From: GINSBURG Andy

Sent: Fri Jan 27 09:20:48 2012

To: OLIPHANT Margaret; ROICK Tom; WESTBROOK Esther

Cc: 'Paul.S.Logan@doj.state.or.us'

Subject: Re: 2012 CPI estimate

Importance: Normal

We had a quick call with Paul, Esther and Tom, and came up with a plan. In the rule, we will use 2011 CPI again to calculate fees for 2012, and include a bracket saying the final will be based on the actual CPI as published by the feds. In the staff report and fiscal, we will give information about historical levels - the range over the last three years and the 10 year average, as well as the 4 months to date of 2012 compared to the 4 months in 2011. We won't commit to reopen the comment period if it is outside of that range, but we will if it is very different.

Andy Ginsburg

Air Quality Administrator

Oregon Dept. Of Environmental Quality

From: OLIPHANT Margaret

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 08:25 AM

To: ROICK Tom; GINSBURG Andy; WESTBROOK Esther

Subject: RE: 2012 CPI estimate

I think that you might try this approach for establishing the cap.

· Use the values for the months that are already known for 2012.

· Project the remaining months of 2012 based on the same period in 2011.

· You might want to check 2010 as well just to make sure the 2011 data is a good basis.

· See what CPI amount you get and then give yourself some room.

The economy is very different now than it was in 2007 and I think sources would object to a 4+ increase. I’m thinking 3.0 might be a more palatable cap.

Margaret

From: ROICK Tom

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:04 AM

To: GINSBURG Andy; WESTBROOK Esther; OLIPHANT Margaret

Subject: RE: 2012 CPI estimate

Paul’s advice for the 2013 fee increase was to state that we don’t anticipate the CPI increase to exceed X, and that if it does, we would reopen public comment for a limited period. 4.26% would be the X.

We could leave a blank, but we’d have to say something like we don’t anticipate the 2012 CPI increase to exceed CPI increases of the past few years, and that if it does we would reopen for public comment.

It may be better not to publish a number, but I believe from a stakeholder perspective leaving it blank is even less certain than a high ball based on the highest CPI of the last few years.

If leaving it blank makes more sense to you we could run this by Paul.

Tom

From: GINSBURG Andy

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:09 PM

To: ROICK Tom; WESTBROOK Esther; OLIPHANT Margaret

Subject: Re: 2012 CPI estimate

I thought we were going to have a blank and report the 2012 CPI to date rather than publish a cap. Did Paul say we have to put a number out there and renotice if it is higher? That would cause us to high ball which isn't really better notice.

Andy Ginsburg

Air Quality Administrator

Oregon Dept. Of Environmental Quality

From: ROICK Tom

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 05:26 PM

To: WESTBROOK Esther; GINSBURG Andy; OLIPHANT Margaret

Subject: FW: 2012 CPI estimate

Esther,

My recommendation is to use the high value of 4.26% for 2007. As we discussed, the benefit is that it is not an arbitrary number and is based on reviewing the CPI from past years. We will use the actual CPI once it is available, the 4.26% would only be used to determine if we need to do a follow-up public notice and comment period (if the actual CPI exceeds 4.26%).

It seems quite likely we could exceed the median of 2.3% in 2003, or exceed last year’s value of 2.43% so if we use either of those there may be little benefit in the parallel rulemaking approach.

Andy or Margaret – do you have any comments?

Tom

From: WESTBROOK Esther

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:09 PM

To: ROICK Tom

Subject: 2012 CPI estimate

Tom –

Please see the attached spreadsheet. If you look at sheet 2, you will see the values for the average, median and highest annual CPI change. Do you want me to proceed with using the highest value as the estimate, or some other number?

Esther L. Westbrook

Air Quality Policy Analyst

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

phone: 503-229-6457