all large plants in Houston were linked to the oil and
gas industry (Parker and Feagin). Eleven of the 20 largest firms in Texas were oil
and gas companies, of which 8 are headquartered in Houston. In addition to the large
oil and gas companies that operate in the region, hundreds of firms that support the
oil-related businesses are also prevalent in the Houston region. “In short, the oil
industry and its spin-offs dominate the Houston economy” (Parker and Feagin, 170).
The mining industry
169
accounts for a quarter of the region’s GAP (Figure 8).
168
City-Data.com.
169
In Houston, almost all mining is exclusively oil and gas extraction and production.
111
Figure 8. 2008 Houston MSA Gross Area Product
In addition to the oil and gas industry, the Port of Houston is also important
to the city's economy. Houston tried to expand its economic base to the high-tech
and aerospace industry, which does have a significant impact. But the high-tech
medical industry has a greater impact. “The components of the 235-acre Texas
Medical Center in the early 1980s included 29 hospitals and research institutions”
(Parker and Feagin, 171).
112
4.3 Cities of Dallas and Houston’s Ground-Level Ozone and Economy
City of Dallas
The Dallas-Fort Worth region is classified as a non-attainment region for
eight-hour ground-level ozone. Areas that are classified as non-attainment that does
not meet the federal standards for the criteria pollutants can result in economic
sanctions, such as withholding of highway funds and restricting business expansion
in the region. Thus, the local governments, states, environmental groups, and
businesses are concerned with the non-attainment status of the region and are
working in collaboration to bring the region into attainment. Unlike other regions,
the Dallas region’s main contributors to the ground-level ozone problem are on-road
mobile sources such as cars, trucks, buses, and other registered vehicles. On-road
vehicles produce roughly 41% (Figure 9) of the emissions that cause the formation of
ground-level ozone. Area sources such as gas stations, dry cleaners, bakeries, and
body shops produce 28% of the emissions, while stationary sources such as industrial
facilities and factories only produce 12%.
170
170
Regional Mobility Initiative (1996). http://www.nctcog.org/trans/outreach/rmi/.
113
Figure 9. Dallas Region Emissions Sources
Source: Regional Mobility Initiatives 1996
Furthermore, an examination of the VOC
171
and NOx
172
emissions and their
sources further illustrates that non-point sources - especially motor vehicles - are the
main source of emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. For
example, as demonstrated in Table 26, while the NOx emission in 1990 from point
source emission was 34,076 tons, NOx emission from non-point and mobile sources
was 134,586 tons. The VOC emissions show similar trends as the NOx emissions. In
1990, more VOC emissions came from non-point and mobile sources (205,105 tons)
171
Sources of VOC includes paints, paint strippers, and other solvents; wood preservatives; aerosol
sprays; cleansers and disinfectants; moth repellents and air fresheners; stored fuels and automotive
products; hobby supplies; dry-cleaned clothing.
172
NOx is formed from emissions from cars, trucks and buses, power plants, and off-road equipment
(www.epa.gov).
114
than point sources (5,975 tons). For the City of Dallas and its region, trying to reach
the attainment standard for eight-hour ground-level ozone will require programs and
plans that will reduce emissions sources from non-point and mobile sources.
Table 26. Dallas MSA Emissions For NOx and VOC
Point Source Emissions Non-point + Mobile Source
Year Nox (Ton) VOC (Ton) Nox VOC
1990 34,076 5,975 134,586 206,105
1996 25,598 6,168 133,866 156,004
1997 27,614 6,349 137,838 151,912
1998 31,872 6,357 138,683 149,426
1999 26,612 7,884 141,083 143,525
2000 26,742 8,166 138,573 138,263
2001 22,302 8,556 124,441 126,599
2002 20,377 5,660 130,095 124,881
Source: U.S. EPA
The strategies planed for the region to reduce ground-level ozone are
reflective of the source of emissions. Emphasis has been placed on the reduction of
emissions sources from on-road vehicles, which are the main contributor to the
region’s ground-level ozone problem. The region employed several strategies to
reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies that “focused on making the
transportation system more efficient; reducing the demand on the system; and
115
making advances in infrastructures technology to develop cleaner burning
transportation modes, fuels and vehicles”
173
were implemented.
To reduce the emissions from on-road vehicles, the region implemented the
vehicle emissions testing program designed by the Texas Natural Resource
Conversation Commission. Dallas is the one of the few urban areas with moderate
ozone problems that is being asked to comply with the new auto inspection system.
However, because much of the ozone is produced by vehicle-generated emissions,
state and local officials felt that the region could not meet the federal standards
without the strict inspection programs. Under the new plan, motorists can continue
getting their cars inspected from service stations, repair shops, and car dealerships
annually. However, every other year, vehicles of 1968 or newer have to go through a
more detailed inspection at the centralized station. Tejas Testing Technology Inc.
was selected to run the 25 centralized inspection stations in the Dallas, Tarrant,
Collin, and Denton counties. In addition to the centralized testing centers, an
additional 2000 businesses in the four counties will be offering vehicle inspection
services.
174
In conjunction with the vehicle-emissions testing program, other
measures to reduce on-road motor vehicle emissions have also been implemented in
the region. Measures and programs such as vanpools, carpools, and telecommuting
have been implemented in the region in the hope of reducing the usage of personal
173
Regional Mobility Initiatives (1996), p. 5.
174
Box, Terry. (1993). Firm Picked to Run Auto Emissions Tests-Company Says Inspections Will
Cost About $20, Take 20 Minutes. Dallas Morning News.
116
vehicles. The Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the Fort Worth Transportation
Authority (DART) operates approximately 150 vanpools in the region. They have
targeted high-density employment centers which help to alleviate traffic congestion
and reduce emissions.
175
All the plans mentioned above aim to reduce personal
vehicle usage by providing alternative modes of commuting or limiting the number
of days employees commute to work.
Business and industries are involved in the efforts to reduce ground-level
ozone in the Dallas region through their support of the actions of the North Texas
Clean Air Coalition (NTCAC). The North Texas Commission, the Fort Worth
Chamber of Commerce, the Dallas Regional Chamber, and the North Central
Council of Governments founded the NTCAC in 1993. Soon after, other leading
businesses, city and county entities, and transportation authorities became members
of NTCAC.
176
Since its creation, NTCAC has been actively working in the Dallas-
Fort Worth region to bring the area into compliance with federal ground-level ozone
standards. “Because most of the air pollution in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) non-
attainment region comes from mobile sources, primarily automobiles, NTCAC
works with employers in the region to implement Employer Trip Reduction (ETR)
programs”
177
. Other programs that NTCAC sponsors include purchasing of cleaner
vehicles and increasing energy efficiency. Furthermore, the Coalition gets business
175
Regional Mobility Initiative (1996). http://www.nctcog.org/trans/outreach/rmi/.
176
http://www.workingforcleanair.org/AboutUs/tabid/57/Default.aspx.
177
Ibid.
117
executives involved developing short-term and long-term strategies to help meet the
1996 deadlines. But perhaps the most immediate result might come about from
employees leaving their cars at home and using the mass transportation system.
178
The North Central Texas Council of Governments, in conjunction with the
North Texas Clean Air Coalition (NTCAC), has taken measurable steps to reduce
ground-level ozone in the region and be in compliance with federal standards. The
business-backed NTCAC has taken steps to encourage businesses and the general
public to take a more voluntary and active role in the fight against air pollution.
Through their efforts, many big businesses in the region have taken steps such as
vanpooling and other commuting options. Programs such as telecommuting are
emphasized in NTCAC’s outreach programs. The NTCAC have released a video,
“Your Future is in the Air,” with the aim of persuading executives to aggressively
address the air pollution issue and to help meet the 1996 deadline. In the Dallas-Fort
Worth region, a small fraction of the workforce telecommutes compared to the
traditional office workforce. The informational video urges companies to take
actions such as offering carpooling, flexible work schedules or telecommuting
programs to help reduce vehicle emissions. Their goal is to reach about 2000
companies’ executives who hire 100 or more employees. To persuade executives, the
Council of Governments emphasizes the economic benefits of clean air and how it
will be economically beneficial to the region’s business. However, with sprawling,
178
Dallas Morning News. “Clean Air-Mass Transit is Part of the Solution”. May 24, 1993.
118
more people have been driving to work, thus causing an increase in vehicle
emissions, fueling the ozone buildup. Compared to other cities in the north, the
Dallas-Fort Worth region has 30% more automobile travel. Thus, the NTCAC tried
to change attitudes and corporate cultures in order to encourage a decrease in the
usage of personal vehicles.
179
NTCAC has been a successful public-private partnership and has made
businesses and individuals aware of the air pollution problem of the region.
180
NTCAC has been active in implementing a series of voluntary programs such as the
“Ozone Action Day” to help the region reach its air quality goals. The “Ozone
Action Day,” is a voluntary program implemented to reduce emissions on potentially
high ozone days. Several agencies participate in the coalition: Fort Worth Chamber
of Commerce, Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce, North Texas Commission,
Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Fort Worth Transportation Authority, and NCTCOG.
Both local governments and business leaders are involved in implementing the
program. When an Ozone Action Day is announced, the North Central Texas
Council of Governments sends out a memo to more than 1,500 businesses and
municipalities. When notified, the local businesses and governments carry out their
179
Kessler Barbara. “Home Work-Agency Urges ‘telecommuting’ to Help Cut Pollution”. Dallas
Morning News. November 29, 1993.
180
Shay Kevin J. “Businesses Joining Environmental Cleanup Effort-Some Area firms Offering
Incentives to Help Reduce Pollution”. Dallas Morning News. May 18, 1997.
119
Ozone Action programs to help limit the emissions that create ground-level ozone.
181
During the Ozone Action Day, everyone is encouraged to limit activities that
produce ground-level ozone. Businesses are encouraged to develop action plans such
as flextime schedules, telecommuting, and carpool incentives. Local governments
have also implemented ozone reduction policies. Policies include waiting till later in
the day for city officials to perform outdoor gasoline-powered maintenance
activities, not scheduling meetings in the morning to avoid morning peak hours
which accumulate ozone production, and using alternative fuel fleets. Texas state
official Alan Henderson believes that the implementation of the Ozone Alert System
has led to the improvement of air quality in the Dallas-Fort Worth region.
182
Because most of Dallas’s emissions are from on-road and off-road vehicles,
less emphasis is placed on reduction of emissions at major industries and plants.
However, local businesses are still heavily involved in the process and do have a
stake in improving the region’s air quality. Failure to meet the national ground-level
ozone standards will bring sanctions that will potentially impact the local economy
and businesses. The federal government can limit the permits for relocation and
expansion of manufacturing industries to the region; loss of federal highway funds
and restrictions on travel and other transportation issues can be imposed on the
region. Dallas and Tarrant Counties only have a few types of industries that would
face the sanction, thus the direct economic impact of the sanction for the two
181
Regional Mobility Initiative (1996). http://www.nctcog.org/trans/outreach/rmi/.
182
Gillman, Todd. “Ozone Alert Credited with Drop in Pollution”. June 18, 1993.
120
counties will be limited. But the business and political leaders of the two counties
feared that sanctions would create a negative and undesirable image of the cities.
183
Furthermore, some local officials, such as former Dallas Mayor Steve Barlett, who
voted for the Clean Air Act while in Congress, view the new state plan as being anti-
business. He believes that the plan will drive businesses out of Dallas. He suggests
that, rather than including stationary source reduction, Texas should focus on
reduction on cars and other mobile sources. Dallas officials had mixed reviews on
the vehicle inspection program. John Hall, the resource commission chairman,
voiced concerns on the effects of the plan on every segment of society. For local
businesses, the new plan will have an economic impact. $261 million will be spent
over the next few years by the Dallas-Fort Worth small businesses to be in
compliance with CAA. Local companies that will be affected include: 1,152 printing
shops; 145 furniture manufacturers and finishers; 39 bakeries and 982 dry cleaners
(this is according to state estimates). However, the Dallas region has no choice but to
comply with CAA. The growth of the region depends on compliance because
economic sanctions can be placed for noncompliance. The vehicle inspection
program, the most noticeable component of the plan, will attack the largest source of
ozone pollution.
184
183
Tomaso, Bruce. "EPA Won’t Impose Sanctions on Area." Dallas Morning News. March 29, 1988.
184
Kelley, Chris. "Local Governments’ Clean-Air Plan May Become EPA Victim." Dallas Morning
News. Page 23A. November 18, 1993.
121
The City of Dallas and its region’s plans for reduction of ground-level ozone
primarily focus on reduction of on-road vehicle emissions to bring the region into
compliance with federal standards. The region’s automobiles contribute 60% of all
emissions in the region. Thus, rather than emphasis being placed on placing tighter
control on stationary sources, government officials and local businesses have focused
on reduction of vehicle usage in the region to reduce ground-level ozone. While the
state government has mandated vehicle inspection programs, other programs such as
carpooling and telecommuting are voluntary programs that local businesses can
adopt. While a commitment has been made by local businesses and the NTCAC,
because the program is voluntary, businesses cannot be held responsible for not
implementing the program. Furthermore, although commitments are made by
businesses, there is no state or city guideline with sanctions if the procedures are not
followed. Thus, there is no tension or conflict between local businesses and state or
local officials in implementing programs to reduce ground-level ozone. Programs
such as Ozone Action Days and vehicle inspection programs are programs that
impact individual drivers and citizens, not the local industries directly. Individual
drivers are responsible for bringing in their vehicles for annual or biannual
inspections. On Ozone Action Days, individual commuters have the option of
driving their personal vehicles or taking advantage of one of the programs - such as
carpooling - offered by the government or their employer.
122
City of Houston
Businesses and industries have been heavily involved in the implementation
of state programs and plans in Houston to bring the region in compliance with the
federal regulations. Often the new plans and programs are viewed by businesses as
adding additional costs to businesses, and harming the pro-business environment that
the City of Houston and its region boast. The Houston region has gained national
attention for its ground-level ozone problems. Los Angeles is the only region in the
nation that has more serious air pollution than Houston. Despite the severity of the
problem, Houston has had the tendency to deny that air pollution is a problem, or to
emphasize that it is a private matter, not a public issue.
185
Furthermore, in other
major cities, the main source of ozone is automobile emissions; however, in
Houston, industries are one of the main contributors to the local ground-level ozone
problem. The oil and natural gas industry, in conjunction with non-point sources
such as automobile emissions, have made Houston the second most polluted city in
the nation.
186
Table 27 lists the annual NOx and VOC emissions from point sources,
non-point sources, and mobile sources. A comparison of the emissions in the
different categories illustrates that in Houston, point sources and non-point and
mobile sources of emissions are contributing factors to the non-attainment
classification of the region. While point source emissions of VOC are significantly
185
Fisher (2007), p. 69.
186
Ibid., p. 70.
123
lower than non-point and mobile sources, NOx emissions from the sources are
comparable.
Table 27. Houston MSA NOx and VOC Emissions
Point Source Emissions Nonpoint + Mobile Source
Year Nox (Ton) VOC (Ton) Nox VOC
1990 178,685 70,501 173,081 215,660
1996 159,422 68,354 202,237 190,923
1997 155,473 69,405 203,685 184,285
1998 153,066 69,227 201,846 179,756
1999 131,451 39,384 166,268 152,989
2000 121,976 33,348 211,969 152,067
2001 109,174 33,409 205,332 145,430
2002 73,618 34,431 188,150 146,263
Figure 10 gives a breakdown of the VOC emissions in the Houston-
Galveston region in 1999. The emissions of VOCs from on-road mobile sources,
point sources, and area sources are evenly distributed. All three of the emissions
sources contribute to the VOC level in the region.
124
Figure 10. 1999 Houston-Galveston Region Man-made Emissions of VOCs
Source: 1999 Periodic Emission Inventory, TNRCC (as cited in Air Quality
Reference Guide for the Houston-Galveston Area). July 2002.
However, when the NOx (Figure 11) emissions of the region are examined,
variation exists on the contribution of the different sources to the overall NOx
emissions in the region. Unlike the sources of VOC emissions, point sources emit
more NOx than on-road mobile sources and area sources. Thus, in order for Houston
to comply with the federal standard on ground-level ozone, both point and non-point
sources of emissions must be addressed.
125
Figure 11. 1999 Houston-Galveston Region Man-made Emissions of NOx
Source 1999 Periodic Emission Inventory, TNRCC (as cited in Air Quality
Reference Guide for the Houston-Galveston Area). July 2002.
In efforts to reduce emissions from on-road vehicles, the main mobile source
of emissions, the State of Texas proposed plans that the City of Houston and its
regions implement. However, the plans were not welcomed by different interests and
groups within the region, often leading to heated debates. The business community
voiced both strong support and opposition for the vehicle emissions reduction plans.
The vehicle emissions testing program was proposed by the State of Texas as
a way to reduce ground-level ozone and bring the non-attainment regions into
compliance with federal standards. However, the original program that was proposed
by the state was highly contested in the Houston region and was discarded in January
1995. Strong opposition from the region’s residents influenced state officials to place
126
the program on hold for a year as state lawmakers adopted a preliminary plan to
replace the original vehicle emissions testing programs. Most residents of the
Houston region did not want any sort of vehicle testing program and did not believe
that Houston had a ground-level ozone problem.
187
While residents, radio talk-show
hosts and some lawmakers criticized the old program, local businesses, government
leaders and environmentalists supported the program.
188
The new program that was proposed to replace the original, more stringent
program was less strict and gave motorists more options on where they could get
their cars inspected. Instead of requiring motorists to get their cars inspected at
centralized testing stations, the new plan offered motorists the option of having their
cars inspected at centralized testing stations every other year, or an annual inspection
at a test-only station. Furthermore, under the new plan, only vehicles registered in
Harris County would be tested; the old plan required testing of vehicles from Harris
and seven other counties. Harris County Commissioners Court passed a resolution
urging state officials to include the seven counties in the new plan. While the new,
less strict program gathered more support from motorists, it was less strict and might
not have met the standards set by the U.S. EPA.
189
Despite the possibility that the
187
Williams, John. "Emissions Draft Backs Annual Test/Car Owners Would Get Reprieve Until Jan
2." Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 25. April 1, 1995.
188
Dawson, April 8, 1996.
189
Feldstein, November 10, 1995; Dawson, April 8, 1996.
127
new plan might not meet the EPA standards, lawmakers could not disregard the
public outcry of the Houston region residents.
In response to the public outcry over the vehicle emissions testing programs
and the lack of public information with regard to ground-level ozone, a group of
local officials, business leaders, environmentalists, and others who supported the first
plan, created a 36-page primer on Houston’s air quality. The book was a direct result
of the critiques that talk shows had voiced in the previous year. The coalition, led by
the Regional Air Quality Planning Committee, started its work on the book after
realizing that the critiques were misguided and inaccuracies existed on Houston’s air
quality. Radio talk shows, and those who did not support the original plan, used
inaccuracies as reasons for not supporting the vehicle emissions testing. The book
also tried to provide a better understanding of air quality for the general public, and
took into account suggestions by business leaders and environmentalists on air
pollution. However, the book was not made available to the general public. Rather, it
was distributed to libraries, government leaders, and media representatives. A
separate technical fact sheet was prepared for the general public.
190
The business community furthered its support for vehicle emissions reduction
in the Houston region by taking voluntary action to provide alternative modes of
transportation - specifically carpooling programs for their employees. In response to
the U.S. EPA’s voluntary program for employers to reduce single-passenger
190
Dawson, March 11, 1996.
128
commuting of their employees, the State of Texas proposed the Employee Trip
Reduction Program. The program offers incentives and rewards for employers to
provide alternatives modes of transportation to their employees. The initial plan
required local governments and 1,800 local employers to devise a plan to increase
carpools, mass transit use, and telecommuting as ways to reduce ground-level ozone.
Many local businesses in the region complained that the program was inconvenient
and ineffective. Despite the changes in policies, some of the major employers in the
Houston region plan to continue the trip-reduction measures that were put in place.
For example, Shell Oil Co., after conducting surveys with its employees, is
implementing some of the recommendations, such as guaranteed rides home, and
more information on setting up carpools or van pooling. Exxon Co. USA has set up
similar programs, featuring an emergency ride home program, and it plans
transportation and awareness fairs to increase awareness among its employees.
191
To further public awareness of the ground-level ozone problem in the region,
and limit the use of private vehicles during high ozone seasons, the Houston-
Galveston Area Council’s Regional Air Quality Planning set up a panel to develop
plans on issuing smog forecasts. The goal of the program was to alert commuters of
high ozone-producing days and, rather than commuting in their personal vehicles,
commuters were encouraged to take public transportation or other means. Despite
strong support from the business community in reducing emissions from personal
191
Dawson, January 26, 1995.
129
vehicles, the Ozone Alert Day Program did not garner their support. Due to strong
opposition from the local business community, especially the Greater Houston
Partnership (GHP), the panel was dissolved. The GHP opposed the issuing of the
forecast because of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission’s lack of
accurate methods for making such predictions. Furthermore, the GHP felt that
inaccurate forecasts might alarm the public and create bad publicity for Houston,
which could have a negative effect on Houston’s economic development efforts.
When the panel was dissolved, GHASP, a local environmental group, wrote to
Mayor Bob Lainer asking if the city would be willing to issue the state-prepared
smog forecasts, and offered to organize the public education efforts that should
accompany the forecasts. However, Mayor Lainer did not respond to the letter, and
this prompted GHASP to create the Smog Action Task Force,
192
with the goal of
petitioning government leaders to issue the forecast in the Houston region.
193
Stationary source emissions, especially from industrial plants, are another
emission source that contributes to Houston’s ground-level ozone problem. Thus,
plans to reduce emissions causing the increase in ground-level ozone not only targets
vehicles emissions, but also emissions from industrial sources. State and local
officials have proposed plans for the regions that would limit emissions from
192
Smog Action Task Force is a group made up of 42 environmental, health, legal, and medical
groups (American Lung Association, Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Houston Trial Lawyers
Association and Respiratory Consultants of Houston). They are one of the largest environmental
coalition in Houston (Dawson, Bill. “Task Force Says Smog Forecasts Could Help Protect Public
Health”. Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 38. September 16, 1995.
193
Dawson, September 16, 1995.
130
industrial plants and limit the overall emissions of NOx from the plants. The
businesses and industries of the region have been vocal with respect to the proposed
plans, using voluntary and legal methods to limit the restrictions placed on the
industries. Unlike plans that place limitations on vehicle emissions, restrictions
placed on industrial plants have a direct impact on the industries, and thus businesses
have been more actively involved.
One area of contention in the reduction of emissions that contribute to
ground-level ozone has been the activity of grandfathered plants. To reduce ground-
level ozone in the Houston region, state and local officials have been examining the
impact of grandfathered plants and state air permits, and the impact they have on
further reduction of ozone-forming emissions. Under the 1971 Texas Clean Air Act,
older plants were not required to obtain air pollution permits. Business leaders made
the argument that as older plants shut down or are modified, air pollution will
continuously decrease. However, City of Houston officials have revisited the issue of
grandfathered plants and their level of emissions as the city and the region tries to
find more sources of emissions that can be eliminated. The amount of VOC
emissions from the grandfathered plants is especially concerning for officials. An
analysis by state officials has shown that in 1994, 75% of the VOC emissions came
from plants without air permits. However, business representatives have made the
argument that emissions from these non-permit plants will decrease over time.
194
The
194
Dawson, Bill. “Clean Air Officials Target ‘grandfathered’ Industries/Smog Sources Tied to
Plants”. Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 21. April 2, 1997.
131
Texas state legislature asked the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
to develop a voluntary plan to reduce emissions from grandfathered plants.
Although the arguments presented by industry representatives were
successful in exempting the grandfathered plants in the 1980s, further research and
data has shown that these plants contribute significantly to the ground-level ozone
problem of the region. The City of Houston, which is in violation of federal
standards for ground-level ozone, has been seeking new pollution control measures
and considers grandfathered plants as untapped opportunities for reductions.
According to a report published by the Sustainable Energy and Economic
Development (SEED) Coalition, grandfathered units release 275,000 tons of
pollution annually, which is about 28% of all emissions from electricity-generating
plants in the State of Texas. In the Houston region, the report states that Houston
Lighting & Power Co.’s seven plants with grandfathered units emitted 12,940 tons of
NOx, which is equivalent to emissions from 663,596 cars.
195
In addition to the
Houston Lighting & Power Company, various other industries have grandfathered
plants within the Houston region. Table 28 lists the top 10 grandfathered plants’
emissions for 1997.
195
Dawson, Bill. “Plants Without Permits Emit Much of Local Pollution”. Section A, p. 29, April 6,
1997; Dawson, Bill. “Exempt Plants Pollute as Much as 6.5 Million Cars”. Section A, p. 36, October
23, 1997.
132
Table 28. Houston Region Top 10 Grandfathered Plants' Air Emissions (1997)
Company
Emission
(tons) Type of Industry
Houston P.H. Robinson (Galveston) 7,688 Lighting & Power
Exxon Co. Baytown Refinery
(Harris)*
196
5,876 Refining Co.
Dow Chemical Texas Division
(Brazoria)*
5,798 Chemical
Lyondell-Citgo Houston Refinery
(Harris)
5,146 Refining Co.
Amoco Texas City (Galveston)**
197
3,910 Petroleum Business Unit
Products
Exxon Corp Clear Lake Gas
(Harris)
3,760 Plant
Enron Pasadena Plant (Harris) 3,299 Methanonl Co.
Houston Cedar Bayou (Chambers)* 3,141 Lighting &Station Power
Co.
Phillips 66 Co. Sweeny Refinery
(Brazoria)*
2,667 Petrochemical
Houston W.A. Parish (Fort Bend)** 2,582 Lighting & Station Power
Co.
Source: Dawson, Bill. “Grandfathered Firms’ Pollution Output Shrinks/ But
Emissions Still Substantial, Government Figures Indicate”. Houston Chronicle.
10/13/1998. Section A, Page 13.
In 1997, the grandfathered plants in the state accounted for 36% of the total
emissions. For the Houston region, grandfathered plants’ emissions accounted for
25% of all industrial emissions in the region.
198
196
*Company has volunteered to obtain permits for all grandfathered facilities.
197
**Company has volunteered to obtain permits for some grandfathered facilities at site.
133
Despite efforts by local officials and environmentalists to require
grandfathered plants to obtain state air permits, with the support of state legislature
and Governor George W. Bush industries were not required to obtain permits.
Rather, a voluntary program was implemented for industries to obtain air permits for
their grandfathered plants. Companies throughout the state voluntarily obtained air
permits, further supporting the decisions of the state officials and the governor.
Houston area companies such as Valero Energy and Houston Lighting & Power
stated that their voluntary actions would help eliminate 2,000 to 5,000 tons of
emissions from their grandfathered plants.
199
Supporters of the voluntary reduction
program stated that through the actions of plants about 15,000 tons of emission
would be reduced per year, which is roughly equivalent to eliminating emissions
produced by 300,000 cars. However, critics argued that voluntary measures are not
enough, and that permits must be required at all grandfathered plants.
200
Although the continuation of exemption for the grandfathered plants would
have been the ideal scenario for industries, the increasing levels of emissions
throughout the Houston region did not allow for the industries to continue with their
practice of exempting older plants from obtaining state air permits. Thus, with the
support of state officials, industries agreed to voluntarily obtain permits for their
198
Dawson, Bill. “Grandfathered Firms’ Pollution Output Shrinks/ But Emissions Still Substantial,
Government Figures Indicate”. Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 13. October 13, 1998.
199
Dawson, Bill. “Seeing Clear To Volunteer/ Bush Says 10 Companies Will Reduce Their
Emissions”. Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 1. November 19, 1997.
200
Dawson, Bill. “26 Companies Volunteering Emission Cuts/Plants to Give Up Exemptions in Effort
to Reduce Air Pollution”. Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 1. April 1, 1998.
134
grandfathered plants and limit their emissions. TNRCC proposed “that program
volunteers receive permits with less stringent pollution-control requirements than
those in regular permits”
201
. The State Senate committee approved a bill to create
voluntary programs for older grandfathered plants to reduce air pollution. The
approved bill gave grandfathered plants until September 1, 2001, to apply for new,
voluntary permits. The permits require the plants to implement control measures, but
are not the most current control measures available. Thus, while local industries were
not to exempt their older plants from obtaining air permits, they were successful in
implementing less stringent requirements for the older plants.
202
The influence and involvement of business and industry leaders in the
Houston region reaches beyond local and regional officials. Businesses were actively
involved in the formation of the State Implementation Process for the Houston
region to reach attainment by 2007. The plan that was revealed by the TNRCC for
the Houston region outlined a tighter control of industrial pollution, while leaving
local officials to suggest measures to reduce emissions from mobile sources. The
U.S. EPA was not satisfied with the proposed plan by TNRCC, which led local
leaders to hold discussions on how to strengthen the proposed plan to gain approval
by the U.S. EPA. The Houston Mayor’s office, Harris County judge’s office, the
Greater Houston Partnership and Houston-Galveston Area Council were involved in
201
Dawson, Bill. “Environmentalists Cast Doubt On State Plan to Close Loophole”. Houston
Chronicle. Section A, p. 1. April 28, 1998.
202
Dawson, Bill. “76
th
Texas Legislature/ Pollution Exemptions Bill Advances Despite Criticism”.
Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 1. March 31, 1999.
135
the talks. The tentative talks brought up suggestions that H-GAC “in cooperation
with other organizations, take a leadership role in developing a regional consensus
for air-quality plans”
203
. In September, GHP, the area’s leading business group,
announced that a regional business coalition would be formed to “lead in the creation
of an ozone plan the EPA will approve”
204
. GHP worked with city, county, and H-
GAC officials to bring the different interests together to work on the issue. However,
some including environmentalists, and former mayor Fred Hofheinz, were weary of
GHP taking a leadership role in reducing smog. They complained that in the 1980s,
under former mayor Kathy Whitmire, the Chamber of Commerce - which is now part
of the GHP - had dominated the air-pollution policy, and they do not want to see
GHP taking on the same role. GHP stated, however, that they were not attempting to
take such a role. Rather, they “just want to be a participant at the table with the other
leadership in trying to find a solution to the challenge we all face. All stakeholders
need to have a voice - not only the business community but elected officials, the
environmental community, health officials - everyone with special interests.”
205
The involvement of the GHP in the SIP process can also be seen as a measure
to protect the interests of the business community from stricter regulations of
stationary emissions. The proposed plan called for a 90% reduction of NOx
203
Dawson, Bill. “Area Leaders Seek Solution After EPA Hits Smog Plan”. Houston Chronicle.
Section A, p. 1. November 10, 1998.
204
Ibid.
205
Ibid.
136
emissions by industries and a 56% reduction of NOx emission from automobiles.
206
The Houston-Galveston business community representatives criticized the proposed
draft, stating that “while representatives of business expressed a desire to effectively
reduce air pollution, they also expressed concerns that the program be realistic and
effective”
207
. Some industry officials believed that a 90% reduction of NOx
emissions was not possible even using the best available technology.
208
Thus, the
involvement of GHP and the business community was essential to let government
officials know that the requests being placed on industries were not feasible. Industry
representatives were able to persuade state officials, and through legal actions were
able to lessen the burden on industries to reduce NOx emissions.
4.4 Comparative Analysis of Dallas and Houston’s Business and Economy and
Ground-Level Ozone
Both Dallas and Houston are located in Texas and share the pro-business
environment that has made the two cities and their regions among the fastest growing
in the nation, but many differences also exist, especially in the sources of emissions.
Houston’s main sources of NOx and VOC emissions are industrial and on-road
vehicles. For Dallas, the majority of the emissions are from on-road vehicles, and
stationary sources are relatively minor. As illustrated in Table 29, highway vehicles
206
Dawson, Bill. “Officials Seek Public Input on Area Smog-Cutting Measures”. Houston Chronicle.
Section A, p. 35. September 26, 1999.
207
Johnson, Stephen. “Activists, Industry Representatives Comment on Pollution Draft Plan”.
Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 17. August 3, 1999.
208
Dawson, Bill. “Tough Tactics Likely In Smog Battle Plan/ Federal Law Spurs Today’s State
Action”. Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 21. October 27, 1999.
137
contributed to 61.91% of NOx emissions in the Dallas region, while highway
vehicles contributed only 25.95% of NOx emissions in the Houston region. It is
clearly evident that in the Dallas region, motor vehicles are the main source of
emissions that cause ground-level ozone; in Houston, motor vehicles do contribute to
the problem, but are not the main source. For Houston, industrial sources and electric
utilities (25.7% and 22.92% respectively) are the main contributors to the NOx
emissions in the region. The differences in the emissions sources impact the
involvement of businesses in the regions and the programs and plans that are
implemented to reduce ground-level ozone.
Business organizations in the two cities and their regions are also involved in
the efforts to reduce ground-level ozone and bring the regions into compliance with
federal standards. For the City of Dallas, the North Texas Clean Air Coalition, a
business-backed organization, has been the main representative of business interests
in the region. NTCAC, in collaboration with regional councils and environmental
groups, has supported a number of programs for the Dallas region to reduce ground-
level ozone and to reach attainment status. The Greater Houston Partnership (GHP)
is the main business interest group that is involved in the region’s efforts to reduce
ground-level ozone and bring the Houston region in compliance with federal
standards.
209
The GHP has also been working with local government and
209
“The principal objective of the Greater Houston Partnership, which traces its roots back to
Houston's original Chamber of Commerce founded in 1840, is to build regional economic prosperity”
(http://www.houston.org/greater-houston-partnership/about-us/). As the united voice of the business
138
environmental groups to bring the Houston region in compliance with federal
standards on ground-level ozone.
Table 29. 1990 Dallas and Houston MSA Emissions
Dallas MSA Houston MSA
Source Category
Nox
Percent
VOC
Percent
Nox
Percent
VOC
Percent
Fuel Combustion-
Electric Util.
12.48 0.04 22.92 0.28
Fuel Combustion-
Industrial
3.25 0.31 25.70 1.53
Fuel Combustion- Other 2.90 0.52 2.16 0.38
Chemical & Allied
Product Mfg.
0.00 0.07 0.43 7.00
Metals Processing 0.21 0.09 0.00 0.04
Petroleum & Related
Industries
0.00 0.63 0.82 5.13
Other Industrial Processes 5.59 0.44 0.32 1.69
Solvent Utilization 0.02 26.04 0.01 20.64
Storage & Transport 0.01 4.23 0.01 12.63
Waste Disposal &
Recycling
0.00 2.61 0.18 1.90
Highway Vehicles 61.91 52.74 25.95 37.20
Off-Highway Vehicles 13.51 12.18 21.39 11.27
Miscellaneous Sources 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.31
Source: US EPA.
community within the Houston region, GHP voices the concerns of businesses and promotes
economic growth while contributing to the efforts to reduce ground-level ozone in the region.
139
The involvement of businesses in the two cities can be expressed in a two-by-
two matrix that compares the sources of pollution with level of involvement. Table
30 illustrates the level of business involvement in the two cities and their regions in
relation to the sources of emissions.
Table 30. Business Involvement in Dallas and Houston
Business Involvement Dallas Houston
Sources of emission
Stationary Source
210
Low High
Mobile Source
211
Low Moderate
In the City of Dallas, business involvement is low for policies to reduce both
mobile source and stationary source emissions, while in the City of Houston business
involvement is moderate for mobile source emissions reduction and high for
stationary source emissions reduction. Variation exists in the business involvement
in the two cities in reducing stationary sources of emissions, reflecting the difference
in economic base. The economy of the City of Houston and its region is heavily
dependent on the manufacturing industry, especially the oil and petrochemical
industries, while the economy of Dallas and its region is dominated by the service
210
Stationary source are emissions from factories, power plants, refineries, and large industrial
facilities (Portney, 2000, p. 86).
211
Mobile sources are emissions from cars, trucks, and buses (Portney, 2000, p. 86).
140
industries. Thus, the amount of stationary source emissions and its contribution to
the overall ground-level ozone problem vary.
Businesses in the city of Dallas have a low involvement level in the planning
and implementation of plans and programs to reduce stationary source emissions,
while Houston businesses show a high involvement. The variation of the two cities’
businesses’ involvement is a direct result of the types of industries that are prevalent
in the region. Dallas's economy primarily consists of service industries that provide
services such as retail operations or headquarters for companies. Manufacturing,
especially heavy polluting industries, is limited within the City of Dallas and its
region. The SIP for the Dallas-Fort Worth region required that big industrial plants
outside of Dallas, Denton, Colin, and Tarrant counties reduce their emissions to
solve the air pollution problem in the metro region. Businesses such as Midlothian
cement plants and TU Electric’s distant power plants were affected.
