Sec. 386.057. REVIEW AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

(a) The commission, in consultation with the advisory board, annually shall review programs established under the plan, including each project funded under the plan, the amount granted for the project, the emissions reductions attributable to the project, and the cost-effectiveness of the project.

(b) Not later than December 1, 2002, and not later than December 1 of each subsequent second year, the commission, in consultation with the advisory board, shall publish and submit to the legislature a biennial plan report. The report must include:

(1) the information included in the annual reviews conducted under Subsection (a);

(2) specific information for individual projects as required by Subsection (c);

(3) information contained in reports received under Sections 386.205, 388.003(e), 388.006, and 391.104; and

(4) a summary of the commission's activities under Section 386.052.

(c) For projects funded as part of the infrastructure program under Subchapter C, the report must:

(1) describe and evaluate:

(A) the infrastructure facilities funded under that subchapter;

(B) the degree to which the funded facilities are supporting on-road or non-road diesel projects;

(C) the amount of fuel or electricity dispensed for each facility; and

(D) associated emissions reductions and cost-effectiveness; and

(2) make a finding regarding the need for additional appropriations from the fund to improve the ability of the program to achieve its goals.

(d) The report must:

(1) account for money received, money disbursed as grants, money reserved for grants based on project approvals, and any recommended transfer of money between allocations and must estimate future demand for grant funds under the plan;

(2) describe the overall effectiveness of the plan in delivering the emissions reductions that may be credited to air quality plans;

(3) evaluate the effectiveness of the plan in soliciting and evaluating project applications, providing awards in a timely manner, and monitoring project implementation;

(4) describe adjustments made to project selection criteria and recommend any further needed changes or adjustments to the grant programs, including changes in grant award criteria, administrative procedures, or statutory provisions that would enhance the plan's effectiveness and efficiency;

(5) describe adjustments made to the maximum cost-effectiveness amount and award amount;

(6) evaluate the benefits of addressing additional pollutants as part of the plan; and

(7) include legislative recommendations necessary to improve the effectiveness of the plan.

(e) Repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1125, Sec. 22, eff. September 1, 2005.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 967, Sec. 1(b), eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1125 , Sec. 22, eff. September 1, 2005. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1125 , Sec. 7, eff. September 1, 2009.