Analyze

The UI for the portal is straightforward and easy to use and also doubles as a GIS. Through the advanced search function users can use either the criteria or filter tabs to narrow their searches to specific sites. For example when you narrow down the search to RMP facilities only you can quickly pinpoint all of these facilities on a map of an area to show how burdened an area may be with these types of facilities.

The data can very quickly show you how many facilities a geographical area may have. This can allow users to see how burdened a neighborhood for example may be with specific facilities.

One of the only data visualizations this site offers is plotting down pinpoints on a map showing individual facilities. If there is more than one site in a certain geographical area then it will group the sites together and provide a circle for where the sites are contained with the number of sites listed on the circle. This makes this data resource not super flexible in ways it can display information. However this is a helpful visualization as it can quickly show you how many specific facilities a certain location may have

You can also generate simple graphs with the data that displays the amounts of certain facilities throughout the state. This is a good tool for tracking all regulated facilities which can help users address Ej on a statewide scale.

What this lacks in visualizations it makes up for drastically in easy to use UI and for creating one location for all of the state's facility data. By using its advanced search tool users can quickly find a plethora of data on extremely specific sites. This tool will show when the facilities had their most recent evaluations and whether or not there were violations, rough estimates on onsite stored chemicals, which regulatory programs they are a part of, CalEnviroScreen percentile ranges, and a contact list for facility employees.

This data resource can scale from the state level down to the census tract in terms of facility locations. For data visuals it groups sites together so you can not get a comprehensive visualization of regulated sites beyond the neighborhood and census tract level.

CalEPA Regulated Site Portal (CalEPA RSP) does not generate any of their own data but combines data from 7 state data sets and 2 federal datasets. 

State Data Sets: Cal/OSHA, CERS, CIWQS, EnviroStor, GeoTracker, SMARTS and, SWIS

Federal Data Sets: EIS and TRI

CalEPA made this resource in order to create a “...holistic view of regulated activities statewide.”(CalEPA.2022).

This data resource is called ‘CalEPA Regulated Site Portal’.

Recommended Citation: CalEPA. Regulated Site Portal. 2022. https://siteportal.calepa.ca.gov/nsite/map/help.

Texas produces the highest quantities of crude oil, natural gas, and lignite coal in the United States, which, on top of its long history of legislative support for conventional energy industries, contributes to its reputation as a fossil-fuel state (EIA 2017). Nevertheless, Austin, the state capital, harbors a wealth of local residents and organizations invested in transitioning to clean-energy resources. Motivations behind these investments differ widely, however, ranging from concerns about public health and social and environmental justice to creating quality jobs and spurring economic growth. During preliminary fieldwork, I identified four unique-yet-overlapping collectives of clean-energy practitioners: 1) Austin’s public sector, 2) energy scientists and engineers, 3) energy business advocates and entrepreneurs, and 4) climate and social justice activists. Based upon initial fieldwork, these collectives appear to conceive of the risks, affordances, and the proper sociotechnical means of energy transition in divergent, if not conflicting ways. In this research, I ask if and how these diverse energy-transition imaginaries appertain to differences in conceptions of “good evidence” and the appropriate use of scientific research and knowledge in decision-making. By analyzing how different collectives of clean-energy practitioners determine the proper means of leveraging science in energy transition, I will gain an understanding of the data and evidentiary challenges entailed in city-scale energy transitions, and urban environmental governance more generally.

Swearingen’s (2010) account of the mainstream environmental movement in Austin documents which of Austin’s “green spaces” were successfully and unsuccessfully protected from development and from the deleterious effects of nearby industries. However, Tretter (2016) and Busch’s (2017) studies provide a necessary supplement, documenting how the Austin’s lesser valued spaces (which are mostly populated by communities of color) have been routinely polluted both by residential waste (location of trash dumps) and industrial off-gassing (Sematech and Motorola plants). It is unclear, however, from these accounts whether or not, or to what extent the Austin landscape has be marked by its energy system in particular.

During preliminary research, I witnessed numerous residents of various professions attest to the impact of Austin’s coal plant (Fayette) and natural gas plant (Decker) on Austin’s air quality. During my time in Austin I will be conversing with locals about the impact of Austin’s power generation on the local landscape as well as travelling throughout the city, observing the landscape, visiting energy production sites and Desired Development Zones.

According to a study by Environment America, Texas is by far the highest emitter of airborne mercury, with a total of 11,127 in 2010 (Madsen and Randall 2011). Ohio, the next highest emitter, produced 4,218 pounds. Texas has 6 of the top ten mercury producing coal-fired power plants in the U.S.