TU Electric's Dallas-based company stated they would cooperate with the
new plan, but felt that their emissions were not part of the problem.
212
Despite the
restrictive measures in the SIP, businesses in Dallas and its region did not voice
strong opposition to the plan.
In Houston, business involvement is high in relation to stationary sources of
emissions. The high level of involvement of businesses in Houston can be attributed
to the manufacturing-dominated economy of the region and the potential increase in
212
Loftis, Randy Lee. (1/28/1998). State official announces proposal for stricter area pollution limits
Plan targets more emission types, extends enforcement's reach The Dallas Morning News .
141
the cost of operation that industries would have to incur to reduce emissions from
stationary sources. The extractive industry, especially oil and petrochemical
industries, are heavily represented in the Houston region and contribute significantly
to the region’s ground-level ozone problem. Thus, the region’s reduction plans
directly target industries’ emissions and mandate specific reductions to bring the
region in compliance with federal standards. Furthermore, because the petrochemical
and oil industries have traditionally been heavy polluters, residents are resistant to
changing their lifestyles when the industries are not limited in their actions.
Therefore, GHP and businesses are involved not only in the implementation of the
plans, but also in the formulation of the plans in order to lessen the burdens placed
on industries to reduce emissions from their plants. Businesses in Houston which are
dependent on the oil and natural gas in the region cannot relocate to regions with less
stringent air pollution policies. Furthermore, they are one of the main contributors to
the problem. Thus, their option is to get involved in collaboration with other actors
or against other actors to protect their business operations.
The potential increase in the cost of operations for industries is another factor
that contributes to the high level of business involvement in the City of Houston and
its region. The SIP for the Houston region required a 90% reduction of NOx by the
industries. Measures such as limiting emissions from grandfathered plants and
setting specific percentage emissions reductions from industries were included in the
emissions reduction plans. If the exemptions that were given to these grandfathered
plants are taken away, then significant capital must be invested in the plants to bring
142
them up to date. While industries can relocate to other regions with less restrictive
policies on air pollution, Houston’s extractive industries are not able to relocate due
to their physical dependency. Furthermore, a 90% reduction in NOx by industries
will require large amounts of capital investment, with the possibility of not achieving
the reduction. Thus, involvement in the process is vital to let state and local officials
know the positions of the businesses.
The involvement of Dallas businesses is low in relation to mobile sources.
This can be attributed to the region’s emissions being predominantly from mobile
sources. Dallas businesses have generally shown positive reactions to programs
proposed to decrease mobile sources of emissions. Programs such as Ozone Alert
Day and vehicle emissions testing programs have gathered support from the local
businesses and industries. In support of using alternative means of transportation,
businesses have provided carpooling programs to their employees, and
telecommuting options. While all these programs help to reduce emissions that
contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, the programs are voluntary and do
not have a direct impact on actual operations for the local businesses. Rather, the
programs aim to alter individual commuting practices, and businesses are there to
provide incentives to their employees. Failure to adopt any of the voluntary programs
does not result in sanctions or fines for the businesses. Thus, while businesses are
supportive, they do not take on active roles, unlike their counterparts in Houston.
Houston’s business involvement is moderate in relation to mobile sources.
This level of involvement is the result of the sources of emissions in the Houston
143
region. Mobile source emissions contribute as much as stationary source emissions
to the overall ground-level ozone problem of the region. Businesses and industries in
Houston have shown similar support for programs to reduce mobile sources, have
implemented voluntary programs such as providing carpooling programs to their
employees, and have supported the vehicle emissions testing program. However,
unlike Dallas businesses, Houston business leaders - along with environmentalists
and local officials - supported a stricter vehicle emissions testing program, while
motorists did not want any form of testing. The vehicle inspection program’s goal
was to reduce emissions from automobiles, and had minimal impact on businesses
and industry operation. Furthermore, for the Houston region, emissions from
automobiles and industries are similar, so further reduction in one area could mean
lesser reductions would need to be made in the other. If stricter reductions were
implemented for automobile emissions, industries and plants might not have to
reduce emissions as much. Thus, for businesses in Houston, support for stricter
automobile emissions reduction can be positive for their daily business operations.
The variation of business involvement in the two cities to reduce ground-
level ozone is due to the sources of emissions and the economies of the two areas. In
Houston, both stationary and mobile emissions sources contribute to the region’s
ground-level ozone problem, while in Dallas mobile emissions sources are the main
contributor to the region’s ground-level ozone problem. Furthermore, the economy
of the region also contributes to the types of emissions sources. Dallas’s economy is
service-dominated industry, which tends to produce less emissions compared to the
144
manufacturing industries that are dominant in Houston. Thus, their involvement in
the reduction of stationary source emissions is limited. Furthermore, while the Dallas
region does implement numerous programs to reduce mobile source emissions,
Dallas businesses take on a voluntary role to help implement these programs. In
comparison, Houston’s businesses are one of the main contributors to the ground-
level ozone problem. The SIP for the region not only limits mobile emissions
sources, but also stationary emissions sources, which has a direct impact on business
operation. Thus, businesses are involved not only in the implementation of programs,
but also in the SIP development process, in the hope of reducing the restrictions
placed on their operations. Furthermore, because both mobile and stationary sources
are significant contributors to ground-level ozone formation in Houston, further
requirement for reduction in one area might possibly lower the requirement for
reduction in the other. Thus, businesses are given more incentives to be involved in
supporting stricter programs for mobile source reduction, so that a smaller burden
might be placed on the reduction of stationary source emissions.
145
Chapter Five
Local Government Capacity and Ground-Level Ozone
Introduction
Chapter Four of this dissertation observed the influence of local businesses
and the economic structure of localities on the reduction of ground-level ozone.
Businesses and economic factors are influential actors in local politics, often being
the most powerful players in local affairs. While businesses and the economic make-
up of localities are important variables in ground-level ozone reduction initiatives,
the capacity of local governments to initiate and implement policies to reduce
ground-level ozone must also be explained. This chapter observes the relationship
between local government capacity and the ability of local governments to
implement programs and policies with the goal of reducing ground-level ozone.
Capacity, while defined by scholars in various terms, aims at analyzing local
government’s ability to propose and implement policies and programs that are
relevant to the local community. This chapter explores the relationship between local
government capacity and the ability to reduce ground-level ozone. I argue that the
capacity of local government can promote or inhibit the reduction of ground-level
ozone.
This chapter is divided into three sections. Section one provides a brief
review of the literature on capacity and measuring local government capacity.
Section two provides an overview of the political, administrative, and financial
capacities of the Cities of Dallas and Houston. Section three provides an analysis of
146
the two cases and the impact of the local government capacities of the two cities on
reduction of ground-level ozone. Following the analysis, conclusions are drawn from
the two cases.
5.1 Defining Local Capacity
Capacity and capability
213
of government has been a recurring theme in
research examining different levels of government. The earliest work on government
capacity can be found in comparative politics and administration work that examined
a national government's ability to manage conflict.
214
In the U.S. context, the term
has gained the attention of scholars and practitioners since the early 1970s. A
recurring theme in the literature on capacity has been the lack of local government
capacity to address critical problems. Thus, the federal government has assumed a
larger number of functions because state and local governments were unwilling or
unable to address political, social, and economic problems within their
jurisdictions.
215
However, with the initiation of New Federalism, which gave local
governments increased responsibilities, attention has been heavily focused on the
national government and its ability to strengthen the management capacity of local
governments to utilize the federally funded endeavors. However, there has been a
213
The terms capacity and capability have been used interchangeably. For this dissertation, the term
capacity will be used.
214
Bowman and Kearney (1988), p. 342.
215
Streib and Waugh Jr. (1991), p. 62.
147
growing effort to define local government capacity more broadly than management
capacity and to further increase the capacity levels of local governments.
216
The term capacity has been defined and used variously in examining different
levels of government. Scholars have defined the term using political, management,
fiscal, and administrative variables to define and measure the level of government
capacity. While the term is commonly used, a precise definition or meaning of the
term is lacking, which can lead to incomplete research and policy consequences.
217
Thus, the definition of the term, and the parameters of identifying different aspects of
capacity, vary depending upon the scholar and the policies or issues being examined.
Scholars have defined capacity based upon the goal or orientation of their
research, using different variables such as political, management, fiscal, and
administrative measures to not only define but also measure the level of government
capacity. The Office of Management and Budget Interagency Study Committee on
Policy Management Assistance provided one of the most formal and structured
definitions of the term. The Committee defining the term placed emphasis on the
management aspect of local governments and their ability in policy management,
resource management, and program management.
218
While defining capacity in
management terms can be useful, it can also be restrictive and draw attention away
from other areas of community life that are equally important in defining local
216
Bowman and Kearney (1988).
217
Gargan (1981); Jeong (2007).
218
Gargan (1981), p. 650.
148
government capacity. Thus, in addition to examining management skills of local
governments, other elements such as political and financial elements are
incorporated into the definition of capacity.
219
Through their research, scholars have defined the term capacity and have
identified specific measures that constitute capacity. Gargan (1981) defines local
government capacity as its “ability to do what it wants to do”. He further elaborates
the definition and points out that local government capacity is a result of an
interaction between three components: community expectations, community
resources, and community problems.
220
Honadle (1991), similar to Gargan’s
definition of capacity, expands beyond management capacity. Honadle reviewed
some of the common conceptions of the term, and proposed an analytical framework
that can be utilized by policy makers, researchers, and practitioners alike. The term is
defined by the ability to “anticipate and influence change; make informed, intelligent
decisions about policy; develop programs to implement policy; attract and absorb
resources; manage resources; and evaluate current activities to guide future
actions”
221
. In the definition of capacity, Honadle includes the following elements:
definitional characteristics, administrative practices, institutions, and organizational
requirements. When defining the term capacity, scholars have included various
aspects of the term to define and measure the ability of local governments.
219
Gargan (1981); Honadle (1991); De Loe et al. (2002)
220
Gargan (1981), p. 652.
221
Honadle (1991), p. 578.
149
Management or administrative capacity is widely included in the definition of the
term. Management capacity describes the level of skills and operations of the
bureaucracies and the agencies of local government. The routines, practices,
programs, and procedures of departments and agencies that are necessary to carry out
activities are examined. Local governments with skilled workers and more
sophisticated management tools are better able to address issues that they are
facing.
222
Governments with greater internal resources, such as experts and skilled
workers, can overcome the transaction costs from uncertainties of planning and
implementing new policies.
223
The presence of skilled workers can be important in
environmental issues that require specialized training, compared to other policy
areas. For example, in the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. EPA addresses the
importance of capacity for achieving and maintaining applicable drinking water
standards. The EPA specifies three components to capacity in the statute: technical,
managerial, and financial. In their study of groundwater protection in Ontario,
Canada, De Loe et al. (2002) conclude that in addition to sufficient financial
resources and appropriate plans/procedures, a properly trained staff is necessary to
increase groundwater management capacity.
In addition to administrative capacities, financial and political capacities are
also widely used to define and measure local government capacity. In the era of New
Federalism, the federal government has been giving the power to make policy
222
Jeong (2007); Streib and Waugh Jr. (1991); Honadle (1991).
223
Jeong (2007), p. 87.
150
decisions for local and state governments, and in the process decrease the amount of
federal resources that are given. However, with their limitation on taxing ability,
local government cannot implement all policies and programs.
224
Thus, “real choices
are open only to wealthy jurisdictions with modest poverty needs, while poor
jurisdictions have choices only in theory”
225
. Government with greater internal
resources has more options in adopting policies and implementing them.
226
Local
government officials themselves are confident in their ability carry out additional
responsibilities that are placed on them; however, they are concerned with their
financial ability to finance the new programs.
227
Streib and Waugh Jr. (1991)
concluded in their research that “inadequate revenues were deemed to be the biggest
barrier to effective county management”
228
. Thus, financial resources impact the
overall capacity of local government to reduce ground-level ozone.
The administrative and financial capacities of local governments are
fundamental in policy making and implementation of policies and programs.
However, in addition to the administrative and financial capacities of local
governments, political capacity is also vital. Political capacity encompasses the
institutional structure of local government and its leadership, specifically the role of
224
Demetrios (1992).
225
Ibid., p. 4.
226
Jeong (2007), p. 87.
227
Streib and Waugh Jr. (1991), p. 63.
228
Ibid., p. 578.
151
the mayor. Most local governments are set up in a mayoral system or a manager-
council system. Under the manager-council system, power is dispersed to prevent a
machine-like structure that reformers sought to get rid of in local politics. However,
in cities with a manager-council system, the mayor’s formal authority to make policy
decision is limited. Thus, city managers are compelled to play a more active role in
the policy process. However, city managers are less visible to the public and,
compared to the mayor, they are often more constrained in their ability to play an
active role in the policy process. The lack of clear distinction in the power and
leadership arrangement is often cited as a weakness of the manager-council
system.
229
In comparison, a mayoral system, with a publicly elected mayor, provides
more cohesiveness and clear distinction of power and leadership.
230
However, Jeong
(2007) concludes that the impact of political institutions on policy outcomes is
mixed. The author concludes that the political structure of local governments has a
modest effect on policy outcomes. Lubell, Feiock, and Ramirez (2005) examined the
role of political institutions in local conservation policies. They conclude that
different types of institutions will have varying interests. Furthermore, political
institutions are critical in shaping the dynamics of political markets.
Institutional structures and formal powers granted by the City Charter
significantly impact the capacity of local governments to make and implement
policies. In addition to their formal powers and institutions, leadership within the
229
Morgan and Watson (1996); Ross and Levine (2001).
230
Svara (1985).
152
city, specifically the leadership ability and willingness of city mayors to bring
attention to specific policies or issues, can also inhibit or increase local government
capacity. Mayors are part of the political process, which is composed of actors and
institutions that respond to the demands and conditions of the political environment.
“For cities, mayors are the prime actors in the system, although their effect on public
policy will be determined, in part, by the political structure”
231
. Federalism, social
and economic forces can define municipal freedom; however, different mayors have
responded differently to their limits and circumstances. The effectiveness of a mayor
can provide a vision and direction for local governments to overcome some of the
circumstances laid in front of them. Furthermore, effective leaders can create a
flexible and team-oriented environment that can significantly increase capacity.
232
The definition of local government capacity for this dissertation used
Gargan’s (1981) definition. Local government capacity, according to Gargan, is
defined as the “ability (of government) to do what it wants to do”
233
. While the
definition is simple and easily comprehended, obstacles and the amount of capacity
of local government can limit its ability on specific issues and policies. Past research
has shown that various elements of capacity influence a local government’s ability to
do what it perceives to be the actions that should or must be taken. Administrative,
political, and financial capacities can all impact the ability of local governments in
231
Stein (2003), p. 149.
232
De Loe et al. (2002), pp. 221-222.
233
Gargan (1981), p. 652.
153
the policymaking and implementation processes, such as with respect to the
reduction of ground-level ozone. To examine the effects of capacity on ground-level
ozone reduction, this dissertation will analyze the administrative, financial, and
political capacity of local governments. The following is hypothesized regarding the
relationship between ground-level ozone reduction and local government capacity.
Local governments with the administrative, financial, and political capacity will
experience a decline in ground-level ozone, while local governments with limited
capacity will continuously see an increase or a stagnant level of ground-level ozone.
5.2 Local Government Capacity of Dallas and Houston
City of Houston
The administrative capacity of local governments is an important variable in
the policy formulation and implementation process. The availability of sufficient
budgetary and employee resources, and technical skills, is vital for successful
formulation and implementation of local policies to reduce ground-level ozone. A
local government’s budget, the number of employees, and the presence of specific
departments or agencies, are indicators that are used to determine the degree of
administrative capacity.
In conjunction with city administrative departments, the City of Houston has
been working to reduce ground-level ozone emissions within its jurisdiction and to
bring the city into compliance with national standards. The City’s Department of
Health and Human Services and the Office of the Mayor are given the primary
154
responsibility to coordinate and provide technical assistance to lower emissions
creating ground-level ozone.
Administrative Departments and Programs
City departments are vital in the efforts by local governments to reduce
ground-level ozone. Departments provide not only the personnel staffing but also
critical technical skills and expertise to reduce ground-level ozone. The technical
skills and expertise are especially pertinent for environmental policies such as
reduction of ozone, which requires scientific data and proficiency. The City of
Houston’s Health and Human Services Department and the Mayor’s Office are the
principal coordinators. They provide the skills and resources that are necessary for
the city of Houston to achieve the national standard for ground-level ozone.
Bureau of Air Quality Control
The Health and Human Services Department is one of the primary
coordinators in the city for cleaning up the city’s air quality and reaching attainment
of the national standard for ground-level ozone. Within the department, the Bureau
of Air Quality Control (the Bureau) is given the primary responsibility for
coordinating and performing functions that will help to achieve the reduction of
ground-level ozone. The Bureau is “responsible for assessing the City of Houston’s
air quality with the purpose of implementing strategic planning and evaluation based
on the community’s needs and right to a clean environment”
234
. It provides resources
234
Green Houston. www.greenhoustontx.gov/epr-airquality.html. Accessed on April 14, 2010.
155
and expertise such as maintaining the ambient air monitoring networks, investigating
air quality complaints filed by citizens, operating mobile air monitoring units, and
developing partnerships and outreach programs with the community. Table 31 lists
the four sections that are part of the Bureau and their main functions to improve the
air quality of the city and its region.
The tasks that are given to the Bureau to improve and protect the air quality
of Houston are wide. The Complaints and Special Initiative sections are the main
functions of the Bureau. Historically, the Bureau had focused on investigation of air
pollution sources, often sending investigators on eight-hours shifts to identify and
cite air pollution emitters throughout the city. However, the focus of the Bureau has
changed and has in effect became more efficient. Currently the Bureau investigates
complaints that are reported to it, focusing on specific locations that have emitted
and continue to emit large quantities of air pollution. The investigative aspect of the
Bureau has decreased substantially, and a potentially more efficient system is in
place.
235
Furthermore, the Bureau provides the technical skills and resources that are
needed in reduction of ground-level ozone.
235
Richer, Donald and Michele, Austin. City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services.
Phone Interview. April 15, 2010.
156
Table 31. Four Sections of the City of Houston Bureau of Air Quality Control
Section Main Functions
Complaints • Works together with the citizens of Houston
concerning possible air pollution sources.
• Investigates complaints filed by citizens
Community Assistance • Work with community to develop partnership for
clean air.
• Assessment, Intervention, and Mobilization (AIM)
Project (Dept. personnel goes door to door to share
information with residents).
• Presentations at community meetings.
• Interactive displays for residents and neighboring
industries.
• Host field trips and open house events.
Special Initiatives • Conduct compliance inspections identified through
monitoring data reviews.
• Conduct surveillance, investigations, and follow-
ups; an important part of Bureau’s daily actions to
reduce emission.
• Generally responsible for compliance issues
associated with larger facilities in the region.
• Works in concert with Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) who also maintain
and operate air monitors in the region.
Technical Services • Monitor up to 15 different parameters at stationary
locations throughout the city.
• 8 locations have trailers that houses air collection
apparatus (analyzers, calibrators, computer data
logging system).
• Deploy Mobile Ambient Air Monitoring Laboratory
(MAAML).
Source: City of Houston. Bureau of Air Quality Control.
www.houstontx.gov/health/Environmental/airqualitypage.html.
157
The budgetary and personnel resources of the Bureau are also an important
indicator of its ability to carry out its functions and assist the city government in
cleaning up the air quality of the city and the region. The Bureau’s main source of
funding is from the City’s general fund. In addition to the City’s general fund, grants
from TCEQ to maintain air-monitoring stations to monitor emissions from the city
and the region, and private grants from organizations such as the Houston
Endowment and the Houston/Galveston Area Council, also contribute to the overall
budget of the Bureau.
236
. Overall, the Bureau has sufficient budgetary resources to
carry out its main functions and provide the city with research and programs that aim
to lower emissions that produce ground-level ozone. However, more budgetary
resources can further the efforts by the Bureau to clean the air quality of the city.
237
The Bureau currently employs 38 staff to protect and monitor the air quality
of the City of Houston. Of the 38 employees, 5 serve as administrative aids, 24 serve
as environmental investigators, 3 are chemists, 4 are engineers, and 1 serves as the
environmentalist analyst. The current number of employees for the Bureau has
decreased compared to its early history of 100 employees. The change in number of
employees is a direct result of the lapse of contract with the State of Texas,
specifically with the TCEQ to provide investigative services and monitor the air
quality in the region for the state of Texas. The end of the contract with the State of
236
Private grants are particularly used for specific projects or production of reports that are of interest
to the entities that are providing the grants.
237
Richer and Austin. Phone Interview. April 15, 2010.
158
Texas has brought about the dramatic decrease in the number of employees.
However, despite the decrease in staff resources, the Bureau is still able to provide
resources and expertise to city government. With the lapse of the State contract, the
Bureau’s main focus has also changed from investigation of air pollution to the
Complaints and Special Initiatives sections. Large numbers of employees are not
sent out to the field to locate emitters or sources of pollution; rather, the Bureau is
focused more on responding to specific complaints from citizens and pre-determined
sources of emissions. Thus, despite the reduction in the number of staff, the
reorganization enables the Bureau to continue its efforts to clean up the air quality of
the City of Houston.
238
Health and Environmental Policy Office
In conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Mayor’s Office works as the other principal coordinator in the City of Houston to
improve the city’s air quality and bring the city into attainment with federal ground-
level ozone standards. The Health and Environmental Policy Office, within the
Mayor’s Office (the Office), coordinates the environmental activities of the City’s
operations and in the community. The Mayor’s Office, through the Health and
Environmental Policy Office, works with all the environmental specialists in the
different departments of city government. In addition to the environmental division
within the Health and Human Services Department, other city departments also
238
Ibid.
159
includes environmental staff that are responsible for managing issues pertaining to
each department’s work
239
. The Mayor’s Office works in collaboration with all of the
environmentalists on the city departments on a regular basis. Furthermore, a city-
wide meeting is convened once a month with all senior environmentalists to ensure
communication and collaboration amongst all city personnel with the responsibility
to protect the environment.
240
The Office provides coordination efforts amongst city
departments and its environmentalists to collectively synchronize plans and
initiatives to clean the city’s air quality.
To further the efficiency of the Office in its coordination efforts amongst the
different city departments, Mayor Bill White issued Executive Order 1-17 on June
2009, which created the Environmental Coordinating Council. The Council is
comprised of city employees from several different departments. It is co-chaired by
the Bureau of Air Quality Control and a representative from the Public Works and
Engineering Department’s Planning Branch. The Health and Environmental Policy
Division within the Mayor’s Office has a liaison within the Council. Members of the
Council are comprised of at least one representative from the following departments:
Administration and Regulatory Affairs, Aviation, Convention and Entertainment
Facilities, Fire, General Services, Health and Human Services, Human Resources,
Information Technology, Legal, Municipal Courts, Parks, Planning, Police, Public
239
City’s Public Works, Solid Waste, Planning, Police, Fire, Legal, Building Services, Parks and
Recreations Departments, and the Houston Airport System all have environmental staffs.
240
City of Houston. http://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/divisions.html. Accessed on April 14, 2010.
160
Works, and Engineering and Solid Waste. Responsibilities of the Council include the
coordination of environmental investigation and enforcement across city
departments; coordination of communications regarding environmental matters such
as maintenance of the Green Houston website; and identification and support of all
departments to access opportunities for external funding. The establishment of the
Council provides an organized structure that provides city departments with access to
resources and better coordination between various departments to protect Houston’s
natural environment.
In addition to providing coordination efforts, the division maintains the Green
Houston website,
241
which provides information and links to other governmental
agencies, non-profit organizations, and private organizations that are involved in
protecting the environment. Information such as city reports and reports conducted
by third parties
242
are uploaded on the website. In addition to reports, the website
provides information on what the city has been doing in environmental issue areas.
Press releases, news from various media nationwide reporting on the City of
Houston’s environmental news, and the e-newsletter that is prepared by the Mayor’s
Office's Environmental Programming, are available for residents and individuals to
access. The website provides a portal of information on various environmental issues
that affect the city, and what city government is doing to combat the issues.
241
http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/index.html.
242
Third parties that prepared reports listed on Green Houston website include: Houston Endowment
Inc., American Lung Association, University of Texas Health Science at Houston, School of Public
Health, and Rice University.
161
Furthermore, it enables residents to easily access information in one web location,
thus making it more convenient for residents and individuals to get informed.
243
Budgetary and personnel resources are also vital for local governments to
carry out programs and initiatives to reduce ground-level ozone. Furthermore,
without sufficient budget and personnel, departments assigned with responsibilities
to clean up the city’s air quality will not be able to perform efficiently. Unlike the
Bureau, the Health and Environmental Policy Office does not employ a large number
of staff members. The division has four staff members to coordinate efforts between
the Mayor’s Office and other city departments. Karl Pepple, who directs the Office
of Environmental Programming, a division of the Mayor’s Office, states that the
budget to run the division is limited, thus grants are often used to supplement various
studies conducted by the city and the Mayor’s Office. Furthermore, the city relies on
volunteer research conducted by higher education institutions such as Baylor
University, Rice University, and the University of Texas.
244
Summary of Houston’s Administrative Capacity
The administrative capacity of the City of Houston is an important variable in
its efforts to reduce ground-level ozone and bring the city and its region into
attainment of the national standards. An examination of the city’s resources, such as
budget, personnel, and departments that are assigned to reduce ground-level ozone,
indicates that Houston has sufficient administrative capacity. The Bureau of Air
243
Green Houston. www.greenhoustontx.gov/index.html. Accessed on April 14, 2010.
244
Karl Pepple, January 2009.
162
Quality Control and the Health and Environmental Policy Office Division in the
Mayor’s Office are the primary agencies that are assigned the responsibility to clean
the air quality of the city. The Bureau of Air Quality Control provides the city with
technical assistance such as maintaining and collecting data from air monitors and
investigating complaints that are filed to the Bureau regarding emissions sources. In
addition to technical skills, the Bureau takes part in community outreach and
education programs. The Health and Environmental Policy Office Division takes on
the primary responsibility of coordinating efforts between the different city
departments to reduce the city’s own emissions levels and provide information to the
general public. With a combined staff of 42, which includes both technical and
policy personnel, the City of Houston has sufficient resources to initiate and
implement programs. In addition to the two agencies, city departments also have an
environmentalist on staff, further increasing the personnel resources of the City to
implement programs and initiatives. Compared to the City of Dallas, which does not
have environmentalists in various departments, the coordination efforts can be a lot
smoother in Houston. Furthermore, the coordination efforts amongst city
departments were strengthened when Mayor White issued the executive order which
created the Environmental Coordinating Council.
Budgetary and personnel resources are critical for city departments and
agencies to take action on air quality issues. Although the number of staff at the
163
Bureau has significantly decreased,
245
this has not affected the capability of the city
department to initiate and implement programs. While the number of staff at the
Bureau decreased, it is able to continuously carry out its functions because of a
change in priorities, which require fewer personnel than previously. However, the
Health and Environmental Policy Office expresses its concerns about staffing and
budgeting, and the impact these have on its ability to reduce ground-level ozone. For
both departments, private funding is essential to supplement their annual budget. It
can be concluded that the ability of city government to form partnerships with
private entities is essential in reducing ground-level ozone in the city.
Political Capacity
In addition to the administrative capacity of local governments, political
capacity is also critical in implementing policies and programs. Political capacity
measures the ability of city mayors to bring attention to and initiate policies and
programs to reduce ground-level ozone. In conjunction with the formal powers that
are granted to the mayors in the City Charter, Houston’s past mayors brought media
and public attention to the issue of ground-level ozone and made it one of the
priorities of city government. The City of Houston has had three mayors between
1990 and 2009: Mayor Bill White, Mayor Lee Brown, and Mayor Bob Lanier. All
three mayors took on the air pollution issue within the city and its region, often
attacking businesses and even the U.S. EPA to change courses or methods of
245
In the past, the Bureau of Air Quality Control had about 100 employees but currently only has 38
full time employees.
164
gathering information. The ability of mayors to use the powers granted to them, and
their willingness and persistence, have further brought attention to the City and its
region’s ground-level ozone problem.
The City of Houston has a council-mayor system of government, with the
mayor serving as an executive mayor of city government. According to Wheeland
(2002), Houston’s mayors are Legislative Leaders who serve as the presiding officer
at council meetings and have the power to either vote as a member of the council or
vote as a tiebreaker. As the presiding officer of council meetings, the mayor can
easily influence the council’s agendas and policies compared to other types of
executive mayors. However, the powers of the mayor are also limited, especially if
veto power is not granted to the mayor, and department heads must be approved by
the City Council.
246
Compared to the council-manager form of government present
in the City of Dallas, the mayor of Houston has more power and authority granted to
influence city government.
The powers and duties that are granted to the mayor significantly influence
the level of political capacity of local government. The Office of the Mayor is
granted general and additional powers that are listed in the City of Houston Charter.
Article VI Sections 2, 7, and 7a enumerate the powers and duties of Houston’s
mayor. Table 32 below lists the powers granted to the mayor.
246
Wheeland (2002).
165
Table 32. City of Houston Mayor’s Powers and Duties
Powers and Duties Description
General Powers • Appoint all advisory boards created by City
Charter or Ordinance
247
• Appoint Civil Service Commissioners
248
Additional Powers and Duties • Enforce all laws and Ordinances
• Appoint and remove heads of City
Departments in administrative services.
• Administrative control over all city
departments
• At times make recommendations to City
Council as he/she may deem for the welfare
of the City
• Submit annual budget to City Council
• Fully advise City Council of the City’s
financial conditions and the needs of the
City
Source: City of Houston Charter. Article VI, Sections 2,7, and 7a.
The ability of mayors to appoint heads of city departments, submit an annual
budget to the City Council, and administer control over all city departments, enables
mayors to influence city government and the direction of specific issues.
Furthermore, the power to appoint department heads promotes the mayor’s agendas.
In addition to the formal powers that are granted to city mayors, the capability for
agenda setting is also pertinent. The ability of mayors to use their formal and
informal powers to set the agenda, to bring the issue of ground-level ozone to the
247
All appointments are subject to City Council confirmation.
248
Appointments are subject to City Council confirmation.
166
public, and to initiate programs or plans, is vital for the political capacity required for
reduction of ground-level ozone. The following sections provide an overview of the
three past mayors of Houston and their roles in reducing ground-level ozone.
Mayor Bill White (2004-2009)
Mayor Bill White served as the mayor of Houston for three terms (2004-
2009). He is a Houston businessman and a former Deputy Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Energy. Furthermore, he was one of the board members of
Environmental Defense and served on the Greater Houston Partnership’s
environmental committee.
249
Mayor Bill White has been actively involved in
improving air quality in the City of Houston and its region. Mayor White's
involvement includes bridging a coalition with Mayor Miller of Dallas to limit the
building of new coal-powered plants, presenting information at state and regional
meetings. Using his powers as Mayor of Houston, he brought businesses to
cooperate with the city to further reduce ground-level ozone emissions. Mayor White
has brought the issue of ground-level ozone to the forefront, often taking drastic
measures to get his message across to unwilling parties.
From his first term as Mayor of Houston, air quality was one of the main
issues that Mayor White aimed to improve. Mayor White, who campaigned on
improving the quality-of-life of Houstonians, made one of the strongest stances a
Houston mayor has made on efforts to clean up one of the worst ozone problems in
249
Cappiello, Dina. "White Talks Tough on Pollution/ Pushes Stricter Controls, Better Monitoring,
More Information." Houston Chronicle, Section A, p. 1. May 1, 1994.
167
the nation: “During the past two decades, successive Houston mayors have taken
more proactive stances toward clean air, but White’s entrance into the debate comes
as Houston’s clean air plan undergoes its biggest review to date”
250
. In his 2005 State
of the City Address, Mayor White emphasized several points and initiatives to clean
Houston’s air quality, giving the issue publicity and increasing its importance. The
continuous improvement of traffic flow on city roads and freeways was one of the
points that Mayor White addressed. He asked for the support of residents and
sponsors, such as the GHP, to support actions to improve traffic flow, which would
help to decrease ozone-causing emissions. Furthermore, with the support of METRO
and GHP, a meeting of the region’s major employers would be convened to discuss
the Flexible Work Schedules Program.
251
Moreover, the Mayor announced two new
initiatives for 2005.
One of the new initiatives was the Clean Air Accountability Network, which
would place air quality monitors outside the gates of firms most likely contributing
to the most dangerous emissions in the region. In addition, the Mayor asked medical
researchers to contribute to a Task Force that would analyze and report to the public
the risks of air toxins recorded by the monitors.
Finally, the Mayor asked the City Attorney and other county and local
governments in the region to help bring legal action against plants that do not have
250
Ibid.
251
White, January 24, 2005.
168
realistic plans to reduce air toxins.
252
As evident from Mayor White’s State of City
Address, his commitment to improve the city’s air quality was strong, and measures
were taken to fulfill his promises.
Mayor White did not hesitate to target industrial plants in an effort to clean
up the city and region’s air quality. Mayor White believed that particular interest
groups should not “speak for Houston. (Furthermore, he believed that) the public
interest needs to be before the special interest”
253
. Industrial polluters were one of the
main targets of Mayor White’s efforts to clean up the air of the region. This
commitment extended beyond the city and the Houston region to encompass the state
of Texas as a whole. With Mayor Miller of Dallas, Mayor White took a strong stance
against building new coal-powered utility plants throughout the state of Texas.
Mayor Miller and Mayor White formed the Texas Cities for Clean Air Coalition,
which comprised 17 cities that wanted to limit the building of the utility plants. In
addition to taking on statewide issues, Mayor White took on local industries, in an
effort to get them to clean up their acts and reduce the levels of air pollution they
emit.
Using the formal powers granted to him in the City Charter to enforce City
Ordinances, Mayor White strongly warned industrial polluters to reduce their
emissions levels. He threatened to enforce the nuisance ordinance as a mechanism to
252
Cappiello. "White Talks Tough on Pollution/ Pushes Stricter Controls, Better Monitoring, More
Information." Houston Chronicle, Section A, p. 1. May 1, 2004.
253
Ibid.
169
reduce industrial pollution. He gave industries six months to clean up their acts and
start limiting their emissions. This was a response to a report that was completed by
the industry-led task force, which proposed a voluntary plan that would limit
emissions from chemical plants and improve Houston’s air quality. The plan was
endorsed by GHP and created in the hope of avoiding a standoff with the City, as
Mayor White called for tougher measures for chemical plants to reduce their
emissions. However, Mayor White did not accept the terms of the proposed
voluntary plan by the industries, particularly the task force’s conclusion that one year
was needed to evaluate the results of the voluntary plan. Mayor White did not agree
with the proposed one year plan and stated that he would give industries six months
to reduce their emissions. If the industries did not reduce their emissions within six
months, Mayor White stated that he would once again try to enact a nuisance
ordinance, which would give City of Houston the power to cite facilities outside the
city that contribute to the city’s air pollution.
254
Improvement of techniques and methods used for accurate calculation of
emissions was another agenda that Mayor White strongly supported. He felt that
proper calculation of emissions from petrochemical plants and refineries must be
conducted to provide an accurate measure of hazardous emissions from the facilities,
and to implement proper plans. Thus, the City of Houston filed a formal “request for
Correction of Information” with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
254
Berger, Eric. "Houston Mayor Sets 6-Month Pollution Deadline." Houston Chronicle. November 6,
2007. Tresaugue, Matthew. "Winds Change in Air Quality Battle." Houston Chronicle. April 15,
2009.
170
current system that is used to measure emissions from petrochemical refineries and
chemical manufacturing plants does not accurately measure the emissions levels.
Scientific studies have shown that the actual emissions from these facilities can be
100 times greater than the EPA estimates. Mayor White’s request was received
favorably by the U.S. EPA:
255
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
agreed to Mayor Bill White’s request to overhaul its methods for estimating
emissions from large refineries and chemical plants, a move that could reveal higher
pollution levels”
256
. The action taken by Mayor White also furthered the technical
capacity of the city. Improved methods of collecting more accurate emissions data
will provide the City of Houston with technical skills and information that can be
vital in identifying and reducing emissions sources within the City and its region.
