TCEQ outlines expedited compliance order to speed fixes for low‑risk violations, cut penalties

The Commission on Environmental Quality’s enforcement division outlined a proposed Expedited Compliance Order (ECO) program designed to move low‑risk enforcement cases through administrative processes more quickly and reduce staff time spent tracking routine violations. Amy Settemeyer, deputy director for the enforcement division at TCEQ, told attendees the measure is intended to "achieve compliance faster" for regulated entities and to allow enforcement staff to focus on more egregious cases.

Settemeyer said the ECO would remain an administrative order and "look very similar" to current orders, but would be offered only for violations that can be corrected within 60 days from the day the respondent receives the document. She said the agency is targeting violations with minimal to no impact on human health or the environment and gave program counts of potential coverage: 102 drinking‑water items, 76 waste items, 11 water items and four air items.

On penalties, Settemeyer described a combination of reductions that together could amount to roughly a 50% reduction in the base penalty for eligible cases. "At the end of it all, what we're looking at is a 50% reduction in the base penalty," she said, explaining that the total reflects a typical 20% expedited deferral, about 20% for good‑faith effort, and a 10% compliance‑history consideration.

The ECO would not include a penalty calculation worksheet (PCW), Settemeyer said, but penalty amounts for listed violations would be published with agenda backup and on a forthcoming agency webpage so respondents can see the amount associated with each eligible violation. She added that orders still must be published in the Texas Register for 30 days as statutorily required and that respondents may still choose to participate in supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), including third‑party contribution SEPs.

Settemeyer emphasized several eligibility limits: every violation on a notice must be on the agency's eligible list (the agency will not split multi‑violation notices to isolate eligible items), ECO will exclude emissions events and releases that require long‑term remediation, and respondents with pending matters at the Attorney General's office, active shutdowns, revocations, outstanding fees or repeat offender status will be ineligible. The agency also set a two‑year clock during which the same violation at the same facility cannot be offered ECO again.

During the question‑and‑answer period, Settemeyer addressed procedural details and concerns from attendees. She said the agency aims to contact respondents by phone within 10 days and to put offers in respondents' hands within 30 days after identifying eligibility. If a respondent accepts ECO and later cannot complete corrective action within 60 days, the agency would generally transition that matter back into the standard enforcement process, which could affect any penalty reductions. She also said whether ECO would be applied retroactively to open cases depends on case specifics and would be evaluated individually.

Settemeyer gave two case examples showing faster outcomes under ECO: a minor ground‑storage tank case that ultimately produced a $1,140 payable penalty in litigation could have reached compliance months sooner under ECO, and an earlier PST referral likewise could have closed much faster. She said the enforcement division is pushing to eliminate backlog cases by the end of the fiscal year and that ECO is designed to reduce processing time — cutting a typical 'happy path' closure from about a year toward roughly six months when the matter is straightforward and responsive.

The agency plans to summarize feedback from these informational meetings for the Commission, file backup materials when it seeks Commission approval (targeting the second agenda in January or the first in February), and implement ECO soon after agenda approval. Settemeyer invited follow‑up emails and said a recording of the presentation will be made available.

The presentation raised several procedural questions that will require follow‑up or legal review, including how OAG‑related disqualifiers (for example, whether certain OAG matters like child‑support enforcement would disqualify individuals) apply, and how permitting requirements or long‑lead equipment needs will be treated when they cannot be corrected within 60 days. Settemeyer said the agency will follow up on outstanding legal questions and publish the eligible‑violation list with agenda materials.