Mayor Lee Brown (1998-2004)
Mayor Lee Brown, the first African-American mayor, served the City of
Houston from 1998 to 2004. Throughout his tenure, emphasis was placed on
cleaning up the city’s air quality. Mayor Brown’s initiatives highlighted industrial
and commuter emitted pollution, and also emissions from City Hall. After taking
office in January 1998, “city government has established that it has a leadership role
in tackling the air quality problem. Prior to that, the city was happy to concentrate on
255
Green Houston, July 10, 2008; Green Houston, April 15, 2009.
256
Tresaugue, April 15, 2009.
171
monitoring and enforcement and left policy to others”
257
. Under his leadership, the
Bureau of Air Policy was created in the Health and Human Services Department to
further assist in reducing ground-level ozone in the city. His efforts also extended to
the Houston region, and he was active in reducing ozone in the metropolitan region.
In 1998, Mayor Brown convened a Regional Air Quality Summit and outlined a 10-
point plan to reduce the region’s air pollution. The following year, he joined Harris
County leaders, businesses, and environmental leaders in drawing up a guideline for
reducing NOx and VOCs in the region.
258
Mayor Brown, as the mayor of Houston,
brought the issue of ground-level ozone to the forefront and took numerous actions
and initiatives in the hope of improving the air quality of the city and the region.
One of Mayor Brown’s numerous efforts to clean the air quality of the city
and the region included a plan to reduce city agencies and contractors’ emissions in
Houston. Mayor Brown proposed a plan that would reduce emissions from municipal
activities by 75%. In his report to the City Council members, Mayor Brown outlined
his plan to cut city and contractor emissions by 75%. The plan outlined actions such
as buying clean vehicles and equipment, usage of low-sulfur gasoline and diesel
fuels by fiscal year 2002, and expansion of carpool and vanpools for city employees.
While some critics were doubtful that the city could reduce its emissions by 75% by
using catalytic converters, Mayor Brown was optimistic that his city would be able
257
Freemantle, October 1, 2001.
258
Ibid.
172
to reduce emissions using commercially available technology.
259
Furthermore,
Mayor Brown issued an executive order for city agencies to inventory their own
sources of air pollution and to develop an emissions-reduction plan. He believed that
“this executive order sends a message that Houston’s air quality problem is very
serious”
260
. In addition to sending the message that Houston has an air quality
problem, the willingness of the mayor to issue an executive order asking the city
departments to reduce their own emissions, illustrates the high commitment that the
Mayor had on the issue.
Similar to his predecessor, Mayor Lanier, Mayor Brown's approach to
reducing ground-level ozone was based on cost-effective mechanisms. He
acknowledged that industrial facilities needed to reduce their NOx emission levels by
65%, and that grandfathered plants without the state permits should also install the
same control measures as non-grandfathered plants.
261
Mayor Brown had some
concerns with TNRCC’s plans to order a 90% reduction of NOx emissions by area
industrial plants. He felt that if such actions were taken, it could negatively impact
Houston and the region’s economic growth. Rather, Mayor Brown supported the
position of local businesses in their request for economic incentives for businesses
and industries to help Houston meet its federal ground-level ozone standards. Along
259
Dawson. "Smog Plan Will Rely on Retrofitting Diesel Vehicles." Houston Chronicle. Section A, p.
40. August 4, 2000.
260
Dawson. "Brown Tells Agencies to Develop Plans for Cutting Air Pollution." Houston Chronicle.
Section A, p. 35. February 11, 2000.
261
Dawson. "State Help Sought To Fight Smog/Serious Health Concerns Cited." Houston Chronicle.
Section A, p. 29. March 26, 1998.
173
with local business leaders, Mayor Brown asked state lawmakers to approve an
economic incentive initiative to encourage and give economic assistance to
businesses to achieve cleaner air quality in Houston.
262
Mayor Brown’s efforts to improve the air quality of Houston reached beyond
the city and state government. During his campaign for mayor, he emphasized
seeking a waiver from U.S. EPA for more flexibility in reducing ground-level ozone
in the Houston region. Once in office, Mayor Brown proposed that, in addition to the
reduction of ground-level ozone, plans to reduce fine particles should also be
implemented. The proposal from Mayor Brown was a sharp shift from local
tradition. The “Houston-area government and business leaders have long been
reluctant to undertake emission-cutting programs until they were federally
ordered”
263
. However, with the proposed plan, Houston would be implementing
plans to reduce not only ground-level ozone but simultaneously reduce fine particles
which have not been mandated for Houston to reduce.
264
The initiation of the plan
was illustrative of Mayor Brown’s proactive approach on the air quality issues of the
city. Rather than waiting for federal mandates, Mayor Brown was willing to initiate
plans and programs before mandates were given.
262
Dawson. "Mayor Seeks State’s Help in Meeting Smog Standards." Houston Chronicle. Section A,
p. 31. March 8, 2000.
263
Dawson. "Brown Urges Stepping Up Pollution-Reduction Effort." Houston Chronicle. Section A,
p. 1. May 5, 1999.
264
Ibid.
174
Mayor Bob Lanier (1992-1998)
Bob Lanier served as the Mayor of Houston from 1992 to 1998. During his
term, Lanier was able to bring the issue of ground-level ozone to the forefront. Under
his leadership, Houston took unprecedented actions in requesting the U.S. EPA for
more authority to set local air pollution policies that were cost-efficient and reduced
air pollution. This action can be seen as one of the important steps taken by the
Lanier administration to combat the problem of ground-level ozone in the City of
Houston and its region.
In October 1996, Mayor Lanier took unprecedented action and requested that
the U.S. EPA give the City of Houston flexibility to set up air pollution policies that
were determined locally. The proposal also outlined the formation of a partnership
between the City of Houston and the TNRCC for strategies that were implemented to
reduce ground-level ozone and fine particles simultaneously. This proposal was a
diversion from the Clean Air Act of 1990 which requires Houston to reduce VOC
emissions to lower the ground-level ozone level. Instead, the Mayor proposed to
reduce both NOx and VOC. This approach of reducing multi-pollutants was drafted
by the Mayor because of the concerns he had regarding the cost of reducing VOC
through trip reduction measures, which would cost a fortune but would do little to
improve air quality. Mayor Lanier stated that the city’s plan “represents a common-
sense method to move cautiously and get the most for our money”
265
.
265
Dawson, Bill. "Mayor Unveils Strategy to Battle Air Pollution/ Lanier Hopes to Reduce Expense
to City." Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 1. September 30, 1996.
175
The past three mayors’ initiatives and policies that were implemented under
their leaderships significantly strengthened the City of Houston’s political capacity.
Mayors were able to use their formal powers, such as issuing executive orders and
implementing city ordinances, to create administrative agencies and give a strong
message to the business communities that ground-level ozone must be reduced. All
three past mayors were strong advocates of improving the air quality of the city and
its region, made public speeches such as State of City Addresses, and organized
regional summits that brought attention to the problem and potential
recommendations to further the efforts to improve air quality. Through the political
process, Houston’s mayors also increased the administrative capacity of the city to
combat ground-level ozone. During Mayor Brown’s administration, he ordered an
executive order creating the Bureau of Air Policy in the Health and Human Services
Department. Mayor White also issued Executive Order 1-17, creating the
Environmental Coordinating Council. The addition of the Council and Bureau
furthered the city’s efforts to coordinate between different departments and provide
vital information needed to improve the air quality of the region. Unlike the City of
Dallas, which has had only one mayor who was a strong advocate for cleaner air
quality, the persistent actions by the past three mayors of Houston were crucial in the
city’s ground-level ozone reduction efforts.
City of Dallas
The administrative capacity of local government measures the availability of
personnel and departments or agencies to perform vital tasks and functions in
176
implementing specific policy issues. The availability of resources in local
government significantly impacts the ability of city governments to implement
policies and programs that would reduce ground-level ozone and improve the air
quality of the city and its region. Two administrative departments within the Dallas
city government exist with primary responsibility for coordinating programs and
initiatives to reduce ground-level ozone and bring the city into compliance with
federal ground-level ozone standards. The Air Pollution Control Program and the
Office of Environmental Quality work with the Dallas City government and other
actors within the city and its region to improve the air quality of the city and its
region.
Administrative Programs and Departments
Air Pollution Control Program
The Air Pollution Control Program has been a vital part of the City of
Dallas’s services to its citizens in providing clean air quality. The Program operates
as part of the Public Works and Transportation Department, and is the only program
within the department that has jurisdiction on air quality matters. It is a regulatory
body that is supported by State of Texas and federal funding to enforce local, state,
and federal air regulations. The Program works as the state’s agent to investigate
facilities within the City of Dallas. Funding is provided by the state and federal
government to maintain and operate a network of ambient air monitors to measure
specific pollutants. This data is used in SIP planning and modeling to confirm
177
attainment or non-attainment status.
266
The Program has been instrumental in
developing procedures and techniques that have become the standard used in many
laboratories throughout the United States. Table 33 lists the four sections within the
Program with their main functions.
Table 33. City of Dallas Air Pollution Control Program
Section Main Functions
Compliance and
Enforcement
• Conduct routine investigations and register
facilities with potential to release air
contaminants
• Routinely test for air contaminants releases in
facilities (gasoline service stations, used car lots,
etc)
• Report violation to TCEQ for legal enforcement
• Investigates about 1000 facilities annually
Air Pollution Complaints • Conduct investigation concerning air pollution at
the request of citizens
Permits • Reviews and makes recommendations on
application for state air quality permits requested
within the City limits
Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring
• Operates network of air monitoring stations
throughout the city
• Monitor and collection samples of pollutants
• Present information on collected sample to the
general public through the Air Quality Index
Source: City of Dallas. Air Pollution Control Program. “Who are We”.
www.dallasair.org. Accessed on April 14, 2010.
266
Miller, David. Email interview. March 30, 2010.
178
Of the various functions that are performed by the Program, facility
investigations and enforcement when required, collection of air monitoring data, and
resolution of citizen complaints, are considered to be the most important and most
often-performed duties.
267
The Air Pollution Control Program’s budgetary and personnel resources
further impact the capacity of the Program, and in effect city government. The
Program currently has 17 employees
268
, who work to improve air quality and reduce
ground-level ozone levels in the city and the region. The Program consist of 1
manager, 2 supervisors, 2 administrative assistants, 7 facility investigators, and 5 air
monitor operators. Seventy-one percent of the personnel are allocated to technical
and investigative aspects of the Bureau’s functions. Over the last 10 to 12 years, the
Program has experienced a slight decrease in its operating budget, and its number of
employees fluctuates due to the budget constraints of the Texas State government.
However, David Miller, the Manager of the Air Pollution Control Program, states
that despite the decrease in budget, his staff is able to protect the City of Dallas’s air
quality. The Program works under a contract with the State EPA as their agent in
collection, inspecting, and enforcing air pollution regulations within the City of
Dallas. Miller and his staff are able to complete the specific investigations and
monitoring requirements set by the state government and the EPA. Furthermore, the
267
Ibid.
268
Throughout its history, the Air Pollution Control Program has never had more than 20-22
employees. Miller, David. Email interview. April 15, 2010.
179
State of Texas provides the support and funding that is needed for the Program to
complete its contractual obligations each year. Thus, Miller feels that despite the
reductions in their operating budget, they are able to complete all contractual
obligations and help protect the air quality of the City of Dallas.
269
Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ)
The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ) is another agency of Dallas's
government that works to protect and improve the air quality of the city. The OEQ
was formed by the Dallas City Council in 2004, and serves as the internal resource
for city staff on environmental issues such as compliance with regulatory
requirements and conducting public outreach events to raise awareness on issues
relating to the environment. The key focus area of OEQ is staff accountability and
neighborhood quality of life. They provide three services: environmental
management systems, compliance assessments and spills, and outreach and
education. The OEQ provides many services and information to the City of Dallas.
Table 34 lists some of the main functions of OEQ.
270
Unlike the Air Pollution Control Program, the OEQ emphasizes the city
government’s actions and ways to reduce emissions created by the city government.
It does not conduct technical or scientific assessments, but rather focuses on
coordination efforts between different actors and the city government.
269
Miller, David. Email Interview. March 30, 2010.
270
City of Dallas. Facts About the OEQ www.dallascityhall.com/oeq/index.html. Accessed on April
15, 2010.
180
Table 34. Office of Environmental Quality Functions
Main Functions
• Conduct compliance assessment and inspection of city own and operated
properties
• Provide education and compliance assistance to city departments
• Assistance with SIP and emissions inventories
• Coordinate with state and federal agencies on environmental issues
• Provide outreach and community education programs
Source: Facts About the OEQ. www.dallascityhall.com/oeq/index.html
The Office of Environmental Quality has a total of 23 employees within the
six sections in the department. The Climate Change and Ozone Reductions (CCOR)
section is primarily involved in the ground-level ozone issues of the city. Within the
Climate Change and Ozone Reductions section, there are a total of two employees,
or 8% of the total number of employees who provide technical support. Since its
establishment in 2004, the CCOR section has received a steady amount of resources
from the local government’s general fund to fulfill its responsibilities. Furthermore,
by assigning two full-time employees to the CCOR section, the OEQ has developed
a systematic approach that the city can take to reduce ground-level ozone. CCOR
provides consulting services (Table 35) to reduce emissions and ground-level ozone.
181
Table 35. Services Provided By Climate Change and Ozone Reductions Section
Services
• Evaluate emissions sources and control technologies
• Monitor citywide emissions reduction
• Solicit and manage grants and other awards
• Develop policy recommendations
• Public outreach and education
• Coordinate with environmental agencies and regional partners on SIP
Source: Sweckard, Kris. Email Interview. March 30, 2010
However, Kris Sweckard, the Managing Director of the Office of
Environmental Quality and Efficiency Team, states that because the City of Dallas is
a non-attainment area for ozone, more resources will be needed to develop additional
programs, policies, plans, and outreach to bring the city into attainment with federal
standards for ground-level ozone. But for the moment, sufficient budgetary and staff
resources are available for the OEQ and the CCOR to improve the city’s air
quality.
271
The administrative capacity of the City of Dallas can be classified as
sufficient, and does not hinder the various departments and agencies from carrying
out their functions to improve the air quality of the city and its region. The City of
Dallas has two main agencies that have the responsibility of coordinating within city
departments and with the State and federal governments to reduce ground-level
ozone and reach attainment status of federal ground-level ozone standards. The Air
271
Sweckard, Kris. Email Interview. March 30, 2010.
182
Pollution Control Program and the Office of Environmental Quality - particularly its
Climate Change and Ozone Reduction Section - have the primary responsibility to
provide information and resources to city government and the public to improve the
air quality of the city and its region. Unlike in the City of Houston, the Air Pollution
Control Program currently holds a contract with the State of Texas to provide air
monitoring and investigative support. The City of Houston ended the contract with
the State, thus decreasing the amount of funding from state government. However,
the Air Pollution Control Program continues to fulfill its contractual duties with the
state government. Furthermore, the Program’s operating budget is provided through
the grants that are given by the State of Texas. The Climate Change and Ozone
Reduction Section’s operating budget comes from the city’s general fund. Unlike the
Program, which provides technical as well as outreach programs, the CCOR does not
maintain air monitors or provide other technical services to city government. The
division of functions between the two agencies is similar to that of Houston. While
one agency provides technical and outreach assistance for state and city government,
the other agency works to reduce emissions from the city government’s own sources,
and coordinate efforts within city government and the community to reduce ground-
level ozone.
Political Capacity
The political capacity of local government measures the ability of local
leaders, specifically the mayor, to bring the issue of ground-level ozone to the
general public and initiate actions that can be taken at the local level to reduce
183
ground-level ozone. The Mayor of Dallas is elected as a member of the city council,
and is both the presiding officer of the council and the Mayor of the city. The Mayor
can vote on all matters that come before the city council other than confirmation of
appointments made by the Mayor; however, the Mayor does not have veto power.
Moreover, the Mayor gives an annual State of the City Address in which annual
reports on financial conditions, accomplishments, plans, and needs of the city are
addressed.
272
Based on the authority and responsibilities that are given to the Mayor
in the city charter, Wheeland (2002) classified Dallas’s mayors as a Community
Leader (CML) type. For CML type mayors, the City Charter provision empowers
them with authorities such as presenting a legislative program that addresses the
needs of the city (i.e. delivering the annual State of City Address). The Mayor also
has the authority to review and comment on the proposed budget that is prepared by
the city manager before it is submitted to the council for review. Furthermore,
because CML mayors are able to review the budget before it is presented to the
council, mayors are able to guide the policy-making process.
273
Nevertheless,
limitations exist in the ability of mayors to influence the policy-making process.
Mayors do not have the authority to appoint directors of departments and other
employees. City managers are given the responsibility to properly manage city
272
City of Dallas. City Charter, Chapter III, Section 2.
273
Wheeland (2002), p. 29.
184
affairs, which include the appointment of directors of departments.
274
In spite of the
limitation that mayors in a council-manager system face, they are able to influence
the policy-making process and make an impact on the actions taken by the city
government.
The City of Dallas has had four different mayors since 1990. Of the four
mayors, Laura Miller, the mayor from 2002 to 2007, has played the most influential
role in shining a spotlight on the ground-level ozone issue in Dallas
275
. Mayor Miller
was considered to be the champion of clean-air for the City of Dallas and its region.
She is held as a strong clean-air advocate for the city.
276
In 2006, she was selected in
the Texans of the Year Countdown. Her dedication and effectiveness in advocating
for clean air for the region, and her sheer force of personality and perseverance,
made her a power force in the region’s clean air debates.
277
During her tenure as the
Mayor of the City of Dallas, Miller was able to change the perception of pollution
reduction, and made it a local issue that the city must accomplish. While in office,
Mayor Miller joined various regional and city pledges and roundtables that aimed to
reduce emissions and air pollution, and also took on a regional fight against TXU, a
274
City of Dallas. City Charter, Chapter VI, Section 2.
275
While other City of Dallas mayors, such as Mayor Tom Leppert (2007-current) have been
concerned with the environmental quality of the city, Mayor Miller focused specifically on air
pollution in the city and the region. Mayor Leppert is an advocate of energy efficiency and resource
conservation, which can have a positive impact on reducing air pollution; however, unlike Mayor
Miller, Mayor Leppert did not specifically focus on air pollution reduction.
276
Levinthal, April 5, 2007; Dallas Morning News, September 6, 2007.
277
Dallas Morning News, December 26, 2006.
185
Dallas-based electric utility company, which sought to add more coal-power plants
in the region.
During her tenure, Mayor Miller was able to bring attention to the air
pollution issue, and how it affects not only the City of Dallas, but the whole Dallas
region. Mayor Miller was often present in roundtable talks and initiatives with the
goal of reducing air pollution. For example, she joined Collin County Judge Ron
Harris and other local government officials and pledged to fight against the region’s
air pollution problems.
278
In addition to joining other local officials in efforts to
reduce air pollution, Mayor Miller participated in a summit that was sponsored by
the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s editorial board, focused on improving the North
Texas transit system. About 500 leaders from the region attended the summit, and
signed a pledge card to support a multicounty plan to ease traffic congestion and
reduce air pollution in the region.
279
In addition to taking part in the summit
sponsored by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Mayor Miller also took part in a
roundtable discussion sponsored by the Dallas Morning News. Elected officials,
business leaders, and environmental watchdogs were represented at the roundtable
discussion. During the discussion, Mayor Miller brought up seven different points
dealing with increasing the number of coal-burning power plants in the region. She
expressed her hopes that the state legislature could come together and raise the issues
that she outlined. Some of the points that she mentioned were: to align the SIP
278
Dallas Morning News, January 29, 2004.
279
Dallas Morning News, September 5, 2004.
186
process with the permit process; and to mandate that TCEQ examine the impacts of
power plants beyond the 10 to 11 mile radius from the plants. Overall, she expressed
her opposition to increasing the number of coal-fired electricity plants in Texas, and
stated that a lower financial burden should placed on cities and counties to prove the
potential impact on their localities if new power plants were given the permit to
operate.
280
Mayor Miller’s legacy is best known for her relentless fights with TXU Corp
to stop the building of coal-powered power plants throughout Texas. Led by Mayor
Bill White of Houston and Mayor Miller, a coalition of Texas cities (Texas Cities for
Clean Air Coalition) prepared themselves to battle TXU Corp, if they did not alter
their plans to build more coal-fired power plants throughout the state. Along with
Mayor Bill White of Houston, Mayor Miller went to dozens of Texas cities to push
for the implementation of cleaner environmental technologies in utility plants, as
they planned an expansion considered to be the largest in state history. Mayor Miller
sent letters to about 50 cities asking them to intervene and require the new power
plants to use more modern, cleaner technologies to limit the levels of emissions.
Currently there are 16 new power plants that have either been permitted or are
awaiting permits. According to Mayor Miller, Dallas/Fort Worth air quality is in a
crisis mode and people have been trying to find ways to reduce emissions by buying
hybrid cars and building green buildings. However, the emissions from coal-fired
280
Dallas Morning News, January 16, 2007.
187
plants would obliterate all the gains that have been made. Thus, she asked cities to
work together and intervene in the permitting process of the new power plants.
281
Mayor Miller asked cities to raise about $400,000 to intervene in the permitting
process of these new power plants. She assured the cities that Houston and Dallas
would do the “upfront legwork and organizational work” to fight the plans.
282
Each
of the cities involved in the coalition contributed $10,000 to a legal fund that was
created to fight TXU in court. Furthermore, the Cities of Dallas and Houston will
cover any other legal fees that exceed what smaller cities are able to contribute.
283
The political capacity of Dallas city government to combat ground-level
ozone is weaker than their administrative capacity, and the City of Houston’s
political capacity. Mayor Laura Miller was a strong advocate for clean air and
worked relentlessly to clean up the city and region’s air quality. Furthermore, she
worked in collaboration with Mayor White of Houston to limit the expansion of coal-
powered utility plants throughout the State of Texas. However, unlike Houston,
where past mayors (1990 to current) were strong advocates of clean air, Mayor
Miller was the only strong advocate for clean air in Dallas. Other Dallas mayors,
such as Mayor Leppart, have been actively involved in other environmental issues,
such as greening of the city, which will in due course help to improve the city’s air
281
Dallas Morning News, July 13, 2006; Souder, February 10, 2007.
282
Dallas Morning News, July 13, 2006.
283
Levinthal, September 1, 2006.
188
quality. However, Mayor Miller is the only leader who took a strong and active role
emphasizing improving the air quality.
5.3 Comparative Analysis of Dallas and Houston’s Government Capacity
The Cities of Dallas and Houston are both classified as non-attainment areas
for ground-level ozone by the federal government and are required to reduce their
levels of ozone. Failure to comply with the federal government requirements will
result in economic sanctions such as withholding of highway funds and limiting
economic growth in the cities and their regions. Thus, the two cities’ governments
have been working to improve air quality and to meet the federal requirement for
ground-level ozone. However, variation exists between the two cities in their efforts
to reduce ground-level ozone. The City of Houston has a more severe ozone problem
than the City of Dallas, and more attention has been focused on the issue there.
Furthermore, the differences between the two cities' administrative and political
capacities have also at times inhibited the cities from furthering their actions to
reduce ground-level ozone. This section of the dissertation compares the two cities’
administrative and political capacities, and the impact they have on their efforts to
reduce ground-level ozone in their jurisdiction.
The administrative capacity of local governments can help to determine the
ability of governments to formulate and implement policies and initiatives.
Administrative capacity is the availability of resources, such as sufficient budget,
staff, and skills, which can all impact the ability of local governments to reduce
189
ground-level ozone. Table 36 is a summary of the different components of the two
cities’ administrative capacities to reduce ground-level ozone.
Table 36. Overview of Administrative Capacities of Cities of Dallas and Houston
Administrative Capacity City of Dallas City of Houston
Departments and Agency • Air Pollution Control
Program
• Climate Change and
Ozone Reduction
Section (CCOR)
• Bureau of Air
Quality Control
• Health and
Environmental Policy
Office Division
Fiscal Resources • Local Government
general Fund
• State of Texas
• Federal Funding
• Sufficient Budget
• Local government
general fund
• State of Texas
• Private grants
284
• Somewhat sufficient
to needing more
financial resources
Technical Resources • Air Monitoring
stations
• Collect samples of
pollutants
• Present collected
sample to general
public
• Air Monitoring
Stations
• Mobile Ambient Air
Monitoring
Laboratory
(MAAML)
• 8 locations house air
collection apparatus
Staff Resources • 19 employees
285
• 42 Employees
286
284
Houston Endowment, Houston/Galveston Area Council are some of the private entities that the
City of Houston depends on for grants to carry out specific projects.
285
Of the 19 employees, 17 work with the Air Pollution Control Program and 2 work with the Climate
Change and Ozone Reduction Section of the Office of Environmental Quality.
286
Of the 42 employees, 38 work with the Bureau of Air Quality Control and 4 work with the Health
and Environmental Policy Office.
190
The Cities of Dallas and Houston have two agencies with the responsibility to
improve the air quality of the region and reduce emissions producing ground-level
ozone. In both cities, one agency provides the technical support and resources, such
as maintaining air monitors and collecting air samples to be analyzed. The other
agencies are given the responsibility to assist in reduction of their city’s own
emissions, and working to educate and provide outreach to citizens on the issue. In
the case of Dallas, the Air Pollution Control Program provides these services, while
for Houston the Bureau of Air Quality Control provides the services. Both agencies
provide the necessary technical expertise to determine not only the levels of ground-
level ozone, but also to identify facilities that are producing emissions that contribute
to the formation of ground-level ozone. However, one difference between the two
agencies is the source of authority. The Air Pollution Control Program of Dallas is an
agent of the State of Texas, which located within the City of Dallas to enforce local,
state, and federal air quality regulations. It is the only program within the department
that has jurisdiction on air quality matters. Houston’s Bureau of Air Quality Control
was created by Mayor Brown’s Executive Order, and works as a city department
with some collaboration with the State government, but is not considered to be an
agent of the State.
While the Bureau of Air Quality Control and the Air Pollution Control
Program provide scientific and technical skills necessary to reduce ground-level
ozone in the two respective cities, the City of Houston’s Health and Environmental
Policy Office and the City of Dallas’s Climate Change and Ozone Reductions
191
Section work on policy initiatives and are directly responsible for the reduction of
the city government’s own emissions. In addition to identifying and reducing the
city’s own emissions, both agencies provide education and outreach to the general
public and businesses on the effects of ground-level ozone. In both cities, a website
dedicated to providing citizens with information on the environment is maintained by
the agencies
287
. However, variation does exist between the two agencies. The Health
and Environmental Policy Office holds a monthly meeting with senior
environmentalists to coordinate amongst all city departments on environmental
issues. This coordination between city departments was strengthened when Mayor
White passed Executive Order 1-17 in 2009, which created the Environmental
Coordinating Council. In conjunction with the Bureau of Air Quality Control, which
acts as the co-chair of the Council, the Health and Environmental Policy Division
works to coordinate city efforts to improve the natural environment. The City of
Dallas’s Office of Environmental Quality - specifically the CCOR - coordinates with
environmental agencies and other regional partners. However, unlike in Houston, a
systematic monthly meeting does not occur in Dallas. Furthermore, while the City of
Houston provides an abundance of resources, such as reports conducted by the City
and third parties, awards and recognition given to the City, and updates on the
actions of city government in improving the environmental quality of the city, Dallas
does not provide as much information to its residents.
287
The following websites contain more information on the two cities and the information that they
provide for residents and businesses. Houston: http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/. Dallas:
http://www.dallascityhall.com/oeq/index.html.
192
Financial and staff resources is another aspect that is critical in determining
the ability of local governments to implement plans and programs to reduce ground-
level ozone. A comparison of the annual revenue and expenditure of the two cities
(Tables 37 & 38) illustrates that the City of Dallas has a higher per person revenue
and expenditure. Thus, based on the annual budget of the two cities, an assumption
can be made that Dallas, with a higher per person revenue in general, would spend
more on varying policies and programs; thus, different city agencies would have
more financial capacity to carry out programs to reduce ground-level ozone.
However, an in-depth examination of the two cities’ departments and programs has
shown otherwise. Furthermore, in addition to the general funds, the departments
garnered financial support from other sources.
Table 37. City of Houston Annual Expenditure and Revenues
1992 1997 2002
Population 1,630,553 1,744,058 1,953,631
Revenue $1,801,795 $2,464,967 $2,530,810
Revenue Per Person $1 $1 $1
Expenditure $1,758,002 $2,409,623 $3,100,518
Expenditure Per Person $1.08 $1.38 $1.59
Source: U.S. Census of Governments 1992, 1997, 2002.
193
Table 38. City of Dallas Annual Expenditure and Revenues
1992 1997 2002
Population 1,006,877.00 1,053,292.00 1,188,580.00
Revenue $1,370,536.00 $1,919,832.00 $1,618,206.00
Revenue Per Person $1.36 $1.82 $1.36
Expenditure $1,619,597.00 $1,478,982.00 $2,380,918.00
Expenditure Per
Person
$1.61 $1.40 $2.00
Source: U.S. Census of Governments 1992, 1997, 2002.
The City of Dallas’s main sources of funding for its two agencies are the
local government’s general fund and the State of Texas. The Air Pollution Control
Program is funded directly from the State of Texas and the federal government and
the CCOR is funded by the city’s general fund. Funding has decreased for the Air
Pollution Control Program throughout the years, but the Program does not feel that
the budget is insufficient. Rather, they are able to carry out all of their contractual
agreements with the State despite the cuts. CCOR’s Managing Director Kris
Sweckard states that, because the City of Dallas is a non-attainment area, more
resources will be needed to bring the city into attainment of federal ground-level
ozone standards. For both agencies, an increase in funding might further their efforts
to reduce ground-level ozone, though current revenues do not limit their activities.
The City of Houston’s main source of funding for the two agencies is the
city’s general fund. While the State of Texas and private funds do contribute, the
majority of the funding comes from the general fund. The City of Houston’s Bureau
194
of Air Quality Control has experienced a reduction in funding since its termination of
the contract they had with the State of Texas to provide investigative services for the
state. Thus, funding and the number of staff has decreased for the Bureau. However,
despite the decrease, the roles and responsibilities of the Bureau have evolved during
its history, thus the reduction does not significantly impact its ability to carry out its
duties. Furthermore, private funding, such as the Houston Endowment, has provided
additional funding to support specific studies that have been conducted by the
Bureau. Houston’s Health and Environmental Policy Office is also funded by the
city’s general fund. Unlike its counterpart in Dallas, the office has expressed that
funding tends to be insufficient to carry out many of its responsibilities to reduce
ground-level ozone. Because Houston’s ground-level ozone is severe, much more
planning and actions are needed, which requires more resources.
Overall, the administrative capacities of the Cities of Dallas and Houston are
similar in many aspects. Both cities have agencies that are available and take a pro-
active approach in reducing emissions that create ground-level ozone. Furthermore,
despite reductions in funding, this has not led to agencies being unable to carry out
their responsibilities and efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. However, there are
variations that exist between the two cities. While one of the agencies in Dallas is
funded by the State of Texas, this is not the case for Houston; for both agencies
there, the majority of the funding comes from the city’s general fund. Furthermore,
while an initial analysis of the staffing sizes of the two cities seems to portray a
significant variance, when the landmass sizes of the two cities are taken into account,
195
the larger number of staff in Houston than in Dallas is not as significant. Thus, it can
be concluded that the administrative capacities of the Cities of Dallas and Houston
are similar, and that ample resources exist for both cities’ agencies to carry out their
responsibilities to reduce ground-level ozone and bring their respective cities into
compliance with federal standards.
Comparison of Political Capacity
While there is little variation between the two cities with respect to their
administrative capacities, much variation exists when Dallas and Houston’s political
capacities are examined. Specifically, this dissertation examined the role of the
mayor, his/her ability to bring to the attention of the general public the issue of
ground-level ozone, and the effectiveness of mayors to create initiatives or programs
with the goal of reducing ground-level ozone. Cities with mayors who constantly
bring air quality and ground-level ozone to the attention of the general public, and
have the power to create initiatives and policies, result in further efforts to reduce
ground-level ozone.
Both Dallas and Houston had mayors who actively promoted the reduction of
ground-level ozone in the city and its region. Mayor Miller, the former Mayor of
Dallas, is considered to be a champion of clean-air and a strong advocate for clean
air. During her tenure as the Mayor of Dallas, she changed the perception of
pollution reduction and made the issue a local issue that Dallas citizens and City Hall
should be concerned about. While in office, Mayor Miller joined many regional and
city initiatives and roundtables aimed at reducing air pollution. As a mayor with a
196
strong interest in air pollution, she was able to take on big industries, such as the
TXU, and limit the building of additional coal-powered utility plants. However,
despite her strong efforts and her commitment to air pollution, the limitations of her
office were visible compared to the City of Houston, whose mayor had control over
all administrative departments of city government and had the power to issue
Executive Orders.
The City of Houston’s past mayors have been actively involved in improving
the city’s air quality. Mayors White, Brown, and Lanier all made significant impact
on the city’s efforts to achieve a cleaner and safer air quality for the residents. All
three mayors used the formal powers granted to the Mayor’s Office. Mayors White
and Brown used their powers and issued Executive Orders to create Task Forces, and
created new agencies to combat ground-level ozone. Under Mayor Brown’s tenure,
the Bureau of Air Policy was created to further assist in the City’s efforts to clean the
air quality of Houston. Using the City’s Nuisance Ordinance, Mayor White warned
industrial polluters to reduce their emissions levels. During his tenure as Mayor of
Houston, Mayor Lanier took an unprecedented move and requested that the U.S.
EPA give the City of Houston the flexibility to set local air pollution policies.
Furthermore, Mayor Lanier proposed that both VOC and NOx be reduced in
Houston, rather than just VOC as outlined in the Clean Air Act of 1990. All three
mayors were very strong in their position and often pushed other actors, such as
businesses, state government, and even the federal government, to improve the air
quality of the city.
197
Conclusion
The administrative and political capacity of local government has an impact
on policy formulation and implementation, such as policies aimed at reducing
ground-level ozone. The availability of resources such as sufficient budget, staff, and
technical skills, enables local governments to produce and implement programs and
initiatives to reduce emissions that create ground-level ozone. Despite the differences
between the Cities of Houston and Dallas, and their success in reducing ground-level
ozone, the governments’ administrative capacities are similar. Both cities possess
financial, technical, and trained employees in agencies to work to improve the air
quality of the city. Two points, however, stand out with respect to the cities’
administrative capacities. First, while one of the City of Dallas’s agencies is funded
by the State of Texas, and works to fulfill annual contracts and terms given by the
State, Houston has terminated such contracts with the State. Thus, Houston is able to
concentrate on compliance and other actions, rather than the investigative works that
were conducted in the past. Thus, Houston has the ability to determine locally the
actions to be taken, while Dallas has contractual agreements that need to be fulfilled.
Second, the City of Houston does not have an environmental department within its
city government. Rather, each department has an environmental specialist on staff to
assist in protecting the natural environment and to ensure that actions taken by the
department will be supportive of the natural environment. Furthermore, senior
environmentalists from the various departments meet once a month to coordinate
198
efforts. In the City of Dallas, an Environmental and Health department is part of city
government and the various departments do not have an environmentalist on staff.
A greater variation exists when the two cities’ political capacities are
examined. Specifically, the role of the mayor and their efforts to reduce ground-level
ozone are examined in this dissertation. Past mayors of the two cities have been
compared to examine the role that mayors have played in the local government’s
efforts to reduce ground-level ozone and attain the federal standard. The City of
Houston’s mayors were a critical factor in the city’s efforts to form new initiatives
and agencies to combat ground-level ozone. Mayor Lanier took unprecedented
actions, requesting more local authority in ground-level ozone reduction policies.
Mayor Brown issued an Executive Order, creating the Bureau of Air Quality Control
to help improve the air quality of the city. Mayor White also made air quality a
priority, especially during his first year as mayor of Houston. For the City of Dallas,
Mayor Miller was a strong advocate for improving the air quality of the city and its
region. She took on large corporations, specifically TXU, and limited the building of
new coal-powered utility plants. Dallas mayors did not hinder actions to improve air
quality, but also did not make improving air quality of the city one of their priorities.
199
Chapter Six
Regional Governance and Ground-Level Ozone
Introduction
Chapter Five of this dissertation examined the political and administrative
capacities of local governments, and the impact they have on efforts to reduce
ground-level ozone. The availability of political leadership, resources, and technical
skills are vital to local governments’ efforts to reduce ozone. However, while
reductions at the city level make significant contributions to the overall reduction in
metropolitan regions, without a regional effort by all local governments, success is
limited. Pollution, especially air pollution, does not maintain the legal or political
jurisdictional boundaries of localities. Pollution from one locality can affect the air
quality of the neighboring localities. Thus, efforts to reduce ground-level ozone not
only involve individual local governments, but also the collective efforts of the
region to meet the federal standards on ground-level ozone. The ability to form
effective regional governance structures to combat ground-level ozone significantly
impacts the success of the metropolitan regions in reducing ozone and being in
compliance with federal standards. This chapter examines the regional cooperation in
the Dallas and Houston Metropolitan Areas to meet the federal standards on ground-
level ozone. The involvement of actors, sources of pollution, and interests of the two
regions are examined, as well as the impact on the formation of regional governance
structures to reduce ground-level ozone and meet the federal standards. This chapter
is divided into the following sections: the first section briefly examines the existing
200
literature on regionalism; the second section examines specifically the Dallas and
Houston metropolitan regions and effective governance in the regions; the third
section provides an analytical comparison between the two regions and the variations
in their governance; the fourth section provides a conclusion of the two regions and
the contribution provided in expanding understanding of the impact of governance
structures in air pollution policies.
6.1 Regionalism Throughout History: An Examination Of Past Literature
Debate surrounds the issues and problems that transcend the jurisdictional
boundaries of local governments in the metropolitan regions. Scholars and
practitioners alike are split on the solutions for approaching many of the issues that
metropolitan areas face. Traditionally, the creation of a metropolitan government,
such as city-county consolidation, has been offered as a possible solution to the
problems of fragmentation and duplication of services in the metropolitan regions.
However, supporters of the Public Choice Theory have challenged the assumption
that creation of a metropolitan government will lead to more efficient and effective
centralized services. Public Choice Theorists believe that fragmentation leads to
more competition and thus provides more service options for residents. In recent
times, a movement calling for regional governance without the creation of regional
governments has gained attention and questioned the views of both schools.
288
Although there has been a declining interest in the formation of metropolitan
288
Vogel (1997), p. 185.
201
governments, there is renewed interest in metropolitan governance. While scholars
and practitioners have debated the merits of consolidation and public choice theories,
many communities in the United States have started to build a metropolitan
governance system. In doing so, local communities have chosen to reform regional
government without regard for ideal-type government systems advocated by
scholars.
289
The latest wave of regionalism in the United States pertains to metropolitan
areas and regional efforts. Regional efforts such as regional governance, city-county
consolidation, tax-sharing, regional councils, voluntary associations, and inter-local
service agreements have been identified by scholars as examples of regional
approaches that can be taken by metropolitan areas to solve regional issues. While all
the examples listed above do address issues that metropolitan areas face, they are
also limited and cannot be seen as a solution. Rather, a “truly comprehensive
regionalism, however, would require a combination of these elements including a
metropolitan governance structure capable of making regional decisions across
interdependent policy domains”
290
. Thus, regionalism in the various metropolitan
areas can vary; some areas will have a more consolidation model approach, while
other areas are a combination of various models.
289
Ibid., p. 194.
290
Basolo (2003), p. 447.
202
Consolidation Model
Supporters of a consolidated metropolitan government believe that
fragmented local government structures are responsible for the inefficiency and
ineffectiveness of services in localities. The main premise of the reform model
centers on the consequences of local government fragmentation and the damage that
it causes in trying to solve region-wide problems: “Fragmentation is said to produce
gross inefficiencies through the duplication of misdistribution of public service
delivery”
291
. The Consolidation model was initially popular in the 1960s and 1970s;
the model was revived in the 1990s, calling for the consolidation of local
governments in metropolitan areas and a stronger region-wide government.
292
“According to consolidationists, the primary ills of local government stem from
fragmentation and the 85,000 governments and over 500,00 officials that dot
America’s political landscape”
293
. Thus, the solution that consolidationists offer is
the elimination of municipalities and replacing them with a single region-wide
government.
Consolidation model supporters propose and favor the formation of
metropolitan governments as a solution to the ills presented by fragmented
governments. Metropolitan government, according to consolidationists, can take on
three different forms: one-tier city-county consolidation, two-tier metropolitan
291
Visser (2002), p. 41.
292
Ibid., pp. 41-42.
293
Savitch and Vogel (1996), p. 162.
203
government, or three-tier multi-county regional governments. Of the three forms,
advocates favor a two-tier approach in which local government is still maintained,
while an area-wide or regional government provides region-wide services.
Supporters of a metropolitan government state that the two-tier approach would
reduce fiscal imbalances between central cities and suburbs; have the capacity for
region-wide strategic planning; and carry out large-scale planning such as
transportation. However, the consolidated model is not without critics or criticisms.
Criticisms of the consolidated model include the limited evidence on the greater
efficiencies and economies after consolidation has taken place. In addition, with
consolidation, minority voters tend to lose their political power, while suburbanites
dominate the new metropolitan government. Third, the existing metropolitan
governments have a mixed record of performance. Fourth, existing metropolitan
governments have been significantly weakened due to the failure to redraw the
boundaries to reflect the population growth in the region. Overall, the limited
number of metropolitan governments, and no creation of medium- to large-sized
metropolitan governments for over two decades in the U.S., is a sign that instituting
such governmental structures is difficult.
294
Public Choice Theory Model
During the late 1980s, the public choice or market model dominated the
debate on forms of local government in metropolitan regions. It was presented as an
294
Vogel (1997), pp. 186-187.
204
antithesis to the consolidation model of regional governments. According to the
public choice theorists, metropolitan government is defined as the “public economy
of multinucleated political system”
295
. For supporters of public choice theory,
fragmentation is embraced, while the role of government is minimized.
Fragmentation will ensure that governments compete with one another, which results
in residents being able to seek the optimal packages of services. Public choice
advocates value local autonomy while having distaste for hierarchy.
296
The public choice school believes that regional fragmentation does not harm
the region, but rather promotes competition among local governments in the region.
Competition among local governments in the region provides residents with good
quality services and low tax rates. Unlike supporters of a consolidated government,
public choice supporters do not believe that the formation of a region-wide
metropolitan government is necessary to solve regional problems. Rather, they
advocate that regional issues can be addressed through the formation of special
districts and public authorities: “Those who champion public choice believe that
more efficient and effective public services at the local level will ultimately result
from intercity competition for residences and businesses by promoting policies that
keep tax rates low and provide good-quality basic services and a stable business
295
Visser (2002), p. 42.
296
Savitch and Vogel (1996), p. 164.
205
climate”
297
. Thus, for supporters of the public choice school, fragmentation in
regions is not necessarily harmful, as consolidationists portray it to be.
298
New Regionalism
Unlike supporters of the consolidation model and public choice theory,
advocates of new regionalism recognize that metropolitan areas are able to create a
regional governance structure that is not tied to any unit of local government.
According to new regionalists, metropolitan regions are able to carry out region-wide
policies and programs without a consolidated metropolitan-level government.
299
The
term new regionalism can be “defined as a school of thought that advocates
addressing urban problems either through new regional governments or through
greater collaboration between existing governments”
300
. The old regionalist debates
of the 1950s to the 1970s focused on issues of providing local public goods and
services more efficiently and effectively. However, the new regionalism debate has
shifted from the effects of fragmentation on public goods consumption to economic
growth and production of metropolitan areas. Supporters of new regionalism are
shifting the debate in urban policies from equality and fairness to economic costs and
benefits to the region. New regionalists argue that central cities are engines for
297
Vogel (1997), p. 188.
298
Ibid.
299
Oakerson (2004), p. 17.
300
Swanstrom (2001), p. 479.
206
regional economic prosperity,
301
and that the economy of the suburbs also depends
on the wellbeing of the central cities. Although the argument is that economic
prosperity is achieved through regional cooperation, new regionalist arguments are
not without critics.
Scholars have critiqued the validity of the economic arguments of new
regionalism. Swanstrom (2001) concludes that while the argument for the economic
benefits of regional cooperation is conceivable, the evidence that is given by new
regionalists is weaker than the arguments presented. Economic arguments might not
be sufficient to support the new regionalism approach. Upon examining the
arguments for the connection between fragmentation and the impact on economic
performance of the region, Swanstrom concludes that while it is plausible, the
argument is relatively weaker than that stated by supporters of new regionalism:
“…governance structure may play a positive role in regional prosperity, but this
relationship may in turn depend on more specific conditions and strategies. It appears
that low fragmentation is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a
prosperous regional economy”
302
.
Other scholars have examined the mechanisms for instituting the new
regionalism agenda and the prescription for implementing the agendas of new
regionalism. In their article, Savitch and Vogel (2000) identify several mechanisms
for metropolitan regions to achieve the agendas of new regionalism. They identify
301
Ibid., pp. 480-482.
302
Ibid., p. 484.
207
three different approaches: multi-tiered government, linked function, and complex
networks as mechanisms for new regionalism. Of the three mechanisms, complex
network is the most similar to the idea of metropolitan governance without the
formation of actual regional government. Local governments cooperate with one
another through multiple, overlapping interlocal agreements.
303
. Like Savitch and
Vogel (2000), Parks and Oakerson (2000) also address concerns brought up by new
regionalism. The authors apply findings from research on local public economies to
address concerns brought up by new regionalism. Research on local public
economies suggests that it is possible to create metropolitan governance without a
metropolitan government. The authors conclude that regionalism must be
complemented by localism.
304
Basolo (2003) examines the theoretical and empirical similarities between
local autonomy and public choice theory in explaining the failure to produce
regionalism. In addition, she examines Olson’s collective action theory and presents
Olson’s theory as a potential strategy to induce regionalism. Both local autonomy
and public choice theory place emphasis on individual or community preferences and
controls, and rational-self interest. Thus, the two theories are similar to Olson’s
rational choice theory. “The regionalism literature, whether based implicitly or
explicitly on local autonomy or public choice theories, often recommends a regional
approach to address the problems of fragmentation and inter-jurisdictional
303
Savitch and Vogel (2000), p. 164.
304
Parks and Oakerson (2000), p. 175.
208
competition. Moreover, this literature tends to discuss regionalism broadly and
seems to imply voluntary co-operation among jurisdictions”
305
. The author concludes
that Olson’s policy prescription for regionalism might be the only viable option. To
encourage regionalism, voluntary cooperation might not be the optimal solution.
Rather, coercion or selective incentives will help to promote regionalism. “This
approach assigns the future of regionalism to an authority with the power to mandate
regional co-operation or with the resources to provide incentives. Within this
context, the authority would be the state and/or federal government”
306
.
Institutional Collective Action
Institutional collective action (ICA) is a theoretical framework that provides
understanding of metropolitan governance without a metropolitan government. ICA
theory, like new regionalism, believes that metropolitan government is not necessary
to achieve or understand metropolitan governance. ICA framework states that
cooperative actions and institutions are created when the potential benefits are high,
while the transaction costs of negotiating, monitoring, and enforcing the contract is
low. Theories of collective action are the building block of ICA. ICA can be viewed
as a form of collective action that is generalized to governmental institutions rather
than individuals. However, like individuals involved in collection action, ICA is
motivated by the collective benefit that will not be realized through individual
305
Basolo (2003), p. 456.
306
Ibid., p. 456.
209
actions.
307
The theory “posits that local governments can act collectively to create a
civil society that integrates a region across multiple jurisdictions through a web of
voluntary agreements and associations and collective choices by citizens”
308
. Thus,
ICA provides researchers and practitioners a framework that can be used to analyze
regional governance formation and structure, compared to consolidation models that
require the formation of a regional government.
Policy entrepreneurs and transaction costs are important in the ICA
framework. For ICA, policy entrepreneurs play a critical role compared to individual
collective action. “Policy entrepreneurs have an incentive to promote ICA when they
expect to receive a disproportionate benefit from the produce of collective action”
309
.
In addition to policy entrepreneurs, the transaction costs for participating also
determine whether cooperative relationships will be formed. When the transaction
cost for participating in a cooperative relationship is high, local governments can be
more hesitant to participate. Thus, according to the ICA theory, reduction of such
transaction costs is an important issue. Utilizing the existing institutions and
organizations in pursuing regional goals can reduce transaction costs. In addition,
state governments or other actors can contribute by taking on the role of third party
enforcer or entrepreneur and create “incentives for a single jurisdiction or sets of
307
Feiock (2004), p. 7.
308
Ibid., p. 7.
309
Ibid., p. 7.
210
actors to shoulder a disproportionate share of the financial burden and mobilize
diffused regional interests”
310
.
Using the ICA framework, Post identifies conditions that promote
intergovernmental cooperation among local governments in a metropolitan region.
According to Post, intergovernmental cooperation is defined to “include all policy
activities that require some level of policy coordination between local governments.
These efforts may include formal and informal agreements among local
jurisdictions”
311
. To explain the rate of success of local government cooperation, the
author examines five determinants: the impact of geography, group size, common
policy objectives, leader or policy entrepreneurs, and coercion and/or selective
incentives, to explain the level of cooperation among local governments. These five
determinants can either help or hinder intergovernmental cooperation. The author
concludes that of the five variables, the following variables negatively influence the
likelihood of intergovernmental cooperation: 1) an increasing number of local
governments willing to cooperate; 2) increase in heterogeneity of the population
localities; and 3) an increase in state regulations on local government behavior.
While the previous three variables inhibit cooperation, the following five conditions
can help promote cooperation: 1) increase in geographic density; 2) increase of
homogeneity of populations; 3) common policy objectives; 4) presence of strong
leaders/entrepreneurs; 5) federal incentives to help in forming intergovernmental
310
Ibid., p. 8.
311
Post (2004), p. 69.
211
cooperation amongst local governments (Post, 2004). Thus, for regions with
conditions that promote cooperation, regional issues such as transportation and
environmental issues can be solved at the regional level, compared to other regions
that may not have many of the cooperation-enhancing conditions.
312
Past research on metropolitan governance has identified various methods for
solving region-wide issues and providing more efficient services in the metropolitan
areas. Different models and theories have emphasized certain variables, such as the
role of entrepreneurial leader, transaction cost, and level of fragmentation, and how
they can promote or hinder metropolitan governance formation. The consolidation
model prescribes the formation of a region-wide government to solve regional
problems and bring more economic prosperity to the region. While the formation of
a region-wide government can consolidate authority and responsibilities, the
difficulties in forming region-wide government do not make the consolidation model
implementable as a solution for metropolitan areas in reducing ground-level ozone.
Thus, the formation of regional governance without a regional government, as
proposed by new regionalists and ICA theories, is the most ideal. Forming regional
governance, or a cooperative relationship, without consolidating local governments,
enables local governments to participate without the fear of losing political power to
a higher level of government. Thus, local governments are more at ease and more
likely to form and participate in local governance or cooperation to solve problems
312
Ibid.
212
or enhance the region. The role of entrepreneurial leaders, transaction costs, and
interests of local governments determine the effectiveness of metropolitan
governance in reducing ground-level ozone in the region.
Thus, from the literature of new regionalism and institutional collective
action theory, the following hypotheses can be drawn to help explain the variation in
regional solutions for reducing ground-level ozone in metropolitan areas to be in
compliance with federal standards. The presence of entrepreneurial leaders who are
actively involved in regional efforts to reduce ground-level ozone enables effective
metropolitan governance in combating ground-level ozone in the region. In addition
to the presence of strong leadership, the transaction costs of local governments’
involvement in regional governance determines the involvement and effectiveness of
the regional governance system to reduce ground-level ozone. A lower transaction
cost for local governments allows for more participation in regional cooperation or
governance structure to reduce the overall ground-level ozone in the region. Finally,
the interests of local governments will influence their cooperation to combat ground-
level ozone in the region. Specifically, similarities in the sources of pollution, and
the contribution of localities to the overall regional air pollution, impact the
involvement of local governments. Thus, in regions where local governments'
interests are similar, and sources of pollution are similar, effective regional
governance will be formed and maintained, whereas metropolitan regions with
differing interests will have a harder time forming and maintaining a regional
governance system to combat ground-level ozone.
213
6.2 Examination of Dallas and Houston Metropolitan Regions
Dallas Region
The Dallas Metropolitan Area consists of eleven counties: Collin, Dallas,
Denton, Ellis, Henderson, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant
County. Dallas County has the largest population. The Cities of Dallas and Fort
Worth are the two central cities and the economic hub of the region. Variation exists
within the eight counties in the region. Table 39 lists the counties that are part of the
Dallas-Fort Worth non-attainment region for ground-level ozone. For example, in
2002, Dallas County had 63% of the region’s total population, while Rockwall
County had 1.2% of the region’s total population. Despite the differences in
population and land area, all the counties in the non-attainment region must work
together to reduce the region’s ground-level ozone emissions. Failure to meet the
national standards will have an economic impact on all the counties.
The Dallas Metropolitan Area has been designated by the federal government
as a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone, and is required to implement
measures to reduce emissions to bring the region in compliance with federal
standards. In order to bring the region into compliance, the region’s leaders,
institutions, and organizations have been working cooperatively to reduce ozone in
the region to meet the federal standards. However, while regional organizations have
been taking an active role in bringing various actors in the region into a consensus on
air quality, local governments, environmental groups, and businesses with differing
214
interests have not always been willing to form cooperative relationships or work
together to bring the region into compliance.
Table 39. Dallas-Fort Worth Non-attainment Region for Ground-level Ozone
Population Total Governments
County Land Area 1992 1997 2002 1992 1997 2002
Collin 851 264,036 372,445 491,675 51 50 51
Dallas 880 1,852,810 2,000,192 2,218,899 70 64 63
Denton 911 273,525 348,453 432,976 56 62 69
Ellis 939 85,167 97,054 111,360 37 38 38
Henderson 888 58,543 65,664 73,277 37 38 39
Hunt 840 64,343 67,906 76,596 34 34 35
Johnson
Kaufman 788 52,220 62,116 71,313 33 32 40
Parker
Rockwall 128 25,604 34,153 43,080 13 13 11
Tarrant
Total 6225 2,676,248 3,047,983 3,519,176 331 331 346
Source: 1992, 1997, 2002 Census of Government.
Regional Organizations
Regional organizations have played an active role in bringing the Dallas
region into compliance with the federal standard on ground-level ozone.
Organizations such as the North Central Texas Council of Governments, and the
North Texas Clean Air Coalition, have worked to bring regional actors together to
reduce the levels of ground-level ozone in the region. Various committees and
215
programs have been implemented at the regional level with local government
participation to bring the region into compliance with the federal standards on
ground-level ozone.
North Central Texas Council of Governments
The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is a voluntary
association that serves the 16 counties in the North Central Texas region. NCTCOG
was established to assist local governments in “planning for common needs,
cooperating for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional development”
313
.
NCTCOG has over 230 member governments, including the 16 counties, cities,
school districts, and special districts in the region.
One of the numerous areas in which the NCTCOG is involved in the North
Central Texas region is to work with the federal, state, and local partners to clean up
the region’s air quality and ensure that all federal requirements are met. For example,
the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) has been developing broad range
programs to reduce NOx emissions in the region. Strategies such as fuel efficiency,
and encouraging changes in the daily behavior of residents, have been proposed and
implemented to reduce emissions in the region. Table 40 lists the programs and
strategies that are currently being implemented by RTC. As illustrated in Table 40,
most of the strategies that are implemented by NCTCOG target reduction of mobile
source emissions. Transportation-related activities account for close to half of all
313
www.nctcog.org.
216
ozone-producing emissions in North Central Texas, thus NCTCOG’s strategies aim
to reduce emissions from transportation related activities.
314
The RTC has been supporting and funding transportation-related programs
and initiatives to lower emissions and improve the region’s air quality. Initiatives
such as signal and intersection improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems,
and High Occupancy Vehicle lanes have been implemented as a starting point to
reduce emissions in the region. Programs such as reducing emissions from diesel
engines through a partnership with the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, and the AirCheck Texas Program, which focuses on repairing, replacing, or
retiring vehicles that failed the state vehicle emissions test, are examples of
successful programs implemented by RTC. The AirCheck Texas Program is
especially important, with the expansion of the vehicle inspection program in Collin,
Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties.
The AirCheck Texas Repair and Replacement Assistance Program provides
assistance to low-income persons whose vehicles did not pass the requirements of
the new test. Furthermore, the program can help ease the tension within the region,
especially for counties with significantly higher rates of low-income residents.
315
314
Ibid.
315
NCTCOG. State of the Region 2004; NCTCOG. State of the Region 2005.
217
Table 40. Regional Transportation Council’s Programs and Strategies
General Programs
Air North Texas
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Projects
Clean Cities Technical Coalition
Clean Fleet Vehicle Call For Projects
Clean Fleet Vehicle Policy
Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Replacement Plan
Regulated Fleets Program
SmartWay Program
Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Equipment Programs
Blue Skyways Collaborative
Construction Fleets
Diesel Idling Reduction Program
Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Equipment Grant Program
Locally Enforced Idling Restrictions
North Central Texas Clean School Bus Program
North Texas Emissions Reduction Grant (NTERG) Program
Regional Refuse Hauler Program
Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP)
Light-Duty Vehicle Programs
Electric Vehicle North Texas
North Texas Green and Go Partnership
Parking Cash-Out Pilot Program
Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance Pilot Program
Try Parking It
Inspection and Maintenance and High-Emitting Vehicle Programs
AirCheckTexas Drive A Clean Machine Program
Enhanced AirCheck Texas Program*
Enhanced Remote Sensing*
NCTCOG Emission Database*
Regional Emissions Enforcement Program*
Regional Smoking Vehicle Program *
316
Air Quality Committee
Air Quality Public Relations Task Force
Air Quality Subcommittee of the RTC
Clean Cities Technical Coalition
North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee
Photochemical Modeling Technical Committee
Source: www.nctcog.org/trans/air/
316
Programs with an asterisk are programs that NCTCOG are currently developing and will be
implemented soon.
218
The NCTCOG’s RTC is an active participant in the region’s efforts to reduce
emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. Although it is a
voluntary association with no formal governmental or jurisdictional authority, the
NCTCOG provides an avenue for local governments to work together. It exists to
serve the local governments of the region by promoting intergovernmental
cooperation and coordinating programs that both complement and supplement local
governments.
317
Thus, NCTCOG is a regional actor and a leader in promoting
regionally-coordinated efforts to reduce emissions and clean up the air quality of the
North Central Texas region. Various programs and initiatives sponsored by the RTC
of NCTCOG have been initiated with the goal of regional collaboration to reduce
ground-level ozone. RTC furthered its commitment to the air quality issue by
allocating $10 million for the advancement of air quality programs,
318
which
provides the budgetary resources that are needed for successful implementation of
programs.
North Texas Clean Air Coalition
The North Texas Clean Air Coalition (NTCAC) is another regional
organization in the Dallas-Fort Worth region that is involved in reducing air
pollution. NTCAC is the only nonprofit organization in the region that is solely
dedicated to encouraging voluntary efforts to reduce emissions and improve the
region’s air quality. NTCAC was founded in 1993 by the Fort Worth Chamber of
317
NCTCOG. What is NCTCOG. www.nctcog.org.
318
NCTCOG. State of the Region 2005.
219
Commerce, the Dallas Regional Chamber, and the North Central Texas Council of
Governments. Since its inception, the Dallas Rapid Area Transit, the Fort Worth
Transportation Authority, and other leading businesses, cities, counties and
transportation authorities have also joined the NTCAC
319
.
Similar to NCTCOG, the NTCAC’s programs emphasize the reduction of
emissions from mobile sources, specifically automobile emissions, which are the
main source of emissions in the Dallas-Fort Worth non-attainment region. NTCAC
works with employers in the region to implement carpool and alternative programs,
and to encourage employees to make changes to their commuting patterns.
Carpooling programs such as Vanpooling, Guaranteed Ride Home, Mass Transit,
and Bicycle/Pedestrian, are some of the Employer Trip Reduction (ETR) programs
that NTCAC encourages employers to provide to employees to reduce reliance on
single vehicle usage. Moreover, NTCAC works with national, state and local
governments and other organizations to provide assistance to employers in designing
ETR programs and other energy conservation measures. Thus, NTCAC makes
available resources and information for employers to create and implement
emissions-reducing programs with ease.
320
State of Texas and Federal Government
State and federal government are two actors that can provide incentives or
coercions for local governments to cooperate and solve regional issues such as
319
NCTCOG. Working for Clean Air. www.workingforcleanair.org.
320
Ibid.
220
ground-level ozone. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is
the state of Texas’s environmental agency that plays a vital role in the efforts to
improve air quality. TCEQ is tasked with developing the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) that is required by the Federal Clean Air Act. All states are required to produce
and regularly update the SIP. In Texas, the TCEQ, in collaboration with local
governments, develops and updates the SIP for areas that have been designated as
non-attainment areas by the federal government. The U.S. EPA is granted by the
Clean Air Act to establish national air quality standards. U.S. EPA is also given the
authority to approve or reject SIPs submitted by the state governments. If deemed
necessary, U.S. EPA can replace the SIP with a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
The two higher levels of government can provide incentives and coercions to local
governments in the hope of forming a more cooperative action to improve the
region’s air quality. The ability of the U.S. EPA to reject the SIP, place sanctions and
limit economic growth in the region is a motivation to work together to improve air
quality. TCEQ, with the authority to develop the SIP for the specified non-attainment
regions, also plays an influential role.
321
Actions that TCEQ takes on ground-level ozone and the various measures it
approves for the SIP for the Dallas-Fort Worth region impact not only programs that
local government must implement, but also the willingness of local governments and
actors to work together to improve the region’s air quality. Many local officials and
321
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. www.tceq.state.tx.us.
221
environmentalists believe that the state government has not been doing its job in
improving the region’s air quality. Residents of the Dallas-Fort Worth region have
seen plans and strategies being halted by the state despite the increase in pollution
levels.
322
For example, the trials and wavering of the state’s clean-air plan took a toll
on the business community's efforts to reduce ozone. With the encouragement of
NTCAC, many big businesses in the region have taken voluntary actions, such as
promoting carpooling and other commuting options. However, the mixed messages
sent by state officials make it harder for the coalition to encourage businesses and the
public to limit actions that increase emissions, when state officials are partially
retreating from the efforts.
323
Without the strong support and direction of state
government, it is difficult to form cooperative alliances amongst local governments
to reduce emissions that produce ground-level ozone. State governments need to
approve local initiatives and have the authority to create SIP. Thus, the mixed signals
sent from state officials can limit the willingness of local governments to join forces.
Local Governments
Local governments are essential actors in metropolitan regions. Regionalism
must be complemented by localism
324
, and thus the local governments of a region
cannot be overlooked when examining regional cooperation. The willingness or
resistance of local governments to take part in the implementation of programs and
322
Loftis. "Clean-Air Efforts Lags as Federal Deadline Looms." Dallas Morning News. July 27, 1996.
323
Ibid.
324
Parks and Oakerson (2000), p. 177.
222
initiatives to reduce ground-level ozone significantly impact the region’s overall
success in reducing ground-level ozone. A local government's decision to cooperate
with or resist regional efforts depends on their perceptions of the amount of
emissions they contribute to the region’s ground-level ozone level. Furthermore, if
local governments perceive that involvement in regional efforts will have a negative
impact on their city, then they will be inclined to not participate. This is particularly
applicable to local governments that do not produce as much emissions, or view their
emissions sources to not contribute to the overall regional ozone level.
The current Dallas-Fort Worth non-attainment area for ground-level ozone
includes Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall,
and Tarrant Counties. Table 41 lists the annual ground-level ozone readings for the
Dallas-Fort Worth non-attainment area. Variation exists among the nine counties that
are part of the non-attainment area. Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, and Tarrant
counties have consistently exceeded the maximum admissible level of ozone
designated by the federal government. Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and
Rockwall counties’ ozone levels are significantly lower. Despite such variation in the
readings, all nine counties are designated as part of the non-attainment region, and
contribute to the overall ozone problem in the region. During the early 1990s, only
four counties - Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant - were designated as part of a
non-attainment region, and thus faced stricter regulations than the other five
counties, which were eventually added in the early 2000s. This created much tension
223
in the region, especially with Ellis County, which contributes significantly to the
region’s air quality problem.
Table 41. Annual Ground-Level Ozone Reading For Dallas-Fort Worth Non-
attainment Area
County 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Collin 0.097 0.104 0.102 0.092 0.086 0.087 0.094 0.093 0.091 0.08 0.079
Dallas 0.094 0.1 0.097 0.088 0.091 0.091 0.088 0.095 0.089 0.08 0.077
Denton 0.101 0.112 0.1 0.097 0.102 0.094 0.092 0.094 0.1 0.089 0.084
Ellis 0.097 0.098 0.096 0.072 0.09 0.086 0.087 0.081 0.082 0.076 0.072
Hunt N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.077 0.08 0.081 0.078 0.069 0.063
Johnson N/A N/A 0.084 0.093 0.092 0.085 0.093 0.09 0.08 0.087 0.083
Kaufman N/A N/A 0.062 0.073 0.077 0.071 0.073 0.077 0.077 0.074 0.069
Parker N/A N/A 0.079 0.088 0.092 0.087 0.079 0.097 0.089 0.088 0.077
Rockwall N/A N/A 0.089 0.08 0.082 0.083 0.081 0.081 0.079 0.074 0.073
Tarrant 0.102 0.104 0.095 0.098 0.109 0.097 0.092 0.103 0.098 0.089 0.085
Source: U.S. EPA
Local government involvement in regional efforts to reduce ground-level
ozone was marked by conflict and tension. The designation of non-attainment
regions and the inclusion of additional counties became the main debate for the local
governments in the Dallas region. The inclusion of Ellis County in the non-
attainment region created much tension within the Dallas/Fort Worth region. Ellis
County, which has North Texas’s biggest industrial polluters, was not part of the
original four-county non-attainment region for ground-level ozone. This created
tension amongst the local governments within the region and often led to contentious
debates. The Midlothian industrial complex was the main point of contention in the
224
region’s efforts to clean the air. This industrial complex is located within Ellis
County, and thus did not face the same stringent regulations as Collin, Dallas,
Denton, or Tarrant Counties. However, the four largest industries within Ellis
County emitted half of all industrial air pollution in the Dallas-Fort Worth region and
the five surrounding counties. Texas Industries (TXI) the largest cement plant in the
state, Chaparral Steel, the fifth largest air polluter in the region, Holman, a cement
plant and the second largest polluter in the region, and North Texas Cement, are all
located within the boundaries of Ellis County. Emissions from these industrial plants
contribute to the air pollution problems of the region and its surrounding counties.
325
However, state officials did not include Ellis County for vehicle emissions testing
and other requirements, which created tension within the region.
Emissions from Ellis County sources are a contentious issue that needs to be
addressed in the region. Local governments in the Dallas region have voiced their
concerns, and their opposition to not including Ellis County in the regional air plan.
For example, the Duncanville City Council passed a resolution that called for Ellis
County to have emission cuts comparable to pollution sources in Collin, Dallas,
Denton, and Tarrant Counties.
326
The exclusion of Ellis County from the Dallas-Fort
Worth smog area is an example of the need for regional control and the frustration in
the region. In the early 1990s, Texas officials were successful in limiting the ozone
325
Christiansen. "Double Standard in Regional Pollution." Dallas Morning News. October 4, 1999.
326
Hartzel, T. "Clean-Air Plan for N. Texas Challenged on Emissions Cuts-Groups, State Debate
Stricter Cement-Factory Rules." Dallas Morning News. December 15, 1999.
225
violation area to the four counties of Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, and Denton. Ellis
County, to the south of those four counties, was not part of the ozone non-attainment
area. However, Ellis County is home to cement and power plants whose emissions
travel north and contribute to the air quality of the other four counties and the whole
region. Thus, rules on industrial pollution in Ellis County are looser than those in the
other four counties, and as a result Ellis County has experienced a boom in industrial
activities. Legally, the air quality in Ellis County is considered clean; however,
ozone violations have repeatedly been reported. State officials had the option of
requesting that the EPA expand the mandatory smog control area to include Ellis
County, but they did not make this request.
327
During the revision of the SIP, environmentalists have been actively involved
in broadening the non-attainment region to include Ellis County. Environmental
groups have advised Texas officials not to ignore the pollution emitted from the
cement plants located in Ellis County. The drawing of legalistic lines that
differentiate counties and the levels of restrictions placed on them have irked many
environmentalists.
Environmentalists have filed legal papers demanding that Ellis County and
seven other counties be classified as smog violators and added to the non-attainment
327
Loftis. "Wider Area to be Affected By Tougher Air-Quality Rules Environmentalists Hope to End
Notion That Smog Stops at County Line." Dallas Morning News. November 25, 2002.
226
area of the Dallas/Fort Worth region.
328
Downwinders At Risk, an environmental
group from the Midlothian area, believes that state officials should force cement
factories in Ellis County to cut more emissions.
329
North Texas local government officials and environmental groups led the
way to convince the U.S. EPA to include Ellis County in the new regional clean-air
plan. Collin County Judge Ron Harris led the delegation urging reclassification of
Ellis County. In addition to Judge Harris, Judge Margaret Keliher and representatives
from the greater Dallas Chamber were also involved in the effort. Judges Harris and
Keliher, and the region’s business leaders, urged the U.S. EPA to include all of Ellis
County as part of the non-attainment area, because including only parts of Ellis
County would make clean-air planning more difficult for the region.
330
Ellis County
and its industrial plants did not agree with those who were asking the state and U.S.
EPA to include Ellis County as part of the non-attainment region. U.S.
Representative Joe Barton has been active in the efforts to exempt Ellis County from
the new tougher ozone regulations that will be implemented in the Dallas-Fort Worth
region.
If Rep. Barton is successful, the exemption will help cement makers such as
Holcim (U.S.) Inc. and Texas Industries Inc. to avoid adhering to stricter pollution
328
Loftis. "Smog Limits Sought for Ellis-Group Threaten Suit if 8 Counties Aren’t Listed As
Pollution Violators." Dallas Morning News. February 21, 2003.
329
Hartzel. Dallas Morning News. December 15, 1999.
330
Gilman and Loftis. Dallas Morning News. April 2, 2004; Loftis. Dallas Morning News. April 10,
2010.
227
requirements and much higher pollution-control costs. While environmentalists and
Dallas-Fort Worth political and business leaders supported the decision of U.S. EPA,
Rep. Barton and Ellis County industrial plants stated that the decision will increase
costs for local companies.
The U.S. EPA made the final decision and ruled that Ellis County must also
share the burden of cleaning up the region’s air quality. In addition to Ellis County,
four additional counties (Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall) were also added
to the non-attainment area for ozone. The Dallas-Fort Worth leaders were pleased
with the decision of the U.S. EPA. Local leaders claimed that the region could now
move forward in cleaning up the air. However, Rep. Barton stated that the decision
to include Ellis County was not justified nor based on scientific or economic
grounds. Furthermore, Ellis County Judge Chad Adams stated that the EPA chose to
ignore the voluntary measures that Ellis County implemented, such as vehicle
emissions testing to reduce emissions in the region.
331
Leadership
Supporters of Institutional Collective Action state that entrepreneur leaders
are important factors in promoting regional cooperation. The ability of leaders to
promote an issue and bridge the differences that can exist amongst the actors is
essential in establishing a cooperative relationship in the region. The importance of
leadership is more pertinent for environmental pollution, which does not follow the
331
Loftis. Dallas Morning News. April 16, 2004 and Dallas Morning News. April 16, 2004.
228
legal jurisdictions that have been established in the region. Thus, the pollution of one
locality not only impacts the locality producing the emissions, but also impacts
neighboring localities and the region as a whole. In the Dallas-Fort Worth region,
several leaders have taken an active role in the regional air quality problem. Colin
County Judge Ron Harris, the Chairman of North Texas Clean Air Steering
Committee, and Mayor Laura Miller of Houston, are prominent leaders that have
been actively involved in cleaning up the region’s air quality. Mayor Miller, who
was the Mayor from 2002 to 2007 for the City of Dallas, played an influential role in
shining a spotlight on the problems of ground-level ozone in not only the city, but
the region as a whole. While in office, Mayor Miller joined various regional
roundtables and summits that aimed to reduce emissions in the region. Along with
Collin County Judge Ron Harris and other local government officials, they
participated in summits such as those sponsored by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s
editorial boards and the roundtable discussion sponsored by the Dallas Morning
News.
332
Summary of Dallas Region
The Dallas metropolitan region, which is classified as a non-attainment area
for ground-level ozone, has to demonstrate to the federal government that measures
are being taken to bring the region into compliance with federal standards. Regional
governance structures, which comprise regional organizations, local governments,
332
Dallas Morning News, September 5, 2004 and Dallas Morning News, January 16, 2007.
229
and leaders, have been constituted to combat the issue. Regional organizations, such
as the North Central Texas Council of Governments and the North Texas Clean Air
Coalition, have provided incentives and assistance to local governments and
businesses to be part of the regional efforts. Programs such as the AirCheck Texas
Repair and the Replacement Assistance Program lower the transaction costs that
local governments can acquire in their efforts to reduce ground-level ozone.
However, while regional organizations have been vital in creating effective regional
governance, the varying interests of local governments have been a stumbling block
in the region. Depending on the interests of local governments, the involvement in
regional governance can also increase the transaction costs associated with the clean-
up efforts. Ellis County is a prime example of varying interests in the region and the
results they created. Ellis County was not part of the original non-attainment area,
despite the significant contribution its industries had on the region’s air pollution.
This created much contention amongst the local governments in the region. During
the revision of the SIP for the Dallas region, local governments and environmental
groups urged state officials and U.S. EPA to include Ellis County in the non-
attainment area. However, Ellis County did not agree, stating that the region’s ozone
problem was caused primarily by mobile source emissions, and that the industrial
sources of pollution from Ellis County did not contribute significantly. The interest
of local governments in the regions varies and can be a problem in forming effective
governance structure. While the region as a whole has to combat mobile sources of
emissions in order to reduce the overall ozone level, some local governments, such
230
as Ellis County, do not contribute significantly to mobile emissions, but have more
stationary sources. Thus, from Ellis County’s perspective, joining the regional
governance to combat ground-level ozone does not meet their interests and will
significantly increase their transaction costs. Ellis County does not produce as much
emissions from mobile sources as other localities in the region. Furthermore,
although point-source emissions, such as those emitted from Ellis County’s industrial
facilities, contribute to the overall ozone levels of the region, the region’s mobile
sources are the main contributor to the problem. Thus, by becoming part of the non-
attainment area, Ellis County and its industries will have to spend more on pollution-
abatement measures that were not required in the past. In effect, involvement in the
regional efforts will increase Ellis County’s transaction costs, and their interests
differ from the other local governments in the region.
Houston Region
The Houston Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area consists of six counties,
and is often referred to as the refinery and oil production capital of the nation. Of the
six counties, Harris County has the largest land area and population (Table 42),
followed by Fort Bend County. The City of Houston, the largest city in the region, is
located within Harris County. As illustrated in Table 42, variation exists among the
six counties in the region. Harris County is by far the largest in population, followed
by Fort Bend County. In 2002, Harris County had 81% of the metropolitan
population within its jurisdiction, while Waller County only had 0.01% of the
population. Similar to the differences in populations, local governments in the
231
Houston metropolitan region have in varying degree contributed to the ground-level
ozone problem of the region. Despite the differences in population and emissions
levels, all local governments within the Houston non-attainment region must work
together to reduce their ground-level ozone.
Table 42. Houston Primary Statistical Area
Population Total Governments
County
Land
Area 1992 1997 2002 1992 1997 2002
Chambers 616 20,088 22,789 26,031 12 14 14
Fort Bend 876 225,421 306,832 354,452 126 132 138
Harris 1,734 2,818,199 3,126,966 3,400,578 518 498 487
Liberty 1,174 52,726 63,294 70,154 33 31 31
Montgomery 1,047 182,201 245,845 293,768 99 114 113
Waller 514 23,390 26,195 32,663 14 13 13
Total 5,961 3,322,025 3,791,921 4,177,646 802 802 796
Source: 1992, 1997, 2002 Census of Governments.
The Houston region has been classified as a severe non-attainment region for
ground-level ozone. The non-attainment region consists of the following counties:
Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and
Waller
333
. Each of the counties in their respective ways contribute to the overall air
quality of the region. As part of the non-attainment region, the region is under strict
guidelines and plans to achieve federal compliance on ground-level ozone. While
333
Counties in the non-attainment region are all part of the Houston-Galveston Metropolitan Area.
232
variation does exist among the different counties within the region, the level of
cooperation is higher than by local governments in the Dallas-Fort Worth non-
attainment region. Regional and local government officials, business leaders, and
environmentalists work together to meet the national standards on ozone and hope to
avoid sanctions and penalties that can result from non-compliance.
Regional Organizations
Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)
Regional organizations in Houston, like those in Dallas, have also played a
vital role in bringing the Houston region into compliance with federal standards on
ground-level ozone. The Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) is a regional
organization in the Houston region that provides an arena for local governments to
consider and cooperate on solving region-wide programs such as ground-level ozone.
The H-GAC serves the 13 counties
334
in the region by providing planning programs
in issue areas of concern to local governments in the region. The H-GAC is made up
of the region’s local governments and its elected officials, and works together with
public and private organizations to solve many of the regional issues.
335
The transportation department of the H-GAC is the main department
involved in the region’s efforts to attain the federal air quality standards. The
Regional Air Quality Planning Committee (RAQPC), one of the standing committees
334
The following counties are serviced by the H-GAC: Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Colorado, Fort
Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Matagorda, Walker, Waller, and Wharton.
335
Houston-Galveston Area Council. www.h-gac.com. Accessed on January 2010.
233
in the transportation department, has the task of assisting and advising H-GAC, local
and regional governments, agencies, and other organizations on air quality issues.
The Board of Directors appoints the RAQPC members and includes representatives
of local governments, public health, transportation, businesses, environmental, and
citizen organizations from the non-attainment area.
336
H-GAC promotes various air
quality programs to local governments to improve the air quality of the region. Table
43 lists some of the programs that are sponsored by H-GAC. The programs help
promote different issues that must be addressed to improve the air quality of the
region. Clean Vehicle Program, which is one of the key components to cleaning up
the air quality, provides information and funding for local, state, federal, and private
entities for alternative fuels, clean diesel technologies, and infrastructures that will
help to improve the air quality of the region. By providing information and funding
for local governments and other entities, the H-GAC decreases the transaction costs
of changing daily lifestyles and protocols to improve the air quality of the region.
336
Ibid.
234
Table 43. Houston-Galveston Area Council’s Air Programs
Clean Air Action Program
Clean Cities Program
Clean Vehicle Program
Commute Solutions PRogram
Area Emission Reduction Credit Organization
Regional Air Quality Planning Committee
Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan
Drayage Loans
Source: Houston-Galveston Area Council. www.h-gac.org
Leadership
The presence of strong leadership is essential in efforts to improve the
region’s air quality and be in compliance with federal ground-level ozone standards.
The ability of leaders to bring different groups and interests together and collaborate
on a solution is essential for regional governance to be effective. The Houston region
has many leaders who have taken an active role in bringing the issue of air quality to
the public, and promoted cooperative efforts to solve the problem.
Harris County Judge Robert Eckels
Harris County Judge Robert Eckels is an individual who has worked
relentlessly to clean up the Houston region’s air quality. Judge Eckels’ efforts
include extending vehicle emissions testing to other counties surrounding Harris
County. When TNRCC decided that the state government would not mandate vehicle
235
inspections or similar measures, but would leave the decision to local officials, Judge
Eckels collaborated with other county judges on the possibility of extending the
vehicle emissions testing to other surrounding counties beside Harris County.
337
In
addition, environmentalists and citizens’ group joined Judge Eckels in endorsing the
extension of tailpipe testing to other counties. He also worked to help protect school
children from exposure to ozone. Judge Eckels, acknowledging that the health risks
of ozone are very serious, unveiled a new system that would notify area schools
when smog levels reach unhealthy levels, so that school officials can curtail outdoor
activities for students. This program was the first in the state and the region. All
schools in Harris County receive notification when smog levels are high. Judge
Eckels hoped that in the future the eight-county region’s school districts would have
a similar system in place.
338
Judge Eckels stated that Houston’s air pollution is not
only a health issue but also an economic issue that needs to be addressed. He
believed in and advocated for a regional solution to cleaning up the region’s air
quality.
Judge Eckels took on a leadership role in the region and often convened or
participated in regional summits with the goal of finding solutions to the region’s
ground-level ozone problem. For example, in collaboration with Mayor Lee Brown
of Houston, Judge Eckels convened a regional summit meeting in June 1998,
337
Dawson. "Expansion of Emissions Tests Discussed." Houston Chronicle. March 10, 1998.
338
Dawson. "Schools To Get Smog Warnings/County Alerts To Help Educators Know When To
Keep Pupils Inside." Houston Chronicle. November 9, 1999.
236
focusing on the air quality of the region. The aim of the summit was to mobilize the
Houston region and to develop a plan to clean up the region’s air quality. The
summit focused on inviting regional leaders such as policy makers, business leaders,
neighborhood advocates, environmentalists, and air quality experts to gather and
examine the problem and the tasks needed to solve the air quality issue of the
region.
339
These regional summits provided an avenue for local governments and
other actors to come together and examine the issue and propose solutions that can
be implemented to reduce ozone-causing emissions in the region.
City of Houston Mayors
The mayors of Houston have been actively involved in not only reducing
ozone within the City of Houston’s jurisdiction, but also the region. Mayors Brown,
Lanier, and White were prominent leaders in the region’s efforts to reduce ground-
level ozone and meet the federal requirements. As mayors of the largest city in the
region, their involvement in the regional governance structure provides resources
that other, smaller cities do not possess.
Throughout his tenure as Mayor of Houston, Mayor Brown was able to bring
regional leaders and organizations together to discuss and provide solutions to clean
up the region’s air quality. In order to bring regional leaders and organizations
together to discuss the air quality of the region, Mayor Brown convened a regional
air quality summit in June 1998. The aim of the summit was to mobilize the Houston
339
Dawson. "Brown to Convene Air Summit/ Ozone Levels Here Closing In On LA’s." Houston
Chronicle. June 24, 1998.
237
region and to develop a plan to clean up the region’s air quality. Mayor Brown
pledged during his campaign for mayor of Houston to hold such a summit.
340
Speaking at the summit, he outlined a 10-point plan for reducing the region’s air
pollution. A common theme throughout the summit was the need for region-wide
efforts to reduce ozone.
341
The City of Houston is the largest city in the region, and located within
Harris County, the largest polluter in the region. Thus, the commitment of the city is
essential to region-wide efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. Mayor Brown showed
other local governments in the region that the City of Houston was willing to commit
to efforts to improve the air quality of the region. He won over the Houston City
Council and gained approval for $375,000 funding to study the regional air quality,
focusing on the health implications of air pollution. Some of the council members
who voted against funding the study have questioned why the City of Houston
should pay for a study that assessed regional air quality. However, Mayor Brown
stated that Houston must take on a leadership role in improving the region’s air
quality.
342
Mayor Bill White served three terms (2004-2009) as mayor of the City of
Houston. Like Mayor Brown, Mayor White took an aggressive approach to air
340
Ibid.
341
Dawson and Berger. "Mayor Outlines Proposal For Cutting Air Pollution." Houston Chronicle.
June 25, 1998.
342
Mason. "City Council Funds Study on Effects of Air Pollution." Houston Chronicle. August 20,
1998.
238
quality in the city and the region. Throughout his tenure as mayor, he brought the
issue of ground-level ozone to the forefront and often took drastic measures to get
his message across to unwilling parties.
During Mayor White's first term, air pollution was one of the main issue
areas that the mayor aimed to improve. His plans not only included measures that the
city of Houston should implement, but also regional initiatives that would enable the
Houston non-attainment region to meet the federal standards on ground-level ozone.
In his 2005 State of the City address, Mayor White emphasized improvement in
traffic flows not only on city roads but also the freeways in the region. With the
support of METRO and GHP, a meeting of the region’s major employees was
convened to discuss the Flexible Work Schedules Program.
343
In addition, Mayor
White announced two new initiatives for 2005. The Clean Air Accountability
Network was one of the initiatives that were announced by the Mayor. The program
would place air quality monitors outside of the plant gates of firms that are most
likely contributing to the region’s air pollution. He believed that proper calculation
of emissions from the petrochemical and refineries must be conducted to provide an
accurate reading on the emissions, and thus the implementation of proper plans. The
U.S. EPA agreed with the Mayor’s request to overhaul the method of measuring
emissions from large refineries and chemical plants.
344
The second initiative called
343
White, January 24, 2005.
344
Tresaugue. "Pollution Estimates For Refineries, Plants Revisited." Houston Chronicle. April 15,
2009.
239
for setting up a Task Force of medical researchers to analyze and report to the public
the health risks from the air toxins that are recorded on the monitors. Mayor White
encouraged other local governments in the region to help bring legal action against
plants that do not have a realistic plan to reduce their emissions.
345
Through his
actions, Mayor White created an avenue for local governments to come together and
take action on the air quality problem.
Local Governments
Like the Dallas non-attainment region, the Houston region is not without
opposition or conflict between local governments in designating counties in the non-
attainment region. The addition of counties to the non-attainment region requires the
counties to abide to stricter regulations and reduce their emissions that contribute to
the formation of ground-level ozone. For counties within the region that do not
contribute significantly to the region’s air quality problems, the inclusion and stricter
regulations hurt their economy, and they proposed that the burden of cleaning up the
air should be distributed based on the amount of pollution emitted. The emissions
distribution throughout the region is not uniform; rather, significant variations exist
among the different localities within the region. Table 44 lists the annual ground-
level ozone readings for the eight counties in the Houston non-attainment region.
Brazoria, Harris, Galveston, and Montgomery counties consistently record higher
levels of ozone than the federal ozone standards. However, the other four counties do
345
White, January 24, 2005.
240
not have a recorded annual reading, which might be the result of incomplete readings
or the lack of monitors within the areas to record ozone levels.
346
Furthermore,
counties such as Waller and Montgomery makes up a small percentage of the
regions's total population. Harris and Fort Bend counties have the largest population
in the region. Thus, smaller counties without much industrial plant might feel that
their interests are different than the larger, more urbanized and industrial counties,
making cooperation in the region more difficult to institute.
Table 44. Annual Ground-Level Ozone Readings of Houston Non-attainment
Region
County 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Brazoria N/A 0.112 0.079 0.086 0.095 0.097 0.103 0.093 0.094 0.086 0.076
Chamber n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Fort Bend n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Galveston N/A 0.12 0.093 0.083 0.093 0.092 0.088 0.081 0.082 0.087 0.069
Harris 0.121 0.124 0.117 0.11 0.101 0.113 0.104 0.102 0.106 0.09 0.083
Liberty n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Montgomery n/a 0.085 0.1 0.09 0.082 0.094 0.08 0.084 0.093 0.076 0.073
Waller n/a/ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: U.S. EPA
346
The lack of monitors in some areas does make the comparison between the different localities
incomplete. However, it can also be theorized that counties without emission monitors set may not be
emitting too much emissions for state or local governments to spend resources to record the emissions
levels in the particular location. Furthermore, the populations of the counties with incomplete readings
or without monitors are smaller than counties within the region that have annual ground-level ozone
readings. Thus, a conclusion can be made that for counties that do not have a recorded annual ground-
level ozone reading, they do not contribute significantly to the region’s overall ground-level ozone
problem.
241
The addition of Brazoria County to the non-attainment region illustrates the
differing interests of local governments, and the potential increase in costs if they are
reclassified as part of the non-attainment region. In 2003, state officials passed a
resolution to expand the vehicle emissions testing to counties outside of Harris
County. Brazoria, Galveston, Fort Bend, and Montgomery counties’ residents would
also be subjected to a new vehicle-testing program. However, not all surrounding
counties were supportive of the new regulations. Fort Bend, Montgomery, and
Brazoria counties filed a lawsuit against TCEQ to drop the requirements for their
counties. While Montgomery and Fort Bend counties have dropped their suit,
Brazoria County petitioned for an appeal to the judge’s decision to allow the
emissions testing to go into effect. Officials from the surrounding counties claimed
that most of the pollution comes from Houston and the Ship Channel, and thus the
same requirements should not be placed on the surrounding counties.
347
Many within the county supported Brazoria County’s opposition to the
inclusion in the Houston non-attainment region. Brazoria County’s business
representatives and chambers of commerce protested the inclusion of Brazoria
County in the smog plan for the Houston non-attainment region. Business
representatives believe that restrictive policies will hurt the area’s economy.
Furthermore, they contend that a predominately rural county should not be forced to
347
Cappiello. "More Counties to Test Emissions/ Vehicle Crackdown Looms." Houston Chronicle.
April 29, 2003.
242
endure the same restrictions as Harris County, which is more developed than
Brazoria.
Businesses and the chambers of commerce of Brazoria did not support a
universal approach to emissions controls in the greater Houston area. To encourage a
united front from businesses, residents, and government officials, the Brazosport
Area Chamber of Commerce formed the Business Coalition Task Force to further
encourage the unity of the county.
348
Environmental/Citizens Groups
Environmental and citizens groups have been actively involved in the
Houston region and have played an indispensable role in cleaning the region’s air
quality and bringing the region into compliance with federal regulations on ground-
level ozone. Environmental groups such as the Galveston-Houston Association for
Smog Prevention (GHASP) have stepped in when other local governments and state
officials did not or were not able to take a stronger stance on the issue. Although the
groups do not have the power to make legislative decisions on the matter, their
constant presence and actions are a reminder to local governments and their leaders
that air quality is a regional issue that must be solved collectively.
The creation of a Smog Action Task Force by GHASP is an example of
environmental groups taking the lead when conflict or lack of progress were evident
in the efforts to bring more awareness and clean up the region’s air quality. Smog
348
Meeks. Houston Chronicle. July 26, 2000.
243
Action Task Force is a regional organization that was created to promote the issuing
of smog forecasts in the region to help protect the public’s health. The group was
made up of 42 environmental, health, legal, and medical groups
349
, making them one
of the largest environmental coalitions in Houston. The Task Force was created by
GHASP with the goal of petitioning government leaders to issue smog forecasts in
the Houston region. The H-GAC’s Regional Air Quality Planning Committee
originally set up a panel to develop plans on issuing smog forecasts. However, due to
strong opposition from the local business community, especially the Greater Houston
Partnership, the panel was dissolved. Thus, GHASP took the initiative when G-HAC
and local leaders such as Mayor Lainer did not take action in issuing smog
forecasts.
350
In addition to creating a Task Force, GHASP provides information on
air quality and health risks to local governments. They issued a 130-page report
written by toxicologists, physicians, attorneys, engineers, and other professionals,
hoping that local officials will use the report when setting air quality policies.
351
The Houston Environmental Foresight Committee and the Citizen’s Clean
Air Project are other coalitions of environmentalists and health professionals who
provide information and lobby local governments and state officials on the region’s
air pollution. The Houston Environmental Foresight Committee is a 32-member
349
Some of the members of the Task Force included: American Lung Association, Audubon Society,
Sierra Club, Houston Trial Lawyers Association and Respiratory Consultants of Houston.
350
Dawson, Bill. Houston Chronicle. September 16, 1995.
351
Dawson, Bill. "Local Group’s Report Calls for Action to Cut Pollution." Houston Chronicle.
December 18, 1996.
244
group consisting of environmental, business, minority, and other community leaders
in the region. The Committee ranks issues in the region that need attention from local
leaders. The Committee ranked outdoor air pollution as one of the areas that had the
most room for improvement. The Committee hoped that the rankings could be used
to illustrate how the whole region contributes to the problem, and that everyone
needs to work together to solve the problem.
352
The Citizen’s Clean Air Project is also a coalition of environmental and
health specialists. In addition to urging Houstonians to help reduce air pollution by
taking actions such as riding the bus, they call out state officials to ensure that the
Houston-area industries are doing their part in helping to clean up the region’s air
quality.
353
Environmentalists in the Houston region have been active and essential in the
efforts to improve the air quality of the region and reduce the ozone levels. When
local and state governments were not able to carry out certain programs or actions,
often environmentalists’ coalitions have taken action to bring the issue to the general
public. Task forces and reports were produced by the coalitions to not only provide
information to officials, but to also educate the general public on the issue of ground-
level ozone. In addition, environmentalists have made efforts to influence local
elections concerning environmental issues. The Houston Conservation Voters, a new
352
Dawson, Bill. "Clean Air Tops Panel’s Rankings/ Minority Groups Help Set Priorities." Houston
Chronicle. January 31, 1996.
353
Dawson, Bill. "Group Seeks State’s Commitment to ‘Clean Out Air’." Houston Chronicle.
September 17, 1997.
245
political action committee, was created by a band of environmentalists who have
affiliation with various environmental groups in the region. Houston Conservation
Voters was created to build on the successes that environmentalists have had in the
region to influence local elections on issues regarding parks and air quality.
354
Environmentalists have also voiced their opinions on the creation of a independent
regional agency to achieve cleaner air for the eight-county region. A model similar to
the South Coast Air Quality Management District of California was recommended in
the Houston region. In Texas, the legal authority to create plans and regulations for
Houston is vested in the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.
An independent regional agency can overcome a standoff between local and
state officials when choosing strategies to reduce air pollution.
355
Despite the lack of
legislative powers, environmental groups in Houston have been a forceful actor in
the region to combat ground-level ozone.
Businesses
Business leaders and organizations have been influential in promoting and
inhibiting programs aimed at improving the region’s air quality and being in
compliance with federal standards on ground-level ozone. Business leaders were able
to stop programs or policies that were aimed at improving the air quality of the
region. For example, when the City of Houston decided to issue smog forecasts,
354
Dawson, Bill. "Environmental Activists PAC A New Punch." Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 1.
April 12, 1999.
355
Dawson, Bill. "Area Agency For Clean Air Is Suggested." Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 35.
January 21, 2000.
246
business leaders were able to stop the forecasts from being broadcast. Other cities
with less severe smog problems than Houston were issuing smog forecasts; however,
in Houston, the forecasting was delayed because of opposition from business leaders.
The GHP and the Chamber of Commerce of the region expressed doubts with regard
to the accuracy of the meteorologists’ prediction methods. They claimed that
inaccurate forecasts would alarm the public and hinder economic development and
attracting new businesses to the region. Thus, the H-GAC’s Regional Air Quality
Planning Committee abandoned the program.
356
Business leaders were also influential in supporting and promoting programs
that aimed at reducing ground-level ozone in the region. GHP, the main
representative of businesses in the region, announced in 1998 the formation of a
business coalition to take the lead in the creation of an ozone reduction plan for the
region. GHP, in collaboration with the city, county, and H-GAC officials, wanted to
explore ways to bring different interests together to solve the region’s air quality
issues. GHP expressed its concerns on the issue of air quality and wanted to be a
participant with other regional leaders in finding a solution.
357
The GHP has been
actively involved in initiatives and programs to improve the region’s air quality. It
has pledged its support to various programs, such as expanding the vehicle-emissions
testing. In addition, the Business Coalition for Clean Air (BCCA), an affiliate of
356
Dawson Bill. “Lanier Approves Smog Alerts for City/Some Believe Forecasts Not Accurate.”
Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 31. August 4, 1995.
357
Dawson, Bill. "Area Leaders Seek Solution After EPA Hits Smog Plan." Houston Chronicle.
Section A, p. 1. November 10, 1998.
247
GHP, sponsored radio, newspaper, and TV ads to convey the message to clean up the
region’s air. Tips on actions individuals and businesses can take to help reduce air
pollution were also given during the campaign. A central message of the ad is that
despite the differences of opinion, residents of the Houston region can work together
to fight smog and clean the region’s air quality.
358
The petrochemical and refining industries have also been involved in the
region’s efforts to improve air quality. The petrochemical and refining industries
have been the target of many environmentalists, and others who believe that the
region’s unhealthy air quality is a result of the two industries. Although this may be
true, and at times the industries do not cooperate with local officials and other
organizations, they have been doing what they can to help improve air quality. For
example, the petrochemical and refining industry sponsored the addition of seven
new air quality monitors in the Houston region. The addition of the high-tech
instruments brings the number of monitors in the region to 10. According to both
state and industry officials the new monitors will help to better understand the
formation of ozone in the Houston region, and the actions that need to be taken to
meet the federal standards.
359
Five industrial groups agreed to pay for the installation
of seven new air quality monitors in the Houston region. This was part of a
compromise that was reached to exclude the Houston region’s refineries and
358
Dawson, Bill. Ad Campaign Aimed At Clearing The Air/ Coalition Targets Area’s Effort To
Reduce Smog. Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 21. March 13, 2001.
359
Cappiello, Dina. "Monitors Keep Up-To-Minute Tabs On Area’s Ozone." Houston Chronicle.
Section A, p. 23. October 1, 2003.
248
petrochemical plants from measuring toxic pollutants emitted from flares and other
equipment. Companies along the Houston Ship Channel in Texas City, Freeport,
Sweeny, and Chocolate Bayou have agreed to fund the seven new monitors.
However, environmentalists are concerned that while the new monitors will enable
the region to enhance the measuring of pollution, they will not help in nabbing
companies that are exceeding pollution levels. The TCEQ will not use the
information gathered from the seven monitors along the Ship Channel for
enforcement cases.
360
Thus, the intentions of the petrochemical and refining
companies have been called into question.
Summary of Houston Metropolitan Region
The Houston metropolitan region has been identified by the U.S. EPA as one
of the worst violators of ground-level ozone in the nation. Failure to meet the federal
standards on ground-level ozone will bring serious economic impact for the whole
region. Similar to the Dallas metropolitan area, regional organizations such as the
Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) play a vital role in providing incentives
and assistance to local governments to reduce the added costs of reducing ozone. In
addition to the regional organizations, the Houston region had strong leaders who
were vital in the region’s efforts to reduce ozone. Harris County Judge Eckels, and
three mayors of Houston (Brown, Lanier, and White) were advocates of cleaning up
the air quality of the region. The mayors of the City of Houston took on a leadership
360
Cappiello, Dina. "Air Quality Monitors Viewed As Trade-Off/ Critics Say Devices Provide Better
Ozone Data But Less Scrutiny Of Industrial Pollution." Houston Chronicle. Section A, p. 37. October
17, 2003.
249
role in the region, bringing the region together to help solve the air pollution
problem. For example, during his tenure as mayor of Houston, Mayor Brown
convened a regional air quality summit that brought regional actors together to
discuss the ground-level ozone problems. Furthermore, Mayor Brown was able to
persuade the Houston City Council to fund a regional study on the impact of ground-
level ozone on human health. This can further reduce the financial burdens of
smaller local governments and thus can help to reduce overall transaction costs that
local governments will have to face. Mayors Lanier and White, like Mayor Brown,
also provided a leadership role in the region to clean up its air quality. The
availability of leadership in the region is critical not only for the creation of
governance structure, but is also vital to maintaining a effective governance
structure.
The environmental and business groups in the Houston region are also
actively involved in the ground-level ozone problem of the region. Environmental
groups such as GHASP often take on issues and initiatives that local governments
cannot or do not support. For example, GHASP took on the leadership role and
created the Smog Action Task Force in support of issuing smog forecasts for the
region. Local governments in the region dropped their support for smog forecasts
when the business communities showed strong opposition. Environmental groups
such as GHASP and the Houston Environmental Foresight Committee often support
programs and initiatives that local governments cannot or do not support. Thus, they
provide another source of information and pressure for the region. The business
250
community in the region is generally supportive of cleaning up the region’s air
quality. However, often initiatives and programs can also hurt the economic
atmosphere of the region, causing businesses to show strong opposition. GHP, one of
the main business coalitions in the region, has been a strong supporter and also a
strong dissenter on ground-level ozone programs. GHP strongly opposed the smog-
forecasting program, but also formed a business coalition to combat air pollution in
the region. The petrochemical and oil industries in the region are also active
supporters and dissenters of programs to reduce ground-level ozone in the region.
The industry is one of the main contributors to the problem, and thus strict
regulations are placed on the industry. At times, the oil and petrochemical industries
would oppose certain programs and initiatives, and often take legal action. However,
they also support programs such as paying for the installation and maintenance of air
monitors to measure the levels of pollutions in the region. Both the environmental
and business groups are vital players in the regional efforts to reduce ground-level
ozone. The voices and actions of these groups are stronger and more prevalent than
the groups in the Dallas region.
6.3 Comparative Analysis of Dallas and Houston’s Regional Governance for
Ground-Level Ozone Reduction
The Houston and Dallas regions are both facing tough battles to clean up the
region’s air quality and be in compliance with the federal standards on ground-level
ozone. Both regions and their leaders are well aware of the potential economic
sanctions, such as loss of highway funding and limits on economic growth, that can
251
be placed if the regions are not in attainment of ground-level ozone standards. Upon
closer examination of the two regions and their efforts to coordinate regional efforts
to reduce ozone, variations exist that can help to explain the differences in the
outcomes of the two regions.
Supporters of Institutional Collective Action state that for the formation of
regional cooperation to take place, common interests or policy objectives are
necessary. Furthermore, with common interests or policy objectives, the cost can be
lowered for local governments who choose to be part of the regional governance
mechanism. Both regions would face economic sanctions if they are not in
compliance with federal standards on ground-level ozone; however, the willingness
to face tougher standards can depend on the amount of emissions that the individual
counties contribute to the overall region’s emissions. Thus, the interests of each local
government and the common interests of local governments will help to create an
effective governance structure that will be successful in reducing ground-level
ozone.
The interests of local governments in a region are tied specifically to the
sources and amounts of pollution. Local governments within a region do not produce
the same amounts of emissions that contribute to the overall ozone level in the
region. Furthermore, the sources of emissions vary amongst local governments.
Thus, local governments with fewer emissions and facilities, or mobile sources, will
have different interests compared to local governments who are the main
contributors to the regional air quality problems. The number of facilities, and the
252
amounts of NOx and VOC emissions that these facilities produce, provide an
understanding of the variation in local government interests. In addition to point-
source emissions, non-point emissions sources also influence the regional
governance structure to reduce ground-level ozone in the region.
The interests of local governments - specifically the sources of emissions that
contribute to the regional ground-level ozone problem - impact the regional
governance structure. Localities with a clustering of polluting facilities in one or two
counties, compared to other regions where the facilities are dispersed, will have a
harder time forming a cooperative relationship within the region. This is evident in
the Dallas region. Figure 12 illustrates the locations of facilities within the region
that produce NOx and VOC, which contribute to the region’s ground-level ozone
formation. Clustering of facilities in Tarrant and Dallas Counties is evident, while
the other seven counties do not have as many facilities. This has been a point of
contention in the region, as evident by Ellis County’s efforts to convince state
officials to not include Ellis County in the non-attainment area.
Ellis County has 15 facilities within its jurisdiction, which emitted 13,373
tons of NOx, and 1,996 tons of VOC (Table 45). Although Ellis County only has 15
facilities, the amounts of VOC and NOx emitted from these facilities are substantial,
and often by far the largest in the region. Despite this, Ellis County did not want to
be included in the non-attainment region and face stricter ozone standards. However,
for Dallas, Tarrant, and other counties, exclusion of Ellis County, which contributes
significantly to the region’s overall ground-level ozone problem, is not an acceptable
253
proposition. For counties such as Dallas and Tarrant, which have strict regulations
placed on them, the exclusion of Ellis County places more burdens on them to reduce
emissions to clean up the region’s air quality. The exclusion of Ellis County will
further increase their costs to reduce their ozone-causing emissions. Thus, varying
interests of the local governments makes the formation of regional cooperation more
difficult. Furthermore, even if a regional governance structure does exist, its
effectiveness will be limited compared to other regions with local governments with
common interests.
Figure 12. Dallas Non-Attainment Region Facility Locator (2002)
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation
254
Table 45. Dallas Non-attainment Area Facilities Annual VOC & NOx Emissions
2002 1999 1996
County Facilities Nox VOC Facilities Nox VOC Facilities Nox VOC
Collin 13 763 342 14 1,336 391 7 1,505 211
Dallas 93 3,950 2,599 107 10,519 3,408 64 7,861 3,939
Denton 9 186 275 13 753 630 9 774 470
Ellis 15 13,373 1,996 12 11,225 3,042 10 11,809 812
Johnson 4 1,500 252 3 1,984 139 3 1,220 223
Kaufman 5 99 202 4 163 158 3 9 263
Parker 8 917 221 7 948 265 3 642 121
Rockwall N/a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tarrant 76 3,752 2,241 83 6,125 3,157 66 5,007 4,180
The Dallas region’s main emissions that form ground-level ozone are from
mobile sources. Figure 13 graphs the different sources of NOx within the region.
Substantial amounts of NOx are emitted from highway vehicles and off-highway
vehicles. Thus, it can be inferred that the region’s road and off-road vehicles are the
main contributors to the ground-level ozone problem. For counties such as Ellis,
which has primarily industrial emissions, this makes the argument that they are not
as responsible for the overall air quality of the region as other localities that have
more residents and cars. Furthermore, the ability to track which counties contribute
to mobile sources of emission is more difficult than tracking point-source emissions.
Thus, consensus building on reduction of non-point sources can be harder to achieve.
In addition, reduction of non-point sources - specifically vehicle emissions - requires
substantial lifestyle changes from residents, which can also be difficult to achieve.
255
Thus, for a region with non-point sources as the main contributor to the ground-level
ozone of the region, the interests of local governments within the region will vary,
and a lifestyle change for residents can be difficult to achieve.
Figure 13. Dallas MSA NOx Sources
The Houston non-attainment area has faced similar concerns as some of the
counties in the Dallas region. However, differences also exist between the two
regions. In the Houston region, the emissions sources, and the facilities that produce
emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, are more dispersed
throughout the region. Figure 14 illustrates the location of facilities within the
256
Houston region that emit VOCs and NOx. When the map of the Dallas region is
compared to the Houston region, variation is evident in the locations of facilities that
emit pollutants throughout the region. Although clustering of the facilities is evident
in Harris County, the other counties also have a fair amount of pollution facilities
within their jurisdiction.
Figure 14. Houston Non-Attainment Region Facility Locator (2002)
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation
257
The polluting facilities are more dispersed in the Houston region than in the
Dallas region. Table 46 lists the annual amounts of VOC and NOx emitted from the
facilities within the region.
Table 46. Houston Non-attainment Area Facilities Annual VOC & NOx Emissions
2002 1999 1996
County Facilities Nox VOC Facilities Nox VOC Facilities Nox VOC
Brazoria 50 20,852 6,111 53 31,919 5,269 37 37,260 7,760
Chambers 38 4,941 2,041 38 8,732 1,743 31 13,449 3,164
For Bend 33 18,160 744 31 35,673 898 17 45,008 942
Galveston 31 16,808 6,899 33 26,751 10,692 31 28,986 16,353
Harris 281 45,197 30,269 287 77,669 35,234 255 90,687 59,221
Liberty 16 730 465 15 705 388 14 1,111 1,237
Montgomery 22 3,525 674 26 6,386 869 23 6,907 3,542
Waller 11 1,065 238 15 2,285 253 11 2,260 247
Harris County has the most polluting facilities, and these facilities produce
the most amounts of VOC and NOx in the region. However, unlike in the Dallas
region, which had significant differences in the amounts of VOC and NOx being
produced within each county, the variation in Houston is smaller. Fort Bend,
Galveston, and Brazoria counties, while they do not produce as many emissions as
Harris County, do produce significant amounts. When the locations of refineries,
some of the main point sources in the region, are also examined, although Harris
County does have the most within its jurisdiction, other counties such as Chamber,
Liberty, Galveston, and Brazoria also have major petroleum refineries within their
258
jurisdiction (Table 47). Thus, the distribution of emissions in the Houston region,
especially point sources, is not as skewed as in the Dallas region. Furthermore, in
Houston, both point sources and mobile sources are contributors to the ground-level
ozone problem. Thus, even for local governments without a major industrial plant or
facility within their jurisdiction, their residents also contribute to the region’s
ground-level ozone problem through their automobile usage.
Table 47. Petroleum Refineries In the Houston Metropolitan Area
Petroleum Refineries Location (City) County
Belvieu Environmental Fuels Mont Belvieu Chambers and Liberty
BP Products North America Inc. Texas City Galveston
ConocoPhillips Company Sweeny Brazoria
Deer Park Refining LTD Partnership Deer Park Harris
Equistar Chemicals LP Channelview Harris
ExxonMobile Refining & Supply Co Baytown Harris
361
Houston Refining LP Houston Harris
Marathon Petroleum Co LLC Texas City Harris
Valero Refining Co Texas LP Houston Harris
Velero Refining Co Texas LP Texas City Harris
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=TX
Compared to the Dallas region, the interests of local governments in the
Houston region are more alike, and thus the prospect of forming and maintaining an
361
Part of the city extends into Chamber County.
259
effective regional governance structure is greater. The locations of polluting facilities
within the region are more dispersed compared to the Dallas region. Thus, while
Harris County may have the most polluting facilities within the region, the other
counties also have numerous facilities within their jurisdictions. Except for the
smaller, more rural counties within the region, everyone contributes to the point-
source emissions in the region. Furthermore, the differences between the amounts of
point-source and non-point source emissions within the Houston region are not as
skewed as in the Dallas region. Figure 15 provides a breakdown of the different
sources of NOx emissions in the region. The NOx emissions sources in the region
vary compared to the Dallas region. In Dallas, non-point sources were the main
contributors to the region's NOx emissions. In the Houston region, both point and
non-point sources contribute to the region’s ground-level ozone problem. As evident
in Figure 15, fuel combustion from electric utilities and industrial activities make up
half of the NOx emissions in the region. The other half of the NOx emissions are
from both highway and off-road motor vehicles. Thus, in the Houston region, both
residents and industries contribute to the ground-level ozone problem. All localities
contribute to the ozone problem of the region through motor vehicle emissions from
their residents driving, or industries within their jurisdictions emitting NOx and/or
VOC that create ground-level ozone. Thus, for regions such as Houston that have
both point-source and mobile sources that contribute to the formation of ground-level
ozone, finding common interests and forming cooperative relationships is more
successful. However, for regions like Dallas, where mobile sources are the main
260
contributor to the region’s ozone problems, forming cooperative relationships can be
more difficult. Mobile sources cannot be distributed accordingly throughout the
region. For example, residents can live in one city or county, but also commute to
another county or city for work or other activities. Thus, while the resident lives in
one locality, they drive in another locality and contribute to the ground-level ozone
there. Furthermore, for regions with mobile sources as the main contributor to
ground-level ozone, local governments with smaller populations will make the
argument that they are not responsible for the region’s air quality problem. Thus,
agreeing on common interests or even coming to a consensus becomes difficult.
Figure 15. Houston PMSA NOx Emissions Sources
261
In addition to interests and similar policy objectives that are essential in the
success of forming cooperative relationships in the region, the availability of
leadership to take the policy objectives and act upon them is also vital. The strong
and active leadership shown in the Houston region was different than that in the
Dallas region, which did not have as many leaders who took on the region's ground-
level ozone problem. City of Houston’s Mayors Brown and White were powerful
leaders, not just in the city’s efforts to reduce emissions that produce ozone, but the
also in collaboration at the regional level. Mayor Brown hosted a regional air quality
summit, and was able to gain the approval of the City of Houston’s council to pay for
a study that examined the regional health impact of ground-level ozone. Mayor
White also contributed significantly to the regional efforts. Using the nuisance
ordinance, Mayor White was able to gain cooperation from regional industries to
further their emission reductions.
In addition to the two mayors, the environmental and business groups were
powerful players in the region. Environmental groups such as GHASP formed
numerous coalitions and task forces for programs and initiatives that local
governments were not willing to take on. The environmental groups’ leadership
provided information on the issue to the citizens and to policy makers with ease. In
addition to environmental groups, business groups and coalitions were also active in
the region. The Greater Houston Partnership, representing most of the businesses in
the region, was one of the key actors in the region’s efforts to clean up the air
262
quality. The GHP not only protected the interests of regional businesses, but was also
proactive in air quality issues.
The Dallas non-attainment region, similar to the Houston non-attainment
region, had key leaders who worked relentlessly to improve the air quality of the
region. Collin County Judge Ron Harris was a vital actor in the region’s efforts to
improve the air quality. Judge Harris was able to bring the issue to the forefront.
Mayor Laura Miller of the City of Dallas was also essential in the region’s efforts to
clean the air. Her ability and willingness to take on large businesses, such as the
electric company, helped to promote the issue. However, unlike the leaders in the
Houston region, Dallas leaders were weaker in forging regional summits or
coalitions to combat ground-level ozone.
The business and environmental leaders were also weaker in Dallas than the
Houston region. While environmental groups such as Downwinders were actively
involved, their accomplishments compared to the Houston environmental groups did
not produce the same results. Furthermore, the business community in Dallas was
not as cohesive as the Greater Houston Partnership and the committees that were
affiliated with them.
6.4 Conclusion
Both the Dallas and Houston regions face the monumental task of reducing
ground-level ozone and bringing the regions into compliance with federal standards.
Failure to reach attainment status will result in economic sanctions imposed by the
federal government. Both regions and their local governments have been working
263
together to meet the federal standards. Regional governance structures have been
established in the two regions to combat the ozone problem. However, variation does
exist between the two regions and the effectiveness of the regional governance
structures that have been set up to combat the ground-level ozone problem. Table 48
provides a general overview of the two regions and the variables that impact the
regional governance structures of the two regions. The three variables, and the
interactions within each region, can be attributed to the variation of the effectiveness
of the regional governance structures in the two regions.
Table 48. Summary of Dallas and Houston Regional Cooperation Variables
Dallas Houston
Interest/Policy Objective Moderate/Low High
Leadership Moderate High
Emission Source Non-point/Mobile Point and Non-Point
Interest/Policy Objectives
The interests of the local governments within a region significantly influence
the effectiveness of the regional governance structure. The level of interest of local
governments in reducing ground-level ozone in a region will impact the effectiveness
of the governance structure. The level of interest of local governments is impacted
by the sources of emissions and the distribution of emission sources within their
jurisdictions. In the Dallas region, emissions sources are clustered in one or two
264
major counties, while in the Houston region the sources are more dispersed. Thus,
localities in the Dallas region that do not have polluting industries or a high level of
motor vehicle emissions will not actively take part in regional efforts to reduce
ozone.
Businesses might not take an interest because non-point sources in Dallas are
the main emissions contributing to the ozone problem, not industrial sources. Interest
in the Dallas region is more dispersed, and thus cooperative relationships can be
more difficult to form and maintain.
Leadership
Leadership is another variable that is vital in effective regional governance
structure. The availability and the ability of leaders to bring attention to the issue can
impact the success of the regional governance structure to reduce ground-level
ozone. Leadership includes both individuals and local governments, such as the City
of Houston, which has taken a leadership role in the region. In the Dallas region,
while some leaders are involved in the regional governance to reduce ground-level
ozone, compared to the Houston region involvement is moderate. The Houston
region has more involvement of local governments, government and non-
government leaders, thus making the governance structure more effective in reducing
ground-level ozone.
In the Dallas region, leadership involvement in regional governance is
moderate. Local governmental leaders such as Mayor Laura Miller, County Judge
Ron Harris and Margaret Keliher were influential leaders in the Dallas region’s
265
efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. All three local leaders took on an active role in
the governance structure that was instituted in the Dallas region. However, compared
to the Houston region, leadership from other actors was not as evident.
Environmental groups and businesses in the region did not take on a strong
leadership role. During the controversy of including Ellis County in the non-
attainment region, environmental groups such as Downwinders At Risk took legal
action, and local businesses within Ellis County formed a coalition to stop the
inclusion of Ellis County in the non-attainment region. However, environmental and
business groups taking action in support of or against regional actions to reduce
ground-level ozone were limited.
In the Houston region, involvement of local government leaders and other
actors was high compared to that of the Dallas region. The City of Houston and its
mayors took on an active and often aggressive role in bringing the region together to
combat ground-level ozone. Mayors Brown, Lanier, and White were all powerful
figures in the region’s fight to reduce ozone. The mayors of Houston hosted a
regional air quality summit and got the City Council’s approval to fund a study
examining the regional impact of ground-level ozone. The strong presence of the
City of Houston, the central city in the region, is vital to the overall regional
governance structure. In addition to local governmental leaders, the business and
environmental groups are also active players in the region. Environmental groups
such as GHASP and Houston Environmental Foresight Committee provide
information by creating task forces and committees that examine the negative effects
266
of ground-level ozone. Furthermore, GHASP takes on a leadership role when local
governments are not able to due to strong opposition from residents or businesses.
Business and industry organizations are also active in the region. GHP, the main
business representative, and the petrochemical industry, provided strong voices
within the regional governance structure. While the business communities voice their
opposition to strong emission policies that can be negative to the economy, general
support is given to the region’s efforts to solve the ground-level ozone problem.
Thus, the different leaders that are involved in the Houston regional governance
structure to reduce ground-level ozone enable the governance structure to be
effective.
Emissions sources
The two regions’ emission sources vary significantly and contribute to the
overall governance structure of the regions. The types of emission sources, and the
amounts of emissions, contribute to the overall interest of the region and the ability
to form cooperative relationships to combat the ground-level ozone problems. Both
point and non-point sources contribute significantly to the two regions’ air quality
problem. However, for the Dallas region, non-point sources, particularly motor
vehicles, are the main sources of emissions that contribute to the region’s ground-
level ozone, while the Houston region’s point and non-point sources both contribute
to the problem. Motor vehicle emissions are harder to control and require a change in
lifestyle for residents, which can be inconvenient and often result in resistance. In the
Dallas region, the inclusion of Ellis County in the non-attainment region is an
267
example of a dispute that can arise in the region, especially if the local government
does not think it contributes to the main sources of emissions. Ellis County’s
resistance to motor vehicle testing, and being included in the non-attainment region,
illustrates the tension that can be created if one source of emissions contributes to the
majority of the region’s air pollution. Ellis County produces more industrial
emissions, which do not contribute as much as motor vehicles to the region’s
problem. Thus, the effectiveness of the governance structure can be limited when
interests and sources of emissions are not similar for the majority of the local
governments. Cooperative relationships are harder to form amongst local
governments with differing interests and sources of emissions.
In the Houston region, both point and non-point source emissions contribute
to the region’s ground-level ozone problem. Point sources, especially the refineries
and the petrochemical industries, are significant contributors to the overall air
pollution problem. However, non-point sources, especially motor vehicles, also
produce substantial emissions. Thus, unlike in the Dallas region, where emissions
from motor vehicles are the main source contributing to ground-level ozone
formation, in the Houston region both sources contribute. Hence, except for the small
rural localities with a small population, most local governments in the region are
contributors to the ground-level ozone problem of the region. Local governments
with refineries or other polluting industries emit point-source emissions within their
jurisdiction, while others localities’ residents contribute to the motor vehicle
emissions of the region. Therefore, this provides multiple areas for local
268
governments to form cooperative relationships, and maintain an effective governance
structure within the region. Furthermore, the different sources of emissions provide
opportunities for more actors to become involved in the governance system to reduce
ozone.
269
Chapter Seven
Conclusion
Introduction
This dissertation centered on the theme that local characteristics and local
governments must be considered when examining the trend of national ground-level
ozone reduction. The question of why some regions were successful in reducing
ground-level ozone, while other areas are continuously battling ozone, must include
an extensive examination of local characteristics and governments and the impact
they have on ozone reduction success. Past research on air pollution has focused on
the role of national and state governments in policy formulation and implementation
to improve air quality. Local regions were not the main emphasis of much research
that focused on environmental issues such as the Clean Air Act. Research conducted
on the Clean Air Act often focused on the impact of state and federal government on
the implementation of the Act, and the success that the Act was able to achieve.
While the national and state governments and their contexts are significant, the lack
of research on local involvement in environmental issues places limitations on fully
understanding the outcomes of the results. An in-depth study of local governments’
capacities, business and industries, and regional governance structures in localities, is
necessary to provide a complete analysis of the success of the Clean Air Act in
reducing ground-level ozone.
The growth of the metropolitan regions has brought about an economic
prosperity that has created an influx of people to the regions. The growth has created
270
jobs, and brought economic growth to the regions. However, the economic growth
has also had an impact on the environment, often leading to deterioration of air,
water, and other natural resources. In particular, the increase in the number of
automobiles and heavy polluting industries in the metropolitan regions has made a
significant impact on the air quality of many metropolitan regions throughout the
nation. The federal government has taken measures to protect the air quality of the
nation. To improve the overall ambient air quality of the nation, the federal
government passed the Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments. While some
regions were successful in reducing their overall air pollution - in particular ground-
level ozone, which is one of the main air pollution problems in metropolitan regions
- others were not as successful, and are still struggling to meet the federal standard.
Past research that has examined the effectiveness of air pollution policies tends to
focus on the national and state actors to determine the varying results. While such
research can provide an explanation of the results, the absence of local governments
and actors in the process means that a complete explanation is not provided. Local
governments, especially since the era of New Federalism, have become vital actors
in the policy process. Often, it is at the local level where specific policies are
implemented, and residents and businesses are asked to alter lifestyles and practices
for the successful implementation of state or federal policies. Thus, the examination
of local characteristics and contexts is essential in analyzing policy results.
Through an in-depth analysis of the City of Dallas and City of Houston cases,
this dissertation suggest that local governments, institutions, and actors are variables
271
that must be included in studies of air pollution policies, particularly with respect to
ground-level ozone. The inclusion of local variables such as business involvements,
prominent industries of the region, local government capacity, and regional
governance structures, will further enrich the studies of air pollution policies and
provide an accurate analysis of variation in the outcomes of ground-level ozone
policies. To examine the local variables, this dissertation conducted in-depth case
studies of the Dallas and Houston Metropolitan regions, and the processes and
actions taken to reduce ground-level ozone. The two metropolitan regions are both
located in the State of Texas, and have considerable problems with their air quality.
The Dallas region is classified as a moderate non-attainment area for ground-level
ozone, while the Houston region is classified as a severe non-attainment area for
ground-level ozone. The in-depth analysis of the two regions examined the political
process and the obstacles that local governments engage in to reduce ozone and meet
the federal standards. To conclude this dissertation, this chapter will provide a
summary of the local variables that have been addressed in this dissertation and the
impact they have on local governments' reduction of ground-level ozone.
Furthermore, in conjunction with a summary of the case analysis, a comparison of
the two cases with other metropolitan regions in the nation will also be examined.
This dissertation has examined the local context, institutions and
governments, and the impact they have had on local government’s efforts to reduce
ground-level ozone and bring the regions into compliance with federal standards.
Although environmental policies are formulated at the federal level, it is at the state
272
and - especially - the local level where these policies are implemented. Thus, a
uniform federal policy can bring different results in the numerous metropolitan
regions throughout the nation. This result can be attributed to the differences in
context, institutions, and governments that are present in the numerous metropolitan
regions in the nation. These variables contribute to the different outcomes that
localities have faced in reducing their ground-level ozone. Thus, to provide a
complete analysis of the nation’s ground-level ozone policies, it is vital to examine
the federal and state levels, but the local institutions, actors, and governance
structures must also be extensively studied.
Business, Industry, and Ground-Level Ozone
Businesses and industries are important actors in local politics and can
influence the decisions of other actors in implementing or stopping policies from
being implemented. Throughout history, businesses have been influential actors in
local politics
362
, often influencing policy decisions. Thus, the study of policy
implementation is not complete without an examination of businesses - not only their
influence in local politics, but also the reasons for being involved in local ground-
level ozone reduction plans.
Businesses are important actors in metropolitan regions, and can often
promote or hinder specific policies from being implemented. In addition to the local
businesses and their leaders, the economic make-up or structure of a region can also
362
See Stone for an analysis of the power of businesses in local governments.
273
significantly impact the success of implementing policies that promote
environmental protections. In the case of air pollution, and specifically ground-level
ozone, business activities are a contributing factor to the overall pollution, and must
be included in remedies presented to solve and improve the air quality of the region.
However, the involvement and role of businesses in reducing local ozone emissions
often varies. Factors such as the sources of emissions and the economy of the region
impact the involvement of businesses and industries in ground-level ozone problems.
The Dallas and Houston case studies provide an empirical explanation for
variation in business involvement in reducing ground-level ozone in the region.
From the case studies of the two cities and their regions, the following conclusions
can be drawn with regard to the role of businesses and industries. The source of
emissions significantly impacts the involvement of businesses in localities and the
region in combating ground-level ozone. In localities with more prominent levels of
non-point sources - specifically emissions from motor vehicles - such as the City of
Dallas and its region, the involvement of businesses is lower than in areas such as the
City of Houston and its region, with similar amounts of point and non-point sources.
Localities with lower industrial contributions to the overall ground-level ozone
problem will see a lower participation rate than other regions where industrial
sources do significantly contribute to the problem. This was evident in the City of
Dallas, whose economy is more centered on non-manufacturing activities, such as
being the site of corporate headquarters for numerous Fortune 500 companies.
Furthermore, as a region centered on service-related industries, less restrictive
274
measures are placed on businesses to reduce their emissions sources. Many of the
businesses in the City of Dallas and its regions took on numerous voluntary
measures, such as providing alternative transportation for employees to reduce the
use of personal vehicles for commuting purposes. Thus, Dallas businesses do not
have strict regulations placed on them to reduce certain percentages of their overall
emissions. Rather, through voluntary measures offered to their employees,
businesses participate in the region’s efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. No strict
regulations are set, thus even if businesses do not actively participate in the process,
it does not significantly impact the daily activities of businesses and the industries
that are involved.
In localities with a higher proportion of industrial emissions, the involvement
of businesses and industry representatives is higher than in localities with little or no
industrial emissions contribution. As illustrated by the City of Houston, businesses
and industries were more involved in the process compared to Dallas. In Houston,
industrial and motor vehicle emissions sources both contribute to the ground-level
ozone problem of the city and its region. Thus, implementation plans for the region
require both sources of emissions to be reduced. Thus, businesses have a vested
interest in the process, in the hope of influencing the decision to place fewer
restrictions on their activities. The involvement of the business leaders and business
interest groups in the SIP process and implementation of plans is essential for
businesses to ensure that requirements are not too stringent for businesses.
Furthermore, businesses in the Houston region were normally supportive of
275
measures such as vehicle emissions testing that were proposed to reduce motor
vehicle emissions. Reduction in motor vehicle emissions can potentially place fewer
burdens on businesses and industries to further reduce their emissions.
Whether they contribute to the main sources of emissions creating ground-
level ozone in the region, businesses will be impacted if reductions are not fulfilled.
If localities are not able to reduce their ground-level ozone and continue to be in non-
compliance with the federal standards, economic sanctions can be imposed on the
region. Such sanctions can limit the economic growth of the region and significantly
reduce federal highway funds for the region. However, there is a difference in how
such reduction is perceived and achieved in the localities, which is affected by the
economic make-up of the region and how much of the emissions are produced by
industrial activities. In localities such as Dallas, where the service industry is
prominent, businesses are not the primary contributors to the ozone problem, but
rather motor vehicles and other non-point sources. In such localities, the involvement
of the business community is lower. When businesses do participate, they often take
on voluntary measures to reduce the overall emissions in the region. However, in
localities such as Houston, where the petrochemical and manufacturing industries are
prominent, businesses are the main contributors to the ground-level ozone problem.
Furthermore, the SIP for the region will also entail precise measures and regulations
for businesses to adhere to, and thus it is essential that businesses participate in the
process to promote and protect their interests.
276
Local Government Capacity and Ground-Level Ozone
In addition to the economic conditions, the ability of local government to act
on issues and policy areas is another variable that has been examined in this
dissertation. The capability of resources and leaderships were two important
elements that substantially impacted the results of the outcomes of the regions’
ground-level ozone plans. The Dallas and Houston case studies demonstrated the
importance of local government capacity in combating ground-level ozone in the
cities and their regions. Capacity of local government can be divided into political
and administrative capabilities to carry out core functions and policy programs.
Administrative capacity includes the availability of financial, technical and human
resources to implement programs and plans. Political capacity specifically measures
the political leadership and its ability to bring the issues at hand to the spotlight and
gather support to implement the plans. The availability of both administrative and
political capacity is essential for local governments to meet the federal standards on
ground-level ozone.
The Dallas and Houston case studies illustrate the importance of local
government capacity in combating ground-level ozone in the city and the region.
Administrative capacity, which includes financial, technical, and administrative
resources, was present in both cities. Governments would prefer a limitless budget
and resources; however, in most circumstances, local governments do not have
limitless budgets and resources. With the limits of the budgets and resources, local
governments provide not only basic functions, but are also given numerous tasks and
277
policies that must be implemented according to the standards set forth by other levels
of government. Ground-level ozone reduction is an example of a plan set by the
federal and state governments that local governments must implement. In order to do
so, resources and knowledge are necessary and can also determine the success of the
implementation of policies and plans to reduce ground-level ozone. The Dallas and
Houston cases have demonstrated the effect of administrative capacity of local
governments on ground-level ozone reduction. Both cities had sufficient resources to
implement programs and plans to reduce ground-level ozone. A significant
proportion of the resources were from the state government, which can be attributed
to the fact that reduction of ozone is a federal mandate and thus state government
provides the necessary resources for local governments. In addition to the resources
from state government, local governments had similar technical and personnel
resources. However, when the political leadership capacity is examined in both
cities, variation between the two cities is noticeable.
Political leadership capacity investigates the ability of political leaders of
local governments to bring attention and implement actions to fulfill the federal
mandate and reduce ground-level ozone within its jurisdiction and the region.
Examples of political leadership include elected officials taking action to implement
conventions on ground-level ozone, approving funding for measures specific to
ozone reduction, and forming collaborative networks within the city and the region
to bring different actors together for a common cause. Although Dallas and Houston
did not show much variation in the level of administrative capacity, differences were
278
visible for the two cities’ political capacities. Compared to the City of Houston, the
City of Dallas’s political leadership capacity was lower, contributing to the differing
results of the two cities. The City of Houston’s mayors played a critical role in city
government, but were also critical players in the region’s efforts to reduce ground-
level ozone. Houston's mayors were crucial in the city’s efforts to form new
initiatives and local government agencies to combat ground-level ozone. During his
tenure, Mayor Lanier took unprecedented actions and requested more local authority
in reducing ozone. Mayor Brown issued an executive order that created the Bureau
of Air Quality Control to help improve the air quality of the city. Mayor White,
during his first tenure as mayor of Houston, made air quality his top priority. The
actions of Houston’s mayors provided the venue for the issue of ground-level ozone
to be addressed. Their actions and involvement engaged residents and other local
actors in the city and the region. The City of Dallas did not have the same level of
political leadership capacity. Although Mayor Miller was a strong advocate for
improving the air quality, other Dallas mayors did not take as a strong stance as
Mayor Miller and the mayors of Houston. Thus, the difference in the level of
involvement of political leaders in the two cities, in conjunction with the availability
of administrative capacity, contributed to the overall outcome of the two cities in
reducing their ground-level ozone. In addition, the involvement of political leaders at
the city level also impacted the regional governance structures present in the two
regions.
279
Regional Governance and Ground-Level Ozone
Air pollution is a problem that does not follow the legal jurisdictions of
individual cities. Thus, one city’s pollution can affect another city, even if the other
city did not contribute to the problem. Hence, the problem of ground-level ozone
requires not only the actions of local governments; a regional effort to lessen ground-
level ozone is also necessary for successful implementation of plans to meet the
federal standards on ground-level ozone. The presence and effectiveness of a
regional governance structure that helps to promote cooperative relationships
amongst the local governments within the region is indispensable for the success of
ground-level ozone reduction.
Leadership, interests, and emissions sources are important variables that
impact the effectiveness of regional governance structures created to reduce ground-
level ozone. The Dallas and Houston case studies demonstrate the interaction of the
variables and the effect they have on regional governance structure. The Dallas
region, in comparison to the Houston region, has a lesser degree of leadership,
common interests by local governments, and the emissions sources that contribute to
the ozone problem are primarily from non-point/mobile sources. The Houston
region, compared to Dallas, has a higher involvement of leadership, common
interests, and the emissions sources are spread throughout the region. Thus, the
differences between the two regions significantly contribute to the overall
effectiveness of the ground-level ozone governance structures in the regions.
Leadership in the regions includes not just local government officials, but other non-
280
governmental actors such as environmental groups and business groups. The
availability of strong leadership enables the differing interests to collaborate on the
issue and find potential solutions to solve the problem. In the Houston region, the
City of Houston’s mayors played an influential role in bringing together differing
interests in the region. Furthermore, the presence of non-governmental actors such as
the GASHP and the GHP provides further leadership, especially when local
governments are constrained to take particular actions. In the Dallas region, the
presence of regional leadership is weaker than in the Houston region. While County
Judges and Mayor Miller did play an influential role in the region, other leaders were
not as prominent as those in the Houston region.
In conjunction with the availability of leadership, the common interests and
sources of emissions within the region also significantly impacts the overall
effectiveness of the governance structure to reduce ground-level ozone. Local
governments will not enter into agreements with other regional actors and
governments if those agreements place a burden on the locality or they do not have
common interests with the regional movement. In addition, the emissions sources
will influence local government’s participation in the regional effort to reduce
ground-level ozone. Depending on the main emissions sources and the locations of
the emitting facilities, the willingness of local government to form regional
cooperative relationships will vary. Thus, in an area with industrial emissions
sources centered in one or two specific localities, other local governments within the
region might not necessarily be actively involved in the governance structure to
281
reduce ground-level ozone. Furthermore, in regions with primarily motor vehicle
emissions, smaller sized local governments will not be as compelled as larger cities
with larger populations to take responsibility for the region’s air pollution. Hence,
larger cities will have stricter regulations placed on them and smaller cities will not
view ground-level ozone as a problem that they must bear. This contrast was present
in the effectiveness of the Dallas and Houston regions’ governance structure. The
Houston region had more local government involvement because the region has a
common interest of decreasing ozone to avoid federal sanction. Furthermore, both
motor vehicle and industrial facilities significantly contribute to the region’s
problem. Thus, even cities with a smaller population are part of the overall problem
of the region. However, for the Dallas region, interest of local governments was not
as consistent as in the Houston region. The Dallas region’s main source of emissions
is motor vehicles. Thus, Dallas and Fort Worth, the two largest cities, are often under
stricter regulations compared to the other cities within the region. Furthermore, while
local governments such as Ellis County have a large amount of industrial pollution
emitting from facilities within the county boundaries, they were not placed under
strict regulation since motor vehicles were the main problem of the region. Thus, for
local governments such as those within Ellis County, involvement in regional
governance structure is not essential. Rather, involvement will increase cost to
implement plans to reduce ground-level ozone within their jurisdiction.
282
The Puzzle and the Hypotheses
The Dallas and Houston cases illustrate the importance of local institutions,
contexts, and actors in implementing policies and plans that are aimed to reduce
ground-level ozone in their regions. Throughout this dissertation, different aspects of
the localities were examined to determine the impact on the overall outcome of the
two cities and their regions in reducing ground-level ozone. Table 49, a three-by-
three matrix, describes the interaction of the three hypotheses in this dissertation in
relation to the Cities of Dallas and Houston’s outcomes on their respective ground-
level ozone reduction plans and policies. As illustrated in Table 49, variations exist
between the two cities, which can explain the differences in the outcomes of the two
cities and their regions in ground-level ozone reduction. In the city of Dallas, there is
less business involvement; local government capacity does exist, but does not have
the same resources as Houston; and the regional governance structure that is present
in the metropolitan area is not as strong and involved as the governance regime in the
Houston region. Thus, Houston, in comparison with Dallas, has a higher level of
involvement from the business communities, more government capacity, and an
effective regional governance structure, which can help explain the positive
outcomes of the city and the region’s efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. All three
local variables are strongly present in Houston, while in Dallas they are weaker.
283
Table 49. Local Variables and Impacts on the Cities of Dallas and Houston
Local Variables City of Dallas City of Houston
Business/ Industry Involvement Medium to Low High
Local Government Capacity Medium High
Regional Governance Medium High
The Dallas and Houston cases clearly illustrate the importance of local
context, institutions, and actors in the outcomes of plans and policies aimed at
reducing ground-level ozone. However, a two-case study has its weakness. The
results of the two cases might be representative of the general metropolitan area in
the nation, or might be an anomaly and the results not applicable to other
metropolitan regions. Thus, the next section of this chapter will provide some basic
comparison of the two cases to metropolitan regions of similar sizes, to help
determine whether variables that were examined in the two cases are applicable to
other metropolitan regions.
284
Beyond Dallas and Houston
The growing concern over deteriorating air quality prompted the federal
government to pass a national standard for criteria pollutants
363
. While some criteria
pollutants, such as lead and sulfur dioxide, have seen a significant reduction, others,
such as particulate matters and ground-level ozone, are still a concern for many of
the regions. Table 50 lists the Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area and their
ground-level ozone trend. While some areas, such as Los Angeles, Orange County,
and Seattle-Bellevue-Everett PMSA, have seen a significantly decreasing trend in
their ozone, other areas, such as Boston and Detroit, have seen an increasing trend.
The decreasing trend in ground-level ozone is particularly evident in regions that are
classified as non-attainment regions by the federal government for ground-level
ozone.
Table 51 lists the PMSAs that violate the federal standards on ground-level
ozone. Most of the largest PMSAs are currently violating the federal standards for
ground-level ozone. Amongst the violators, the Los Angeles and Houston regions are
considered to be the biggest violators of the federal standards.
363
Criteria pollutants include: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter 10
and 2.5, and sulfur dioxide. For more information on the individual criteria pollutants and their
current national trends, refer to www.epa.gov.
285
Table 50. PMSA Ground-Level Ozone Trend
Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area 1992 OZ 2001 OZ Percent Change
Baltimore, MD PMSA 0.094 0.106 12
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 0.09 0.096 6.66
Boston, MA-NH PMSA 0.078 0.1 28.2
Newark, NJ PMSA 0.091 0.101 10.98
New York, NY PMSA 0.091 0.095 4.39
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 0.087 0.098 12.64
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA 0.08 0.094 17.5
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA 0.119 0.08 -32.77
Orange County, CA PMSA 0.099 0.068 -31.31
Dallas, TX PMSA 0.09 0.097 7.77
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 0.086 0.098 13.95
Houston, TX PMSA 0.109 0.101 -7.33
Chicago, IL PMSA 0.071 0.072 1.4
Detroit, MI PMSA 0.077 0.088 14.28
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA 0.078 0.078 0
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA 0.086 0.097 12.79
Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA 0.08 0.074 -7.5
Miami, FL PMSA 0.075 0.067 -10.66
Oakland, CA PMSA 0.065 0.066 1.53
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA 0.181 0.127 -29.83
Sacramento, CA PMSA 0.096 0.091 -5.2
San Francisco, CA PMSA 0.05 0.053 6
San Jose, CA PMSA 0.07 0.079 12.85
Denver, CO PMSA 0.068 0.075 10.29
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA 0.097 0.097 0
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA 0.08 0.066 -17.5
286
Table 51. PMSA and Non-Attainment
Metropolitan Region with Ozone Readings
Above Federal Standards 90-02 Ozone Trend
Baltimore, MD PMSA 12
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 6.66
Boston, MA-NH PMSA 28.2
Newark, NJ PMSA 10.98
New York, NY PMSA 4.39
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 12.64
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA 17.5
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA -32.77
Orange County, CA PMSA -31.31
Dallas, TX PMSA 7.77
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 13.95
Houston, TX PMSA -7.33
Chicago, IL PMSA 1.4
Detroit, MI PMSA 14.28
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA 0
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA 12.79
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA -29.83
Sacramento, CA PMSA -5.2
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA 0
Metropolitan Region with Ozone Readings
Below Federal Standards
Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA -7.5
Miami, FL PMSA -10.66
Oakland, CA PMSA 1.53
San Francisco, CA PMSA 6
San Jose, CA PMSA 12.85
Denver, CO PMSA 10.29
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA -17.5
287
However, as illustrated in Figure 16, the Houston and Los Angeles regions
have experienced a significant success in reducing the ozone emissions
364
Despite
the efforts by the federal government, variation is noticeable across the metropolitan
regions’
365
ground-level ozone trends. While some regions were able to reduce their
ground-level ozone emissions significantly, other regions were not as successful.
Figure 16. PMSA Ground-Level Ozone Trend
364
The two regions are still categorized as one of the worst air quality regions in the nation. However,
the success of the regions are not measured in actual attainment of federal standards but measured
based on the positive reduction trend throughout the years.
365
The variation of the ground-level ozone trend represents the percentage of increases or decreases in
ground-level ozone. Thus, metropolitan regions with a significant decreasing trend can still be well
above the national standards or have the highest ozone reading in the nation.
288
Thus, this dissertation set out to examine why such variation existed in the
outcomes of the metropolitan regions and what accounted for the different outcomes.
It was hypothesized that local context, institutions, and actors contribute to the
variation in the metropolitan regions. To further investigate the impact of the local
variables, two cases (the Dallas and Houston regions) were selected to conduct in-
depth case analyses. The results have shown that local variables do indeed contribute
to the overall outcome of the two regions’ ground-level ozone trend. To further
validate the argument of local variables, the results from the case analyses will be
applied to the nation’s metropolitan areas with populations of one million or more.
Business leaders and the local economy structure played a vital role in Dallas
and Houston’s outcomes in reducing their ground-level ozone. Houston, compared to
Dallas and its region, is more centered on manufacturing industry; the oil and
petrochemical industries are especially active in the region. Furthermore, with a large
population and landmass, the dependency on cars is also significant in the region.
This is evident in the sources of emissions from the Houston region, which are from
motor vehicle emissions and industrial sources. However, emissions in the Dallas
region were primarily from motor vehicles, and industrial sources did not have as
much impact on the overall ground-level ozone in the region. This resulted in the
limited involvement of local businesses and industries in the city and region’s
actions to reduce ozone and fulfill the federal requirements. In addition, when
businesses did get involved, voluntary measures were taken, rather than regulations
or sanctions. Thus, although the presence of businesses and industries in regions can
289
increase the amount of emissions in the region, it can also promote involvement of
the actors in the processes and thus produce positive outcomes in reducing ground-
level ozone. The results from the Dallas and Houston cases are applied to larger
metropolitan regions in the nation and, varying results are recorded. Figure 17
represents the percentage of revenue that manufacturing industries
366
contribute to
the overall economy of the region. The sales, shipment, and receipts of the
manufacturing sector are used as a proxy to measure the presence of the
manufacturing industries within the region. As illustrated in Figure 17, in all the
metropolitan regions except for Fort Lauderdale and Miami, manufacturing
industries contribute significantly to the overall economy of the region.
The relationship between local economy and reduction of ground-level ozone
is examined in Figure 18. The 2002 revenue from manufacturing for the PMSAs are
examined to determine the relationship between the two variables. Conflicting results
are recorded between the two variables, and thus a correlation between the two
cannot be certain. Regions such as Houston and Seattle have recorded a decreasing
trend in their ground-level ozone, and manufacturing industries are influential in
those regions. However, other regions such as Philadelphia and Milwaukee, which
also rely significantly on manufacturing industries, did not show trends similar to
Houston and Seattle. The contradiction between the results of the case analyses and
the national examination can be the result of the proxy variable measurements.
366
Manufacturing industries not only include heavy polluting industries, but also other industries that
actually produce a good in the facilities.
290
Revenue from the manufacturing sector encompasses different sectors of the
manufacturing industries. Some manufacturing industries, such as high-technology
driven manufacturing, produce lower emissions than traditional heavy polluting
industries, such as the petrochemical and steel industries. Furthermore, some
manufacturing industries’ revenue can be greater, thus increasing the region’s
revenue from the manufacturing sector.
Figure 17. Percentage of Manufacturing Sales, Shipment, and Receipts
291
Figure 18. 2002 PMSA Revenue from Manufacturing
The impact of revenue from the manufacturing sector did not correlate with
the ground-level ozone trend of the PMSAs. However, when the levels of NOx
emissions
367
from the manufacturing sectors are examined in relation to the region’s
ground-level ozone, differences are noticeable. Figure 19 illustrates the relationship
between business involvement and ground-level ozone trend. This dissertation made
the assumption that regions with high levels of emissions from businesses will see
more involvement of businesses in the process to reduce ground-level ozone. The
367
NOx, which is one of the emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, is
examined in this analysis. NOx emission sources include automobile and industries, and thus the
examination of NOx to determine the industries’ overall emissions can be used as a measure of
business involvement.
292
involvement produces an overall reduction trend of ozone within the region, as
evident in the case analyses. Figure 19 shows a negative correlation between ground-
level ozone trend and level of NOx emissions from industries. In regions with more
NOx emission from industries, they also experienced a decrease in their ground-level
ozone trend. For example, Boston, Milwaukee, and Cleveland experienced
increasing ground-level ozone and also had the lowest industrial NOx emissions.
Figure 19. Industrial NOx Emissions Levels
293
Analysis of local business and economy in relation to ground-level ozone
trends has shown that regions with more presence of emissions-creating industries
and businesses tend to record a decreasing trend compared to regions with less
industrial emissions. As evident in the case analyses, regions with more industrial
emissions also saw more involvement of local businesses and industries in the
ground-level ozone reduction process. Businesses are involved in the process to
protect their economic interests, and local governments are able to clearly identify an
emissions source that needs reduction. Mobile sources - primarily automobiles - are
harder to identify and reduction plans are more difficult to implement. Thus, in
regions with significant emissions from mobile sources, reduction efforts are more
complex compared to regions that have both point sources and emissions sources
that contribute to the ozone problem. Furthermore, the sources of emissions are also
vital in the formation and effectiveness of regional governance structures to reduce
ground-level ozone. Mobile sources do not have boundaries, and thus residents
residing in one locality contribute to other localities in the region through their
driving patterns. Thus, in regions with higher levels of mobile sources, cooperation
amongst the different governments is more difficult to construct.
The two case analyses have shown that the availability of local government
capacity to combat ground-level ozone was another significant variable that helped
explain the differences in the outcomes of the two cities. The Cities of Houston and
Dallas had similar levels of administrative capacities; however, there was a
significant difference in the level of political capacity for the two cities. Thus, a
294
conclusion can be drawn on the relationship between successful reduction of ground-
level ozone and the availability of local government capacity. When the results of the
case studies are applied to other PMSAs in the nation, similar patterns are observed.
To examine the relationship between local government capacity and reduction of
ground-level ozone, several proxy variables are used to determine the relationship.
The annual per capita revenues of the metropolitan region, level of state
centralization, and municipal activities, are used as proxy variables to examine the
level of administrative capacity of local government.
368
The availability of resources is imperative for local governments to
implement policies and plans. The lack of financial resources can limit the personnel,
technologies, and allocated budget for specific issues or initiatives. Furthermore,
unlike state governments, local governments have limited legal authority to raise
their revenues. Thus, regions that have limited financial capacity will be selective in
policies and issue areas that local governments address. In general, compared to
other social issues, environmental issues are considered less significant, and thus
local governments will often address social issues first. For localities that face
constraints in their financial resources, environmental issues will be addressed after
more pertinent social and economic issues are addressed. Therefore, the annual per
capita revenue of metropolitan regions is examined as a proxy variable to analyze the
368
While the case studies of the Cities of Houston and Dallas examined both political and
administrative capacity, this section of the dissertation will examine only the impact of administrative
capacity on reduction of ground-level ozone.
295
relationship between financial capacity of local governments and successful
reduction of ground-level ozone.
The annual per capita revenue of the largest PMSAs in the nation is observed
to determine the impact of local government’s financial capacity on the successful
reduction of ground-level ozone.
369
Table 52 lists the per capita revenue of the
largest PMSAs in the nation. In all the PMSAs, an increase in per capita revenue is
recorded for the three time periods that are examined. The two cases, Houston and
Dallas PMSAs, have similar per capita revenue, with Dallas PMSA recording a
slightly higher level of per capita revenue. However, the difference between the two
regions’ revenue is minimal. The revenue of other metropolitan regions varies
significantly, with some regions, such as New York and most of the California
regions, having higher per capita revenue in comparison to the other regions. The
Baltimore and Cincinnati regions recorded the lowest per capita revenue in all three-
time periods that are examined in this section of the dissertation.
369
Financial capacity of all local governments within the PMSA is examined in this dissertation. Due
to a significantly large number of local governments that are present within a single region, an
aggregate level of PMSA is used to examine the relationship between ground-level ozone reduction
and local government capacity.
296
Table 52. Annual Metropolitan Region Revenue Per Capita
Area Name
1990-1991
RevPerPerson
1997
RevPerPerson
2002
RevPerPerson
New York, NY PMSA N/A 6,205 6,966
Sacramento, CA PMSA 3,676 4,305 5,962
San Francisco, CA PMSA 3,937 3,521 5,844
San Jose, CA PMSA 3,411 3,838 5,796
Oakland, CA PMSA 3,626 4,372 5,359
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA 3,904 4,710 5,216
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA 2,968 3,804 4,723
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA 3,275 3,524 4,503
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA 2,691 3,300 4,452
Miami, FL PMSA 3,132 3,915 4,214
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 2,726 3,504 4,149
Denver, CO PMSA 2,807 3,375 4,079
Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA 3,130 N/A 4,053
Chicago, IL PMSA 2,850 4,285 4,048
Orange County, CA PMSA 2,830 3,202 4,010
Detroit, MI PMSA N/A 3,386 3,992
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA 2,945 N/A 3,935
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA 2,597 3,415 3,881
Newark, NJ PMSA 3,045 3,578 3,804
Boston, MA-NH PMSA 2,173 2,863 3,607
Dallas, TX PMSA 2,528 2,967 3,323
Houston, TX PMSA 2,436 2,810 3,280
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 3,650 4,014 3,113
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 2,290 2,630 3,079
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA 1,848 2,822 2,758
Baltimore, MD PMSA 1,970 2,873 2,162
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
297
When the per capita revenue of the metropolitan regions is analyzed in
relation to their ground-level ozone trend, a negative correlation between the two
variables is evident. Figure 20 illustrates the relationship between per capita revenue
and reduction levels of ground-level ozone in the metropolitan regions. Metropolitan
regions with higher per capita revenue have also seen a reduction in their ground-
level ozone. For example, Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA and Seattle PMSA,
which have higher per capita revenue than other regions, have also seen a greater
reduction in their ground-level ozone. Other regions, such as the Baltimore and
Boston regions, which have a lower per capita revenue than other regions, have seen
an increasing trend in their ground-level ozone. However, some regions that have a
high level of per capita income have also seen an increasing trend in their ground-
level ozone. Regions such as New York, San Francisco, and San Jose have
experienced an increasing trend in their ground-level ozone. However, when the two
regions are compared to all the regions that have been examined in this dissertation,
their increasing trend is lower compared to other regions with lower per capita
revenue.
298
Figure 20. 2002 Per Capita Revenue and Ground-Level Ozone
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. EPA
Although the regions examined in Figure 20 have shown a negative
correlation between per capita income and ground-level ozone trend, future research
must include more analysis on the proxy variables. The Dallas and the Houston
regions, with similar levels of per capita revenue, have shown different trends in
their ground-level ozone. While Houston has experienced a decreasing trend, Dallas
has seen an increase in its ground-level ozone. Comparisons of the largest
metropolitan regions have furthered the relationship between local government’s
budgetary resources and reduction of ground-level ozone. Generally, regions with
higher per capita revenue have recorded a decreasing trend or a slight increasing
trend in ground-level ozone. Compared to other regions with lower per capita
revenue, they have been recording better ground-level ozone trends. However, in-
299
depth case analyses of the Cities of Houston and Dallas and their regions have shown
that, in addition to financial capacity of local government, the level of political
capacity significantly impacts the ozone trend. The examination of political capacity
can account for the difference in the two cities and their regions’ ground-level ozone
trends. The Dallas and Houston case studies have shown that although budgetary
capacities of local governments are important for implementing initiatives and
programs to reduce ground-level ozone, often state governments provide grants and
other budgetary measures to ensure implementation of programs. The two cases also
shed light on the importance of political capacity, especially the role of political
leaders and the significant impact leaders had on the success of reducing ground-
level ozone. Thus, future research on local government capacity must also include
analysis of the political capacity of local governments in conjunction with financial
capacity.
The per capita revenue of metropolitan regions was used as a proxy variable
to analyze the relationship between local government capacity and ground-level
ozone trends. The analysis demonstrated a correlation between the two variables,
thus further supporting the hypothesis on the impact of local government capacity. In
addition to per capita revenue, the level of state centralization is also examined to
determine the impact of local government capacity on ground-level ozone reduction
trends. The level of state centralization can be a measure of the capacities given to
local governments to take action to reduce the levels of pollution within their
jurisdiction. State governments seldom take actions to solve the problems of the
300
metropolitan regions. One explanation for the lack of action by state governments is
the idea that metropolitan governments could rival state government authority; thus,
the state government takes limited action. Thus, “most state action in terms of
solving local and metropolitan problems tends to be the lowest common denominator
- the minimum necessary to alleviate some of the worst aspects of a particular
situation”
370
.
Table 53 lists the rankings of the levels of state centralization in the nation.
Local governments in states that are highly centralized would have less control of
local issues and initiatives; also, state governments would not be as involved in local
initiatives. However, for local governments in a decentralized or local services state,
more discretion is given to local governments to take action on local issues. The state
of California is illustrative of the argument that in a more decentralized state, local
governments have more capacity to act on local initiatives and issues. Thus, for
regions such as Los Angeles, Orange County, San Bernardino, Sacramento, and San
Jose, the capability of local governments to take action on their ground-level ozone
can be greater than other local governments in a more centralized state. However, for
local governments in a more centralized state, such as West Virginia or
Pennsylvania, the capacity for local governments to action can be lower.
370
Stephens and Wikstrom (2000), p. 127.
301
Table 53. State Centralization 1995
Centralized State Services Balanced Local Services
West Virginia Maryland Illinois California
Pennsylvania New Hampshire Wisconsin
Washington Oregon Indiana
Kentucky Michigan Texas
Ohio New York
New Jersey Florida
Virginia Colorado
Source: Adapted from Stephens and Wikstrom. p. 128
The relationship between the level of centralization and ground-level ozone
in localities is examined in Figure 21. As illustrated in Figure 21, state centralization
positively correlates with the ground-level ozone trend of localities. An increasing
level of state centralization
371
gives less authority to local governments to take
actions on issues or problems that the locality faces. For example, California local
governments are more decentralized compared to local governments in other states
such as Pennsylvania. Thus, local governments in California are given more
authority by the state government, increasing their level of capacity to reduce
ground-level ozone. This is evident in Figure 21; most of California’s PMSAs have
recorded a decreasing trend, or a slight increasing trend, compared to other
371
The centralization level ranges from 0 to 100. A higher number means more state control over
local governments within the state.
302
metropolitan regions in the nation. However, for metropolitan regions such as
Philadelphia, Boston, and Maryland, with more centralized authorities, their ground-
level ozone trends have also increased significantly.
372
The increase in ground-level
ozone can be attributed to the limited power or capacity given by the state
government to local governments, decreasing the ability of local governments to do a
better job in decreasing ground-level ozone.
Figure 21. Local Government Level of Centralization
372
Seattle PMSA, with a higher level of state centralization, experienced a decreasing trend in
ground-level ozone. A possible explanation in addition to other variables can be attributed to its
geographical location, which limits the formation of ground-level ozone.
303
The level of centralization and ground-level ozone trend was examined to
analyze local governments' capacity to control pollution, specifically ground-level
ozone. The analysis has shown a positive correlation between state centralization and
local governments' efforts to reduce ground-level ozone. When state governments
retain their centralized powers, local government capacity is limited, and thus can
constrain them from taking actions to reduce ground-level ozone. Furthermore, in a
more centralized state, state governments are inclined to take fewer actions on local
issues, thus further limiting resources and initiatives to reduce ground-level ozone.
The level of centralized authority can also determine the level of activities by
municipal governments in each state. In states with more centralized authorities,
municipal governments’ activities will be lower compared to states with more
decentralized authorities. Thus, similar trends should be predicted regarding levels of
municipal government activities and ground-level ozone reduction. As illustrated in
Figure 18, a positive correlation can be expected between level of municipal
government activities and ground-level ozone trends. However, as shown in Figure
22, municipal government activities and ground-level ozone trends do not
demonstrate a similar relationship to state centralization and ground-level ozone. The
majority of the PMSAs being analyzed in this dissertation have below-to-average
levels of activities by their municipal governments. Furthermore, they have recorded
304
differing ground-level ozone trends, thus making it difficult to reach a conclusive
decision on the relationship.
373
Figure 22. Municipal Government Activities
The examination of local government capacity and ground-level ozone trends
has provided an interesting analysis of the relationship between the two variables. In
general, a correlation between local capacity and ground-level ozone trends was
373
Municipal activities as a measure of local government capacity produced contradictory results
compared to the level of state centralization levels. Furthermore, in comparison to the relationship
between municipal activities and ground-level ozone reduction, the correlation is weak compared to
the other proxy variables that were examined. A possible explanation for the contradiction lies in the
examination of only municipal government’s activities. In future research in which other local
governments such as county and special districts are also incorporated into local governments’
activities, a differing result can be recorded.
305
observed in the in-depth analyses of both Houston and Dallas, and in the national
comparison. A conclusion can be drawn that the level of capacity does impact local
government’s ability to reduce ground-level ozone. However, there are several points
that also need further examination. First, the case analyses have shown that, in
addition to the administrative capacity of local government, political capacity is also
vital, and often more influential in the reduction of ground-level ozone. Thus, future
research on local government capacity should also incorporate measures of political
capacity. Second, although the per capita revenue of metropolitan regions has been
shown to impact local government’s capacity to reduce ground-level ozone in its
jurisdiction, further analysis needs to be conducted on the impact of financial
resources. Future research needs to not only examine the total revenues of local
governments, but also itemized spending on air pollution issues and resources that
state governments give to local governments. As illustrated in the case studies of
Dallas and Houston, both local governments were given resource assistance from the
State of Texas, which was more prominent in Dallas than Houston. Furthermore,
private funding from research institutions and foundations supplemented Houston’s
resources to combat ground-level ozone. Thus, in addition to local government’s
revenue, other sources of funding are vital and must be investigated further. Third,
although the municipal activities variable was considerably weaker as an explanation
for local capacity, further research on the variable needs to be elaborated. In addition
to municipal governments, county governments and special districts within local
306
governments need to be incorporated to analyze the relationship between ground-
level ozone reduction and local government capacity.
Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Policy
The study of environmental policies and regulations often examines the
impact of the socioeconomic conditions of individuals and localities to determine the
level of involvement in efforts to provide a clean environment to residents. Literature
that examines the impact of socioeconomic status of individuals and the level of
environmental concerns has been mixed.
374
Level of income, education, and race,
have been examined extensively to determine whether these variables do in fact
influence the environmental concerns of individuals. Van Liere and Dunlap (1980)
examined six different socioeconomic hypotheses regarding environmental concerns,
and concluded that the social class hypotheses, such as education, income, and
occupation, were too weak to support that social class is associated with
environmental concerns. Of the three variables, only education showed a moderate
relationship for environmental concerns. While discrepancy does exist on the extent
of degree, education level of individuals does have an impact on the level of
environmental concerns.
Similar to the influence of education on environmental concerns, debate
surrounds race and income level, and how they impact an individual’s environmental
concerns. Van Liere and Dunlap (1980), upon review of six hypothesis in relation to
374
Mohai and Bryant (1998); Van Liere and Dunlap (1980); Whittaker et al. (2005); Mohai (1990).
307
the level of environmental concern, found the relationship between income and
environmental concern to be ambiguous, while Mohai's (1990) research shows that
there is little or no difference in the level of environmental concern between African-
Americans and Whites. Buttel and Flinn (1978), however, hypothesize that because
the lower and working classes are more exposed to environmental problems, because
of where they live and work, they are more concerned about environmental harms.
Their conclusion mirrors the environmental deprivation theory, which posits that
with continuous exposure to environmental degradation individuals get accustomed
to living with poor environmental conditions, while those living in cleaner
environments are more likely to raise concerns when they become exposed to poor
environmental conditions.
375
This is an alternative explanation to the hierarchy of
needs theory, which centers on the importance of meeting the day-to-day necessities.
The hierarchy of needs theory, which draws on the work of Maslow, predicts that
poorer segments of the population would be less concerned about environmental
problems and protections compared to their counterparts, the richer segments of
society.
376
According to this theory, individuals with lower income, education, and
minorities, all have lower levels of concern regarding environmental issues,
compared to those with higher income, education, and whites. Furthermore,
legislation aimed at improving the air can lower their property value, since the
implementation of such regulation will improve the overall air quality in the area,
375
Van Liere and Dunlap (1980).
376
Whittaker et al. (2005).
308
therefore making their land site less valuable. In addition, if the rich perceive
environmental regulation as a distributive policy - especially if progressive taxes are
collected - support for the regulation will be lower. Moreover, individuals with
higher income might reason that they are able to purchase environmental goods
themselves through memberships in private golf courses or eco-tourist vacations, and
do not need the government to provide them.
377
Supporters of the environmental justice and racism movements, on the
contrary, believe that race and income do influence the level of environmental harm
one receives. Despite improvement in environmental protection, there are still
millions of Americans who live in areas with unsafe and unhealthy physical
environments. Many in communities that are impoverished face greater health
hazards in their homes, jobs, and communities compared to the more affluent
neighborhoods.
378
This discrepancy is due to the environmental racism that is often
found in public policies, and industry practices that often benefit whites, while
people of color are disadvantaged.
379
Thus, racial minorities and low income
communities are exposed to more environmental hazards resulting from the
residents' choice to place more emphasis on day-to-day necessities, as described by
the theory of environmental deprivation, or because of racist and discriminatory
actions locating industries in racial minority and low-income neighborhoods.
377
Kahn (2002), p. 47.
378
Bullard and Johnson (2000).
379
Ibid.
309
However, some researchers have found that race and income are not major factors in
neighborhoods experiencing more environmental hazards, compared to other
localities.
380
Rather, it is the push of economic factors that attract both minorities and
polluting facilities to the same location. Pastor, Sadd, and Hipp (2001) examined the
location of toxic storage and disposal facilities (TSDF) in Los Angeles County. The
authors conclude that “minorities attract TSDFs but TSDFs do not generally attract
minorities”.
381
Thus, minorities and low-income individuals tend to live in areas
more prone to environmental hazards.
When the impact of population growth on ground-level ozone is examined,
on average there is a general trend of increase in population, resulting in an
increasing rate of ground-level ozone. All of the PMSAs in Figure 23 have seen an
increase in their population from 1990 to 2000. However, variation exists between
PMSAs’ population growth and their ground-level ozone. Regions that have
experienced a significant increase in their population have shown a decrease in their
ground-level ozone, or have recorded a smaller increase compared to other regions.
For example, Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA has recorded a 30% decrease in its
ground-level ozone, while experiencing a population increase of 25.7%. Houston
PMSA, Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA, and Orange County PMSA, have shown
similar trends as Riverside PMSA. Other PMSAs that have experienced a smaller
increase in their ground-level ozone have also experienced a significant increase in
380
Pastor, Sadd, and Hipp (2001).
381
Ibid., p. 19.
310
their population. When the PMSA’s population per square mile is examined, a
similar trend is recorded.
Figure 23. 1990-2000 Change in Population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. EPA
311
The PMSA’s population per square mile is examined to determine whether a
relationship does exist between the region’s population rate and ground-level ozone.
Similar to the PMSAs in California, the Houston PMSA also experienced a
decreasing rate of ground-level ozone. Houston has experienced a decrease of 7%
from 1990 to 2000, while its population has increased by 25.8%, with a 25.19%
increase in population per square mile, as shown in Figure 24. It is one of the
PMSAs that have seen a significant increase in population. Despite such increase, the
ground-level ozone in the Houston PMSA has decreased by 7%. Dallas, TX PMSA
and Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA, unlike Houston, have experienced an increase
in ground-level ozone. All three PMSAs are in the same EPA Region and state, thus
facing similar external factors such as geographical conditions. Furthermore, all
three PMSAs' rates of population increase are similar, with Dallas PMSA having the
highest increase at 31.5%; Forth Worth-Arlington at 25.10%; and Houston at
25.80%. Growth in population per square mile is also similar, with Dallas having a
higher percentage of growth. If population growth is a determinant of the rate of
environmental degradation, then all three PMSAs should be experiencing similar
increases in ground-level ozone. Dallas and Forth Worth-Arlington PMSAs’
increasing rates of ground level ozone supports the argument that population growth
is a determining factor of environmental degradation; however, Houston PMSA does
not support the claim. Furthermore, all three PMSAs are located in the same state -
Texas - therefore if state policies combating ground-level ozone play a vital role,
Dallas and Forth Worth-Arlington should show trends similar to Houston PMSA.
312
Detroit PMSA and Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria
382
PMSA have similar rates of
ground-level ozone, despite the differences in the rate of growth. Detroit PMSA has
seen a 13% increase in ground-level ozone from 1990 to 2000. In 2000, its annual
ozone reading exceeded the national standard of 0.08ppm. Cleveland PMSA, similar
to Detroit, has also experienced an increase in its rate of ground-level ozone,
exceeding the national standard. Even though both PMSAs are within the same state,
with similar trends in ground-level ozone, their rates of growth are dissimilar.
Detroit, which had a 2000 population of 4,441,551, experienced a 4.1% growth from
1990, while experiencing a negative change in population per square mile of -2.29.
In contrast, Cleveland PMSA has experienced positive growth. It had a 2000
population of 2,050,871, a 4.1% increase from 1990. The actual number of people
living in Detroit is significantly larger than in Cleveland, which might be a
explanation for the positive increase of ground-level ozone in that PMSA. However,
if such an explanation is taken, Cleveland PMSA, which has the smaller number of
individuals living within its boundaries, should have a smaller increase in ground-
level ozone than Detroit. Furthermore, when the rate of increase of the population
per square mile is compared, Detroit has experienced a negative growth, while
Cleveland has experienced a positive growth. Based on previous research on
population growth and the impact on the environment, if the population growth is
smaller, then Detroit should be experiencing a smaller increase in ground-level
382
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria PMSA will be abbreviated to Cleveland PMSA.
313
ozone, while Cleveland should experience a higher rate. However, both PMSAs are
experiencing similar rates of increase in ground-level ozone, despite their different
patterns of growth.
Figure 24. PMSA Change in Population Per Square Mile
In addition to the population of PMSAs, level of income is examined to
determine the relationship with ground-level ozone reduction. All eighteen PMSAs
have had a significant increase in their per capita income. In all the 18 PMSAs, the
2000 per capita income at least doubled from that of the 1990 per capita income.
Houston PMSA has shown the biggest increase, at 126%, while Riverside-San
314
Bernardino had the smallest increase at 64%. Except for Houston PMSA, areas with
the smallest increase in per capita income have had the largest decrease in ground-
level ozone. However, as mentioned above, the state of California is an innovative
leader in policies dealing with ground-level ozone, therefore PMSAs in California
can have more resources compared to other PMSAs with limited resources to combat
ground-level ozone. Furthermore, California and Houston PMSAs can be seen as
evidence that growth in population and income alone cannot combat ground-level
ozone. Other factors, such as state policies or issue awareness by the citizens, might
be necessary in combating ground-level ozone. Advocates of Environmental
Kuznet’s Curve would point out that, while the percentage increase in per capita
income might be lower than in other PMSAs, California PMSAs have a higher actual
per capita income, and could have reached the threshold of passing the middle-
income category.
315
Figure 25. 1990-2000 Per Capita Income
The examination of socioeconomic conditions of the PMSA and the impact it
has on the region’s ability to reduce ground-level ozone has produced mixed results.
Thus, a conclusive conclusion cannot be made on the relationship. However, past
research has shown that despite debates that surround the issues, socioeconomic
conditions have an impact on the environmental qualities of localities. But the brief
examination of the PMSAs’ socioeconomic conditions does not provide the
empirical results to make a definitive conclusion on the relationship between
316
socioeconomic conditions and ground-level ozone trends. However, the lack of a
conclusive conclusion can be attributed to this dissertation’s examination of the
PMSAs, and not the city or neighborhood levels. At levels lower than the PMSA,
income and population can be contributing factors - which will be further examined
in future research. Furthermore, regardless of the population, income levels, or racial
make-up of the PMSAs, ground-level ozone levels must be reduced to levels
required by the federal government. State governments, in collaboration with local
governments, work to create a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which outlines the
measures that will be implemented in the region to reduce ground-level ozone. As
evident in the Dallas and Houston cases, the state government also provides
monetary and technical resources to localities to further assist in reducing ground-
level ozone.
Implications and Future Research
This dissertation has examined the role of local governments, institutions,
and context, and the impact they have had on metropolitan regions’ success in
reducing ground-level ozone. A two-case study was conducted and empirical
evidence was gathered illustrating the importance of local economy and industries,
local institutions and actors, and regional governance structures in the successful
outcomes of ground-level ozone programs and initiatives. The City of Houston and
its region, although it had a more severe ozone problem than the Dallas region, was
able to successfully reduce ozone-causing emissions in the region, while the Dallas
region experienced a continuing increase in its ozone levels. Upon further
317
examination of the two regions, especially the local context, actors, and institutions,
Houston’s success can be attributed to the strong presence of political leadership,
non-governmental actors, and an effective regional governance structure. Although
the City of Dallas and its region has all the variables present, the presence of political
leadership, other actors, and regional governance structure was not as strong as in
Houston. Thus, the two regions have experienced differences in their overall
outcomes of ground-level ozone reduction efforts. When the results of the case
analyses were applied to other metropolitan regions in the nation, variations in
results were recorded, often conflicting with the results from the case analyses.
However, despite the differing results, the importance of local variables cannot be
deemed insignificant. Rather, while a national analysis of all metropolitan regions,
based on local proxy variables, did not show a strong relationship between success of
ground-level ozone reduction and local variables, the in-depth case analyses of the
two cities and their regions have shown otherwise. Thus, without a complete dataset
that accurately measures business and industry impact, administrative and political
capacity, and regional governance, only limited conclusions can be drawn from the
national comparisons. Future research must include further case analyses of other
metropolitan regions, with the intent of collecting empirical data and the creation of
a national dataset for further comparative analysis.
While the federal government mandates ground-level ozone reduction,
Congress has not passed a national policy on climate change. Despite the lack of
federal requirements, local governments have been adopting a climate change policy
318
that aims to reduce their carbon footprint. Research has been conducted examining
the commitment of localities to lessen the impact of climate change. Zahran et al.'s
(2008) research investigated the incentives for U.S. cities to participate in the
Climate Change Policy (CCP) campaign. Their research has shown that incentives
for cities to participate in the campaign spring from two sources: the vulnerability of
the localities to climate change, and the socioeconomic capacity of the city.
Specifically, level of education, political ideology, and high involvement in
environmental activities of localities, support policies to mitigate climate change
consequences.
383
To further the research on cities’ voluntary adoption of climate
change policies, other local variables, such as those examined in this dissertation,
will further our understanding of cities’ objectives for adopting voluntary measures.
In conjunction with local variables, the role of media and agenda setting
needs to be examined. The Los Angeles and Houston regions have garnered much
media attention for their severe air pollution problems. Often, despite the dismay of
local governments, Houston and Los Angeles compete for the title of the city or
region with the dirtiest air quality. However, when their ozone reduction efforts are
examined, compared to other regions, Houston and Los Angeles have seen a
tremendous decrease in ozone-causing emissions. Thus, with more media coverage
of the Houston and Los Angeles air quality, the federal, state, and local governments
cannot disengage from ozone reduction. Rather, the negative spotlight on the
383
Zahran et al. (2008).
319
region’s air quality promotes more awareness and thus increases the involvement of
actors and institutions in the region. Future research should examine this relationship
and provide policy recommendations for more usage of media to help alleviate the
problems of ground-level ozone in the nation’s metropolitan regions.
320
References
Alpert, L., Gainsborough, J.F., & Wallis, A. (2006). Building the Capacity to Act
Regionally: Formation of the Regional Transportation Authority in South
Florida. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 143-168.
Assanie, L., & Yucel, M. (2005). Industry Clusters in Texas. Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas, 12-16.
Banovetz, J.M. (1994). City Managers: Will They Reject Policy Leadership?. Public
Productivity & Management Revie, 17 (4), 313-324.
Basolo, V. (2003). US Regionalism and Rationality. Urban Studies, 40 (3), 447-462.
Becka, H. (1997, February 19). Lewisville to Join Forces With UNT, Other Cities in
Clean-Air Plan Denton First to Agree to Take Part in Effort to Reduce Air
Pollution. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 2010, from
http://www.dallasnews.com/
Becker, R. A. (2000). Air Pollution Abatement Costs Under the Clean Air Act:
Evidence From the PACE Survey (Rep.). Center For Economic Studies.
Berger, E. (November 11, 2007). Houston Mayor Sets 6-Month Pollution Deadline.
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com.
Berinstein, M. & Whitman, D. (2005). Smog Alert: The Challenges of Battling
Ozone Pollution. Environment. 47, 28-41.
Berman, E. & Bui, L.T.M. (2001). Environmental Regulation and Productivity:
Evidence From Oil Refineries. The Review of Economics and Statistic, 83
(3), 498-510.
Berry, J.M. (1999). The New Liberalism: The Rising Power of Citizen Group.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.
Booz, Allen, Hamilton (Ed.). (2004). Dallas At the Tipping Point: A Road Map For
Renewal (Rep.).
Bowman, A. & Kearney, R.C. (1988). Dimensions of State Government Capability.
The Western Political Quarterly, 41 (2), 341-362.
321
Box, Terry. (1993, July 17). Firm Picked to Run Auto Emissions Tests-Company
Says Inspections Will Cost About $20, Take 20 Minutes. Dallas Morning
News. Retrieved May 2010 from www.dallasnews.com.
Brody, S.D., Peck, B.M., & Highfield, W.E. (2004). Examining Localized Patterns
of Air Quality Perception in Texas: A Spatial and Statistical Analysis. Society
for Risk 24 (6), 1561-1574.
Bullard, R. D. & Johnson, G.J. (2000). Environmental Justice: Grassroots Activism
and Its Impact on Public Policy Decision Making. Journal of Social Issues,
56 (3), 555-578.
Busch, M. (1996, December 9). Anti-Ozone Efforts Targeted-Carpool Committee
Hoping to Clean Up Arlington Air. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May
2010, from www.dallasnews.com.
Byars, C. (1997 June, 11). Coalition Opens Clean Air Push/ Ad Blitz to Be Linked
With Ozone Warnings. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010, from
www.chron.com.
Byars, Carlos. (1996 June 28). Round 2 Kicks Off in Ozone Fight/Auto Pollution
Focus of Campaign. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010, from
www.chron.com
Cappiello, D. (2003 October 1). Monitors Keep-Up-To-Minute Tabs On Area’s
Ozone. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010, from www.chron.com
Cappiello, D. (2003 October 17) Air Quality Monitors Viewed As Trade-Off/ Critics
Say Devices Provide Better Ozone Data But Less Scrutiny Of Industrial
Pollution. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010, from www.chron.com
Cappiello, D. (2006 January 6). Attorney Is Helping To Clear (Toxic) Air. Houston
Chronicle. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010, from
www.chron.com
Cappiello, D. (2004 May 1). White Talks Tough on Pollution/ Pushes Stricter
Controls, Better Monitoring, More Information. Houston Chronicle.
Retrieved on May 2010, from www.chron.com
Caraley, D. (1992). Washington Abandons the Cities. Political Science Quarterly.
107 (1), 1-30.
322
Carole J. C., Kennedy, V.S., Lambright, W.H., O’Leary, R., & Weiland, P. (1997).
Balancing Risk and Finance: The challenge of Implementing Unfunded
Environmental Mandates. Public Administration Review. 57 (1), 63-74.
Carr, J.B., & Feiock, R.C. (2001). State Annexation “Constraints” and the Frequency
of Municipal Annexation. Political Research Quarterly, 54 (2), 459-470.
Christiansen, D.E. (1994 October 4). Double Standard in Regional Pollution. Dallas
Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
City-Data.com "Houston Economy" (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2010, from
http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-South/Houston-Economy.html
City of Dallas Environmental Initiatives. (n.d.). Retrieved May 01, 2010, from
http://www.dallascityhall.com/oeq/index.html
City of Dallas, City Charter. (n.d.). Retrieved May 01, 2010, from
www.dallascityhall.com/pdf/cao/01Chartr.pdf
City of Dallas. Facts About the OEQ. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2010, from
www.dallascityhall.com/oeq/index.html.
City of Houston, Mayor's Office. (2005, January 24). State of the City Address [Press
release].
City of Houston, Mayor's Office. (2007, January 22). State of the City Address [Press
release]
City of Houston. Bureau of Air Quality Control. (n.d.). Retrieved May 01, 2010,
from http://www.houstontx.gov/health/Environmental/airqualitypage.html
City of Houston City Charter. (n.d.). Retrieved May 01, 2010, from
http://www.houstontx.gov/charter/.
City of Houston: Emission Reduction Plans (Rep.). (2000).
City of Houston Mayor's Office. (n.d.). Retrieved May, 2010, from
http://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/divisions.html
City of Houston. (2006, August 31). Mayor Miller & White Announce Texas Cities
For Clean Air Coalition & Introduce High-Profile Legal Team [Press
release]. Retrieved May, 2010.
323
City of Houston. (2001, October 15). EPA Gives Award To Houston Clean Air
Partners [Press release]. Retrieved May, 2010.
Cooper C. A., Nownes A.J., & Roberts, S. (2005). Perceptions of Power: Interest
Groups in Local Politics. State and Local Government Review. 37 (3), 206-
216.
Cramer, J.C. (2002). Population Growth and Local Air Pollution: Methods, Models,
and Results. Population and Development Review. 28, Supplement:
Population and Environment: Methods of Analysis, 22-52
Crotty, M. (1987). The New Federalism Game: Primacy implementation of
Environmental Policy. Journal of Federalism, 17, 53-67.
dallasair.org. Environmental and Health Services Department, Air Pollution Control
Program. (n.d.). Retrieved May, 2010, from www.dallasair.org
Dallas Morning News. (2001 March 9). Editorial. 28A. Dallas Morning News.
Retrieved on May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Dallas Morning News. (2003 August 14). The Time Has Come-Regional Transit
Agency Makes Sense. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010,
from www.dallasnews.com
Dallas Morning News. (2004 February 1). Don’t Exclude Ellis-County Is Major
Source Of Metroplex Pollution. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on
May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Dallas Morning News. (2004 April 16). A Step Toward Clean Air-Leavitt Makes
Right Call On Ellis County. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010,
from www.dallasnews.com
Dallas Morning News. (2004 September 5). Council Leaderboard-How Mayor,
Council Performed on Key Issues. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May
2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Dallas Morning News. (2006 July 13). Miller Pushes Cities to Rein in Coal Plants.
Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Dallas Morning News. (2006 December 26). Laura Miller-Mayor’s Advocacy For
Clean Air Has Been Tireless. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010,
from www.dallasnews.com
324
Dallas Morning News. (2007 January 16). Where to Go From Here? Dallas Morning
News. Retrieved on May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Dallas Morning News. (2007 September 6). Foster Speaks Up on Air-County Judge
Wisely Criticizes Pollution Plan. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May
2010, from www.dallasnews.com.
Dallas Morning News. (2007 October 30). Building a Green Future- City Council’s
Move Sends Eco-friendly Signal. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May
2010, from www.dallasnews.com.
Dallas Morning News. (2009 January 29). Defining Momen-Officials Step Out of
Fog-of Pollution. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010, from
www.dallasnews.com.
Dallas Morning News. For County’s Inclusion. Retrieved on May 2010 from,
www.dallasnews.com
Dasgupta, S., Laplante,B., Wang, H., & Wheeler, D. (2002). Confronting the
Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal of Economic Perspective. 16 (1),
147-168.
Dawson B. (1995, January 26). Commuter Rule Shoved into Garage/EPA Edict
Looks Like It’s Voluntary. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May, 2010, from
www.chron.com
Dawson B. (1995, August 4). Lanier Approves Smog Alerts for City/Some Believe
Forecasts Not Accurate. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1995, September 16). Task Force Says Smog Forecasts Could Help
Protect Public Health. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May, 2010, from
www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1996, January 31). Clean Air Tops Panel’s Rankings/ Minority Groups
Help Set Priorities. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1996, March 11). Book Aims to Clear Air on Local Pollution
Facts/Sponsors Favored Emissions Testing. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved
May 2010, from www.chron.com
325
Dawson, B. (1996, April 8). Emissions Program Gets Public Hearing/ ‘Motorist’s
Choice’ Plan Faces Little Opposition. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May
2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1996 December 18). Local Group’s Report Calls for Action to Cut
Pollution. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1997, April 2). Clean Air Officials Target ‘grandfathered’
Industries/Smog Sources Tied to Plants. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May
2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1997, September 17). Group Seeks State’s Commitment to ‘Clean Out
Air. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1997, September 23). Exempt Plants Pollute as Much as 6.5 Million
Cars. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1997, November 19). Seeing Clear To Volunteer/ Bush Says 10
Companies Will Reduce Their Emissions. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May
2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1998. March 26). State Help Sought To Fight Smog/ Serious Health
Concerns Cited. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1998 March 10). Expansion Of Emissions Tests Discussed. Houston
Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1998, April 1). 26 Companies Volunteering Emission Cuts/Plants to
Give Up Exemptions in Effort to Reduce Air Pollution. Houston Chronicle.
Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1998, April 28). Environmentalists Cast Doubt On State Plan to Close
Loophole. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1998, June 24). Brown Set To Convene Air Summit/Ozone Levels
Here Closing In On LA’s. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.chron.com
Dawson, B. & Berger, E. (1998, June 25). Mayor Outlines Proposal For Cutting Air
Pollution. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
326
Dawson, B. (1998, September 13). Grandfathered Firms’ Pollution Output Shrinks/
But Emissions Still Substantial, Government Figures Indicate. Houston
Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1998, November 10). Area Leaders Seek Solution After EPA Hits
Smog Plan. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1999, March 31). 76
th
Texas Legislature/ Pollution Exemptions Bill
Advances Despite Criticism. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1999, April 12). Environmental Activists PAC A New Punch. Houston
Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1999, May 5). Brown Urges Stepping Up Pollution-Reduction Effort.
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1999, September 26). Officials Seek Public Input on Area Smog-
Cutting Measures. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (1999, September 27). Tough Tactics Likely In Smog Battle Plan/
Federal Law Spurs Today’s State Action. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May
2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (2000, January 21). Schools To Get Smog Warnings/ County Alerts To
Help Educators Know When To Keep Pupils Inside. Houston Chronicle.
Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (2000 January 21). Area Agency For Clean Air Is Suggested. Houston
Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (2000 February 11). Brown Tells Agencies to Develop Plans for Cutting
Air Pollution. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (2000 March 8). Mayor Seeks State’s Help in Meeting Smog Standards.
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Dawson, B. (2000 August 4). Smog Plan Will Rely on Retrofitting Diesel Vehicles.
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
327
Dawson, B. (2001 March 13). Ad Campaign Aimed At Clearing The Air/ Coalition
Targets Area’s Effort To Reduce Smog. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May
2010, from www.chron.com
Deleon, R. E. (1992). Left Coast City: Progressive Politics in San Francisco, 1975-
1991. Lawrence, Kansas: The University Press of Kansas.
De Loe, R.C., Di Giantomasso, S.E., & Kreutzwiser, R.D. (2002). Research: Local
Capacity for Groundwater Protection in Ontario. Environmental
Management. 29 (2), 217-233.
Demetrios, Caraley. (1992). Washington Abandons the Cities. Political Science
Quarterly. 107 (1), 1-30.
DeSoto, W., Tajalli, H., & Opheim, C. (2006). Power, Professionalism, and
Independence: Changes in the Office of the Mayor. State & Local
Government Review. 38(3) (2006), 156-614.
De Souza R., John S. Williams, J.S., & Meyerson, F.A.B. (2003). Critical Links:
Population, Health, and the Environment. Population Bulletin. 58 (3), 3-42.
Doll, D., & Fitz-Simons, T. (2003). Cumulative Ozone Exceedances- A Measure of
Current Year Ozone levels Compared to Historical Trends (Rep.). National
Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.
Ehrlich, A. H., & Salzman, J. (2002). The Importance of Population Growth To
Sustainability (Rep.). Washington DC: ELR News and Analysis.
Environmental Law Institute.
Ehrlich, P.R., Gretchen, G.W., Daily C., Hughes J.B., Daily, S., Dalton, M., &
Goulder, L. Knowledge and the Environment. Ecological Economics. 30,
267-284.
Elkin, S.L. (1987). City and Regime in the American Republic. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Elkin, S.L. (1987). State and Market in City Politics: Or, The “Real” Dallas. In C. N.
Stone & H. T.Sanders (Eds.), The Politics of Urban Development. Kansas:
University Press of Kansas. 1987. Pp. 25-51.
Ember, M. & Ember, C. R. (2002). Dallas-Fort Worth: United Sates. In M. Ember &
C. R. Ember (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Urban Cultures: Cities and Cultures
Around the World, 2, 92-107.
328
Falkenberg, L. (2008 July 21). Fog Clearing on Houston’s Emissions Thanks to
White. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010, from www.chron.com
Feagin, J.R. (1998) The New Urban Paradigm: Critical Perspectives on the City.
Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Feagin J.R. (1984). The Role of the State in Urban Development: the Case of
Houston, Texas. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2, 447-
460.
Feagin, J.R. & Beauregard, R.A. (1989).Houston: Hyperdevelopment in the Sunbelt.
In R.A. Beauregard (Ed.), Atop the Urban Hierarchy (153-194). Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Federal Reserve Bank. Economic Recovery Under Way In Major Texas Metros
(Southwest Economy, Rep.). (2004). Federal Reserve Bank.
Feiock, R. C. (2004). Introduction:Regionalism and Institutional Collective Action.
In R. C. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and
Cooperation (pp. 3-16). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Feiock, R.C. & West, J.P. (1993). Testing Competing Explanations for Policy
Adoption: Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Programs. Political Research
Quarterly. 46, 399-419.
Feiock, R. C., Tao, J., & Johnson, L. (2004). Institutional Collective Action: Social
Capital and the Formation of Regional Partnerships. In R. C. Feiock (Ed.),
Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation (pp. 147-
158). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Feldstein, D. (1995 November 10). Emission Plan Gives 3 Choices. Houston
Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010 from, www.chron.com
Feldstein, D. (1999 September 11). Clean-Air Snarl Delays Federal Funds for Roads.
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010 from, www.chron.com
Fiorino D.J. (2006). The New Environmental Regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Fisher, R. (2007) Bad Science: The Politics of Ozone Air Pollution in Houston. In
M.V. Melosi & J.A. Pratt (Eds.), Energy Metropolis: An Environmental
History of Houston and the Gulf Coast (pp. 69-87). Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
329
Forswall, C. D., & Higgins, K. E. (2005). Clean Air Act Implementation in Houston:
An Historical Perspective 1970-2005 (Rep.). Environmental and Energy
System Institute
Freemantle, T. (2001 October 1). Next Mayor Faces Vital Task of Improving Air
Quality. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010 from, www.chron.com
Gainsborough, J.F. (2003). Business Organizations as Regional Actors: The Politics
of Regional Cooperation in Metropolitan America. Polity. 35 (4), 555-572.
Gargan, J. J. (1981). Consideration of Local Government Capacity. Public
Administration Review. 41 (6), 649-658.
Getz, J. (2004 May 6). New Plan On Clean Air Set For ’07- Stricter Pollution Rules,
Study On Ellis Cement Plants Included in Deal. Dallas Morning News.
Retrieved on May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Gibbs, D.& Jonas, A. E.G (2000). Governance and Regulation in Local
Environmental Policy: the Utility of Regime Approach. Geoforum 31, 299-
313.
Gillman T. J. & Loftis, R.L. (2004 April 2). EPA Chief Getting Earful On Ellis
Clean-Air Rules-Barton Lobbies Against Tighter Controls; Area Delegation
To Push
Glazer, A. & Rothenberg, R.S. (2001). Why Government Succeeds and Why It Fails.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gormley W. Jr. (1987). Intergovernmental Conflict on Environmental Policy: The
Attitudinal Connection. The Western Political Quarterly. 40 (2), 285-303.
Graff, H.J. (2008). The Dallas Myth: The Making and Unmaking of an American
City. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. 2008.
Green Houston. Environmental Coordinating Council. (n.d.). Retrieved May, 2010,
from http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/ecc.html
Green Houston. (2008, July 10). City of Houston Petitions EPA For More Accurate
Emissions Assessments To End 'Undercounting" Of Hazardous Air Pollutants
[Press release]. Retrieved May, 2010.
Green Houston. (2009, April 15). Mayor Bill White Hails Federal EPA's Favorable
Action On More Pollution Data [Press release]. Retrieved May, 2010.
330
Green Houston. (2009, September 22). City of Houston Wins Automotive Fleet
Magazine’s 2009 Fleet Environmental Leadership Award [Press release].
Retrieved 2010.
Greenstone, M. (2002). The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial
Activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and
the Census of Manufactures. Journal of Political Economy. 110 (1), 1175-
1219.
Grossman, G.M. & Krueger, A.B. (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 110(2), 353-377.
Hall, C. (1994). Last-Gasp Situation-Ozone Alerts CLould D-FW’s Economic
Horizon. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010 from,
www.dallasnews.com
Hamilton, D.K. (2000). Organizing Government Structure and Governance
Functions in Metropolitan Areas in Response to Growth and Change: A
Critical Overview. Journal of Urban Affairs. 22(1), 65-84.
Hamilton, D.K., Miller, D.Y., & Paytas, J. (2004). Exploring the Horizontal and
Vertical Dimensions of the Governing of Metropolitan Regions. Urban
Affairs Review. 40(2), 147-182.
Hanson, R. (2003). Civic Culture and Urban Change: Governing Dallas. Detroit,
MI: Wayne State University Press.
Hartzel, T. (1999 December 15). Clean-Air Plan for N. Texas Challenged on
Emissions Cuts-Group, State Debate Stricter Cement-Factory Rules. Dallas
Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com.
Hartzel, T. & Loftis, R.L. (2001 February). Clean Air Goals May Be In Peril-
Regional Council to Study Options. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May
2010 from, www.dallasnews.com.
Hays, S.P., Elser, M., & Hays, C.E. (1996). Environmental Commitment Among the
States: Integrating Alternative Approaches to State Environmental Policy.
Publius, 26 (2), 41-58
Hershey, M., & Hill, D. (1977). Is Pollution A White Thing? Racial Differences in
Preadults' Attitude. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 439-458.
331
Honadle, B.W. (1991). A Capacity-Building Framework: A Search for Concept and
Purpose. Public Administrative Review. 41(5), 575-580.
Honadle, B. W. (2001). Theoretical and Practical Issues of Local Government
Capacity in an Era of Devolution. The Journal of Regional Analysis and
Policy, 31, 77-90.
Houston Chronicle. (2005 January 23). Dereliction of Duty/ Lax State
Environmental Regulations And Barely Existent Enforcement Have
Compromised The Air Quality of Eastside Neighborhoods. Who Will Stand
Up For The Residents’ Interests? Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May
2010 from, www.chron.com
Houston-Galveston Area Council. (n.d.). Retrieved January, 2010, from www.h-
gac.com
Houston-Galveston Area Council. Air Quality Reference Guide For The Houston-
Galveston Area. (Rep.). (2002). Regional Air Quality Planning Committee of
the Houston-Galveston Area Council.
Houston-Galveston Area Council. Air Quality Reference Guide For The Houston-
Galveston Area. (Rep.). (1998). Regional Air Quality Planning Committee of
the Houston-Galveston Area Council.
Institute For Health Policy. A Closer Look At Air Pollution In Houston: Identifying
Priority Health Risks. Report of the Mayor's Task Force On the Health
Effects of Air Pollution (Rep.). (n.d.). Institute For Health Policy.
Jaffe A.B., Peterson, S.R., Portney, P.R., & Stavins, R.N. (1995). Environmental
Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the
Evidence Tell Us? Journal of Economic Literature. XXXIII, 132-163.
Jeong, M. (2007). Local Political Structure, Administrative Capacity, and Revenue
Policy Choice. State and Local Government Review. 39(2), 84-95.
Jepson, E.J. Sustainability and the Childe Thesis-What are the effects of Local
Characteristics and Conditions on Sustainable Development Policy?. Cities.
26(6), 434-447.
Johnson, S. (1999 August 3). Activists, Industry Representatives Comment on
Pollution Draft Plan. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved on May 2010 from,
www.chron.com
332
Kahn, M. E. (2002). Demographic Change and the Demand for Environmental
Regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 45-62.
Kamieniecki, S., & Ferrall, M. R. (1991). Intergovernmental Relations and Clean-Air
Policy in Southern California. Publius, 21, 145-154.
Kelley, C. (1993 November 18).Local Governments’ Clean-Air Plan May Become
EPA Victim. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010 from,
www.dallasnews.com
Kemper R.V. (2005). Dallas-Fort Worth: Toward New Models of Urbanization,
Community Transformation, and Immigration. Urban Anthropology. 34 (2-
3), 125-149.
Kirk E. A., Reeves, A.D., & Blackstock, K.L. (2007). Path Dependency and the
Implementation of Environmental Regulation. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy.25, 250-268.
Kraft M. E. and Denise Scheberle (1998). Environmental Federalism at Decade’s
End: New Approaches and Strategies. Publius: The State of American
Federalism 28.(1),131-146.
Kraft M.E. and Kamieniecki S. (2007). Analyzing the Role of Business in
Environmental Policy. In M.E. Kraft & S., Kamieniecki (Eds.), Business and
Environmental Policy: Corporate Interests in the American Political
System(pp. 3-32). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Levinthal, D. (2007, April 5). Hopefuls Clean the Air on Stocks-Elections: Coats
Says TXI Link Beneficial; Griffith Sold TXU Shares. Dallas Morning News.
Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Levinthal, D. (2007, May 25). New Cement Procedures May Lead to Cleaner Skies
For Dallas-Contractors Must Include Less-Polluting Dry Kilns in Bids to
City. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 2010 from,
www.dallasnews.com.
Levinthal, D. (2006, September 1). Mayors View Coal as ‘Giant Step in the Wrong
Direction’. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 2010 from,
www.dallasnews.com
Lewis P. G., (1998). Regionalism and Representation: Measuring and Assessing
Representation in Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Urban Affairs
Review. 33, 839-853.
333
Lewis, P. G. (2004). An Old Debate Confronts New Realities: Large Suburbs and
Economic Development in Metropolis. In R. C. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan
Governance: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation (pp. 95-123).
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Loftis, R.L. (1996 July 1). Revised Emissions Tests Start Today as Clean-Air
Deadline looms Official Says Vehicle Owners in Dallas, Tarrant Counties
Face Few Changes. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010 from,
www.dallasnews.com.
Loftis, R. L. (1996 July 27). Clean-Air Efforts Lags as Federal Deadline Looms-
Critics Say Emissions-Test Delays Prevented Progress on Ozone. Dallas
Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (1998 May 1). Something in the Air-Groups Prepare New Ideas to
Boost Ozone Awareness. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved on May 2010
from, www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (1999, October 8). Environmentalists point finger at Ellis County
Cement Plants-Regulators Asked to Weigh Emissions’ Effect on Area Smog.
Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (2000, January 26). N. Texas Clean-Air Hearings Set- Businesses,
Environmentalists Face off This Week on Smog Plan. Dallas Morning News.
Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (2000, April 19). Smog Plan Faces State Vote Today- Critics Say Policy
Omits New Ideas; Agency Denies Corporate Pressure. Dallas Morning News.
Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (2001, February 16). American Gets In Gear to Fight Smog At D/FW-
Airlines Sets Aside $400 Million For Equipment. Dallas Morning News.
Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Loftis ,R. L. (2002, November 25). Wider Areas To Be Affected By Tougher Air-
Quality Rules Environmentalists Hope To End Notion That Smog Stops At
County Line. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (2003, February). Smog Limits Sought For Ellis-Group Threaten Suit If
8 Counties Aren’t Listed As Pollution Violators. Dallas Morning News.
Retrieved May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
334
Loftis, R. L. (2003, July 15). Texas Declines To Alter Map of Smog Violators- Plan
That Adds Johnson, Ellis, Parker Counties Will Be Sent To EPA. Dallas
Morning News. Retrieved May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (2003, August 2). Ellis Won’t Get Smog Violator Label- Clean-Air
Group Sought Designation; EPA Says Other Steps Being Taken. Dallas
Morning News. Retrieved May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (2004, May 8). TXI In A Hurry To Cement New Permit- Plant Seeks
Lighter Regulations Before Ellis’ EPA Status Changes. Dallas Morning
News. Retrieved May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (2004, March 21). Donors Have Stake In Smog Move- Barton Says
Funds Not Tied To Bid To Block Ellis EPA Listing. Dallas Morning News.
Retrieved May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (2004 April 10). Smog Region Could Be Growing-EPA Chief Proposes
Boundary That Would Include Part Of Ellis. Dallas Morning News.
Retrieved May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (2004, April 16). Ellis, Others On Area Smog List-EPA Acts After
Political Fight; 9 Regional Counties Now In Violation. Dallas Morning
News. Retrieved May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. & J. L. Lunsford. (1998, November 13). D/FW Works to Clear the Air-
Airport Feels Economic Pressure to Reduce Pollution. Retrieved May 2010,
from www.dallasnews.com
Loftis, R. L. (1/28/1998). State Official Announces Proposal For Stricter Area
Pollution Limits Plan Targets More Emission Types, Extends Enforcement’s
Reach. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.dallasnews.com
Loftis R. L. (2006, November 18). TXU Details Plan to Cut Emissions- Reductions
Would Come Mostly From Expanding Coal-Burning Plants. Dallas Morning
News. Retrieved May 2010, from www.dallasnews.com
Lubell, M., Feiock, R. C., & Ramirez, E. (2005). Political Institutions and
Conservation by Local Governments. Urban Affairs Review, 40, 706-729.
Lubell, M., Schneider M., Scholz, J., & Mete, M. (2002). Watershed Partnerships
and the Emergence of Collective Action Institutions. American Journal of
Political Science, 46 (1), 148-163.
335
Mac Chiarola, F.J. (1974). The State and the City. Proceedings of the Academy of
Political Science. 31(3), 104-118.
Mason, J. (1998, August 20). City Council Funds Study On Effects Of Air Pollution.
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.chron.com
Mason, J. (1999, April 13). Senate Oks Anti-Pollution Bill/ Grandfathered Firms
May Volunteer To Cut Air Emissions. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May
2010 from, www.chron.com
Mazmanian D.A., (1999). Los Angeles’ Transition from Command-and-Control to
Market-Based Clean Air Policy Strategies and Implementation. In D.A.
Mazmanian and M.E. Kraft (Ed.), Toward Sustainable Communities:
Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy (77-112).
Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
McCann Eugene J. (2007). Inequality and Politics in the Creative City-Region:
Questions of Livability and State Strategy. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research. 31(1), 188-196.
McCann, I. (2004, April 21). EPA’s Smog Decision Draws Mixed Reaction. Dallas
Morning News. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Meeks, F. (2000, July 16). State Pollution Plan Draws Brazonia County Protests/
Chambers Predict Strict Smog Control Measures Would Hurt Area’s
Economy. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010, from www.chron.com
Melosi, M. V. (n.d.). Path Dependence and Urban History: Is a Marriage Possible?
Retrieved May 01, 2010, from www.geschundkunstgesch.tu-
berlin.de/fileadmin/.../Melosi_Text.pdf
Meyler D., Stimpson, J.P., & Cutchin, M.P. (2007). Landscapes of Risk: Texas City
and the Petrochemical Industry. Organization Environment. 20, 204-212.
Miller, D. (2010, May 30). City of Dallas Local Capacity [E-mail interview].
Mohai, P. (1990). Black Environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 744-765.
Mohai, P., & Bryant, B. (1998). Is There a 'Race' Effect on Concern for
Environmental Quality? Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 475-505.
Molotch, H. (1976). The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy.
American Journal of Sociology, 82, 309-332.
336
Morgan, D. R. & Watson, S.S. (1996). Mayors of American Cities: An Analysis of
Powers and Responsibilities. American Review of Public Administration. 26
(1): 113-123.
Mosier, J. (2003, December 11). Bad-Air Citation May Loom-Local Leaders Say
Ramifications Could Affect Roads, Businesses. Dallas Morning
News.Retrieved May 2020 from, www.dallasnews.com.
Mullin, M., Peele,G., & Cain, B.E. (2004). City Caesars?: Institutional Structure and
Mayoral Success in Three California Cities. Urban Affairs Review. 40 (1),
19-43.
Murry, T. (n.d.). Governance In Houston: A Hamiltonian Model of Municipal Power
in Action. Retrieved on May 2010, from
www.blueprinthouston.org/documents/governance.doc
Nelson K. L. & Svara, J.H. (2010). Adaption of Models Versus Variations in Form:
Classifying Structures of City Government. Urban Affairs Review. 45 (4),
544-562.
NOAA. Comparative Climatic Data For the United States Through 2005. Retrieved
April 22, 2007, from http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ccd-data/
North Central Texas Council of Governments. Regional Mobility Initiatives (Rep.).
(2007). North Central Texas Council of Governments.
North Central Texas Council of Governments. Regional Mobility Initiatives (Rep.).
(1996). North Central Texas Council of Governments.
North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department. State of
the Region (Spring, Rep.). (2005). North Central Texas Council of
Governments Transportation Department.
North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department. State of
the Region (Spring, Rep.). (2004). North Central Texas Council of
Governments Transportation Department.
North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department. What is
NCTCOG. (n.d.). Retrieved July, 2010, from www.nctcog.org
Oakerson, R. J. (2004). The Study of Metropolitan Governance. In R. C. Feiock (Ed.),
Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation (pp. 17-
45). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press
337
Pagoulatos A., Goetz, S.J., Debertin, D. L. & Johannson, T. (2004). Interactions
Between Economic Growth and Environmental Quality in U.S. Counties.
Gowth and Change. 35(1), 90-108.
Park, K. (1997). Friends and Competitors: Policy Interaction Between Local
Governments in Metropolitan Areas. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 723-
750.
Parker, R.E. & Feagin, J.R. (1991). Houston: Administration by Economic Elites. In
H.V. Savitch & J. C., Thomas (Eds.), Big City Politics in Transition (pp. 169-
188). Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications.
Parker, R.E. & Feagin, J.R. (1991).Houston: Administration by Economic Elites”. In
H.V. Savitch and J.C. Thomas. (Eds). Big City Politics in Transition (pp. 169-
188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.
Parks, R.B. & Oakerson, R.J. (2000). Regionalism, Localism, and Metropolitan
Governance: Suggestions From the Research Program on Local Public
Economies. State & Local Government Review. 32(3), 169-179.
Pastor, Manuel Jr., Looking for Regionalism in All the Wrong
Pastor M. Jr., Sadd, J., & Hipp, J. (2001). Which Came First? Toxic Facilities, and
Minority Move-In, and Environmental Justice. Journal of Urban Affairs.
23(1),1-21.
Pelissero J. P. (2003). The Political Environment of Cities in the Twenty-First
Century. In J.P., Pelissero (ed). Cities, Politics, and Policy: A Comparative
Analysis. (pp. 1-34). CQ Press.
Pepple, K. (2009, January). City of Houston Capacity [Personal interview].
Peterson, P. E. (1981). City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.
American Political Science Review. 94(2), 251-267.
Porter, D. (2000). Dimensions of Sustainability in Development. The Practice of
Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
338
Portney, K.E. (2007). Local Business and Environmental Policies in Cities. In M. E.,
Kraft & Kamieniecki, S. (Eds.) Business and Environmental Policy:
Corporate Interests in the American Political System (pp. 299-325).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Post, S. S. (2004). Metropolitan Area Governance and Institutional Collective
Action. In R. C. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan Governance: Conflict,
Competition, and Cooperation (pp. 67-92). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.
Potoski, M. (2001). Clean Air Federalism:Do States Race to the Bottom? Public
Administration Review, 61, 335-342.
Press, D. (2002). Saving Open Space: The Politics of Local Preservation in
California. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press
Press, D. (1998). Local Environmental Policy Capacity: A Framework for Research.
Natural Resources Journal. 38, 29-52
Preston, S.H. (1996). The Effect of Population Growth on Environmental Quality.
Population Research and Policy Review.15, 95-108.
Rabe, B. (2007). Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: The Collision Between the
Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation. Publius: The Journal
of Federalism. 37 (3), 413-431.
Rast, J. (2006). Environmental Justice and the New Regionalism. Journal of
Planning Education and Research. 25, 249-263.
Rich, M. J. (2003). The Intergovernmental Environment. In J.P. Pelissero (Ed),
Cities, Politics, and Policy: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 35-67). Washington
D.C.: CQ Press. 2003.
Richer, D. (2010, April 15). City of Houston Capacity [Telephone interview].
Rosenbaum, W. A. (2002). Command and Control in Action: Air and Water
Pollution Regulation. Environmental Politics and Policy (pp. 183-228).
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.
Rosenblum, J., Horvath, A., Hendrickson, C. (2000). Environmental Implications of
Service Industries. Environmental Science & Technology. 34 (22), 4669-
4676.
339
Ross, B. H., & Levine, M. A. (2001). The Politics of Metropolitan Government.
Urban Politics: Power in Metropolitan America (pp. 335-357). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Ross, S.G. & Wikstrom, N. (2000) Metropolitan Government and Goverance:
Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis, and the Future. Oxford
University Press. NY, NY.
Salvesen, D., & Renski, H. (2003). The Importance Of Quality Of Life In The
Location Decisions Of New Economy Firms (Rep.). Chapel Hill, CA: Center
for Urban And Regional Studies.
Savitch H.V. & Vogel, R.K. (2000). Introduction: Paths to New Regionalism. State
& Local Government Review. 32 (3),158-168.
Savitch, H. V., & Vogel, R. K. (1996). Regional Patterns in a Post-City Age.
Regional Politics: American in a Post-City Age (pp. 1-22). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publication.
Schaffer A. (1989) The Houston Growth Coalition in ‘Boom’ and ‘Bust’. Journal of
Urban Affairs. 11(1), 21-38.
Scheberle, D. (2005). The Evolving Matrix of Environmental Federalism and
Intergovernmental Relationships. Publius 35 (1), 69-86.
Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Mintrom, M. (1995). Public Enterprise: Agents for
Change in American Government. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
Sharp, E. B. (1997). Policy Process. Handbook of Research on Urban Politics and
Policy in the United States (pp. 275-289). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Shaw P.R. (1992). The Impact of Population Growth on Environment: The Debate
Heats Up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 12, 11-36.
Shay, K. J. (1997, May 18). Businesses Joining Environmental Cleanup Effort-Some
Area Firms Offering Incentives to Help Reduce Pollution. Dallas Morning
News. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com.
Simnacher, J. (2007, November 19). Getting in Gear for More Cyclists-City
Planners Say Even Short Bike Commutes Can Ease D-FW Traffic, Pollution.
Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com.
340
Smith, M.A. (2000). American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion,
Elections, and Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Souder, E. (2007, February 10). Study: TXU Plan Would Raise Pollution-Report
Commissioned By Cities Contrasts With Firm’s Coal Plant Data. Dallas
Morning News. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Souder, E. (2006 December 3). Outside Pressures Come to Town-In Freestone
County, TXU Dangles Jobs and Dallas’ Mayor Touts Air Coalition. Dallas
Morning News. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Stein, L. (2003). Mayoral Politics. In J. P. Pelissero (Ed.), Cities, Politics, and
Policy: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 148-168).Washington DC: CQ Press.
Steinacker, A. (2001). Prospects for Regional Governance Lessons From the Miami
Abolition Vote. Urban Affairs Review. 37(1), 100-118.
Steinacker, A. (2004). Game-Theoretic Models of Metropolitan Cooperation. In R.
C. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and
Cooperation (pp. 46-66). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Stone, B. Jr. (2008). Urban Sprawl and Air Quality in Large US Cities. Journal of
Environmental Management. 86, 688-698.
Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence,
Kansas: The University Press of Kansas.
Stone C. N. (2003).Power and Government in American Cities. In J. P. Pelissero,
Cities, Politics, and Policy: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 126-
147).Washington DC: CQ Press.
Streib, G. & Waugh, W.L. Jr. (1991). Administrative Capacity and the Barriers to
Effective County Management. Public Productivity & Management Review.
15(1), 61-70.
Stutz, T. (1995, November 11). State Offers Wider Options for Auto Emissions
Testing. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 2010 from,
www.dallasnews.com
Summa, A. (2003, June 12). 10 Percent Of Fort Bend Vehicles Fail State Test.
Houston Chronicle. June 12, 2003. Retrieved May 2010 from,
www.chron.com
341
Svara, J. H. (1985). Dichotomy and Duality: Reconceptualizing the Relationship
Between Policy and Administration in Council-Manager Cities. Public
Administration Review, 45(1), 221-232.
Swanstrom, T. (2001). What We Argue About When We Argue About Regionalism.
Journal Of Urban Affairs. 23(5), 479-496.
Sweckard, K. (3/31/2010) City of Dallas Capacity. [E-mail interview].
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (n.d.). Retrieved May, 2010, from
www.tceq.state.tx.us
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Dallas-Fort Worth Eight-Hour Ozone
Non-attainment Area Reasonsable Further Progress SIP (Project No. 2006-
031-SIP-Nr, Rep.). (2007). Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Dallas-Fort Worth Ozone Non-
attainment Area (Rep.). (n.d.). Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
doi: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/dfw.html#History
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Revisions to the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution: Complete Attainment
Demonstration for the Dallas/Fort Worth Ozone Non-attainment Area. (n.d.).
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Retrieved from
www.tceq.state.tx.us.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Dallas-Fort Worth Eight-Hour
Attainment Demonstration and Reasonable Further Progress 'SIP Revision'
(n.d.). Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Retrieved May, 2010,
from http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/dfw_revisions.html
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria and the
State Implementation Plan. (n.d.). Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality. Retrieved October, 2010, from
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/texas-sip/hgb/sip-hgb
Thomas, R. D. (1986). Cities as Partner in the Federal System. Political Science
Quarterly, 101, 49-64.
Thomas, R. D. (1979). Implementing Federal Programs at the Local Level. Political
Science Quarterly, 94, 419-435.
342
Thomas, R. D. & Murray, R. W. (1991). Progrowth Politics: Change and
Governance in Houston. Berkeley, CA: IGS Press.
Tolley, G. & Smith, B. (2001). Clearing Houston’s Air: An Economic Evaluation of
Clean Air Act Compliance Strategy Alternatives. (Rep.). Texas Public Policy
Foundation.
Tomaso, Bruce. (1988 March 29). EPA Won’t Impose Sanctions on Area. The
Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.dallasnews.com
Tresaugue, M. (2008, May 22). Winds Change in Air Quality Battle/ Mayor White
to Put More Attention on Challenging State Emissions Permits. Houston
Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.chron.com
Tresaugue, M. (2009, April 15). Pollution Estimates for Refineries, Plants Revisited.
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.chron.com
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Ozone Report: Measuring Progress
Through 2003 (Rep. No. 454/K-04-001). (2004). Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Van Liere, K.D. & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The Social Bases of Environmental
Concern: A Review of Hypotheses; Explanations and Empirical Evidence.
The Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(2), 181-197.
Visser, J. A. (2002). Understanding Local Government Cooperation in Urban
Regions: Toward a Cultural Model of Interlocal Relations. The American
Review of Public Administration, 32(40), 40-65.
Vogel, R. K. (1997). Metropolitan Government. In R.K. Vogel (Ed), Handbook of
Research on Urban Politics and Policy in the United States (pp. 183-196).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Vogel R. K. & Harrigan, J. J. (2007). The New Regionalism: Taking Metropolitan
Governance Without Government Seriously. Political Change in the
Metropolis. 8
th
Edition (pp. 299-328). Pearson Education Inc.
Vojnovic, I. (2003). Governance in Houston: Growth Theories and Urban Pressures.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(5), 589-624.
Warren, M. (2001, October 11). Chambers Joining Fight To Improve Air Quality.
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010 from, www.chron.com
343
Waugh, W. L. Jr. (1988). States, Counties, and the Questions of Trust and Capacity.
Publius, 18(1), 189-198.
Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (1997). From Agitation to Collaboration:
Cleaning the Air Through Negotiation. Public Administration Review, 57,
396-410.
Weir, M., Wolman, H., & Swanstrom, T. (2005). The Calculus of Coalitions: Cities,
Suburbs, and the Metropolitan Agenda. Urban Affairs Review, 40, 730-760.
Wheeland, C.M. (2002). An Institutional Perspective on Mayoral Leadership:
Linking Leadership Style to Formal Structure. National Civic Review. 91(1),
25-39.
Whittaker, M., Segura G. M., & Bowler, S. (2005). Racial/Ethnic Group Attitudes
Toward Environmental Protection in California: Is ‘Environmentalism’ Still a
White Phenomenon? Political Research Quarterly. 58(3), 435-447.
Williams. J. (1995, April 1). Emissions Draft Backs Annual Test/Car Owners Would
Get Reprieve Until Jan. 2. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 2010 from,
www.chron.com.
workingforcleanair.org. Working For Clean Air. (n.d.). Retrieved May, 2010, from
www.workingforcleanair.org
Zahran, S., Grover, H., Brody, S. D. & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Risk, Stress, and
Capacity: Explaining Metropolitan Commitment to Climate Protection.
Urban Affairs Review. 43 (4), 447-474.
Zahran S., Brody, S. D., Vedlitz, A., Grover, H., Miller, C. (2008). Vulnerability
and Capacity: Explaining Local Commitment to Climate-Change Policy.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 26, 544-562.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea
PDF
Pathways of local economic development: tales of cities in the United States and South Korea
PDF
Environmental policy reforms in a global and regional world: mimetic, diffusive, and coercive policy adoptions in France and Korea
PDF
Civic associations, local governance and conflict prevention in Indonesia
PDF
Community, empowerment, and the city: sources of capacity in local governance
PDF
The economic and political impacts of U.S. federal carbon emissions trading policy across households, sectors and states
PDF
Governing public goods: how representation and political power in local and regional institutions shape inequalities
PDF
The elephant and the mouse that roared: the prospects of international policy and local authority in the case of the convention on international species (CITES)
PDF
The social making of authoritarian environmentalism: protest-litigation nexus and policy changes in China
PDF
The political economy of R&D collaboration: micro- and macro-level implications
PDF
A framework for good local governance: achieving prosperity in an increasingly complex environment
PDF
Community foundations and new governance networks: three studies exploring the role of regionally-networked philanthropic organizations in local problem-solving
PDF
Social policy and presidential ideology in Latin America: the political economy of social spending and anti-poverty programs
PDF
California's adaptation to sea level rise: incorporating environmental justice communities along the California coastline
PDF
Assessing the implementation of the RECLAIM cap-and-trade market for pollution: measurement issues in counterfactuals, goal attainment, and command-and-control alternatives
PDF
Where there is discretion, should law enforcement officers at the local level be involved in enforcing federal immigration law? a study for consideration
PDF
Why go green? Cities' adoption of local renewable energy policies and urban sustainability certifications
PDF
Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study
PDF
The political economy of implementation: intellectual property rights protection across the world
PDF
Three essays on the causes and consequences of China’s governance reforms
Asset Metadata
Creator
Chi, Young Joo
(author)
Core Title
Local ground-level ozone policies: Governance structure and institutions In achieving federal attainment
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Politics
Publication Date
11/22/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
business and environment,ground-level ozone,local government capacity,OAI-PMH Harvest,regional governance
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Sellers, Jefferey M. (
committee chair
), Barnes, John E. (
committee member
), Schweitzer, Lisa (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ychi@usc.edu,young1177@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3543
Unique identifier
UC1201961
Identifier
etd-Chi-4215 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-m3543 (legacy record id),usctheses-c127-426086 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Chi-4215.pdf
Dmrecord
426086
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Chi, Young Joo
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
business and environment
ground-level ozone
local government capacity
regional governance