From: WOODROW Beth
Sent: Wed Dec 05 17:10:14 2012
To: FULLER Brian; SPENDELOW Peter H; ROICK Tom
Cc: ROYS Jim
Subject: FW: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Importance: Normal
Palmer just called to let me know he got this response from Lisa. He asked whether we could delay taking the rule to EQC until after the Legislature has a chance to approve it as an adjustment during Ways and Means, which would probably mean June EQC.
The other alternative is to provide an answer to Lisa’s question: How should we respond to those who might think we are trying to sneak this through the administrative process? But we will need to make sure that Wendy, Palmer and Dick are comfortable with that approach.
I’ll be in late tomorrow morning (about 9:30), but am otherwise available to discuss our plan.
From: MASON Palmer
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:59 PM
To: WOODROW Beth
Subject: FW: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
FYI …
Palmer Mason
Government Relations Manager, J.D.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
503.229.6800
From: PEARSON Lisa * CFO [mailto:lisa.pearson@state.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 12:31 PM
To: MASON Palmer
Cc: 'ROYS Jim'
Subject: RE: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Hi,
I started in on this request and realized the first question I will be asked is whether this could wait for session, since it isn’t in GBB, and it could be brought forward as a revision to the GBB.
If we move forward administratively right after GBB, I suspect Paul S. will enjoy making a big deal out of the GBB being incomplete, and (in some minds) our “sneaking” this through the administrative process.
So what should I tell folks who ask this question? Thanks.
_____________________________
Lisa Pearson
Policy & Budget Analyst
Dept. of Administrative Services - Chief Financial Office - Budget and Management Division
(503) 373-7501
Visit our website at http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/BAM/index.shtml
From: WOODROW Beth [mailto:WOODROW.Beth@deq.state.or.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 4:53 PM
To: PEARSON Lisa * BAM Analysts
Cc: ROYS Jim; MASON Palmer; SPENDELOW Peter H
Subject: FW: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Lisa,
Here are our responses to the other two questions:
Answering question 4 first, we do not know for sure who will have interest in the fees issue related to conversion technology, but the main legislative interest is probably related to those interested in a bill initially sponsored by Rep. Vic Gilliam last year, HB 4081, relating to the pyrolysis of plastics. Rep. Jules Bailey also played an important role in that bill, as a co-chair of the House Committee on Energy, Environment, and Water. This committee sponsored and approved the bill but got no further in the legislative process.
For question 3, yes, they all know, or should know, about the proposals. Of the 8 facilities, 6 had representatives on our advisory committee, and the other two are following the rules process. We have not had any objections regarding the fees, and had two committee members/facility operators give very positive comments on the fees (Chris Ulum of Agilyx and Jeff Surma of S4Energy).
From: WOODROW Beth
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:58 AM
To: PEARSON Lisa * BAM Analysts
Cc: ROYS Jim; MASON Palmer
Subject: FW: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Lisa,
I can answer the first two questions and will get the answers to the other two. The rulemaking wasn’t far enough along to include the change as a revenue package in the ARB. We did mention in the Revenue Summary component of the LQ program narrative that we expected the permit rule “to result in a new permit fee category, or a revision to an existing one.” (page 06-19).
From: PEARSON Lisa * CFO [mailto:lisa.pearson@state.or.us]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 9:28 AM
To: 'WOODROW Beth'; 'ROYS Jim'; MASON Palmer
Subject: FW: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
I have some questions:
1. I don’t recall this in the 13-15 ARB, and if it wasn’t there then it wouldn’t be in GBB. Did I miss something?
2. If it wasn’t in the ARB, why not?
3. Do the eight facilities listed in the second part of the attachment know this is being proposed? What is their reaction?
4. Which reps/senators are potentially interested?
Thanks.
_____________________________
Lisa Pearson
Policy & Budget Analyst
Dept. of Administrative Services - Chief Financial Office - Budget and Management Division
(503) 373-7501
Visit our website at http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/BAM/index.shtml
From: WOODROW Beth [mailto:WOODROW.Beth@deq.state.or.us]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:29 PM
To: MCFARLAND Meagan * BAM Admin
Cc: KEITH Kristin * BAM Admin; PEARSON Lisa * BAM Analysts; HAMMOND Joni; WILES Wendy; FULLER Brian; SPENDELOW Peter H; ROYS Jim; MASON Palmer; PICKERELL Loretta
Subject: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
DEQ is proposing administrative rules that would revise how solid waste facilities utilizing “conversion technology” would be regulated. In association with these regulatory changes, DEQ is proposing changes to the fees paid by the small number of existing facilities that fall into this category. With adoption of these rules, some facilities would be subject to new fee categories to be established under the rule while others would pay existing compost facility fees, in lieu of the solid waste treatment facility fees they currently pay.
DEQ did not include this fee in its 2011-13 budget presentation to the Legislature because the decision to proceed with this rulemaking was not made until the latter half of 2011. The fee rule, if adopted, will not affect fees paid in the 2011-13 biennium.
The attached documents request DAS approval of the new fee categories:
· CT.Fee.Approval-3.01.doc: Form 107BF21
· CT.Fee.Change-3.01.xls: Form 107BF22
· CT.Fee.DAS_Fee_Cover_Letter.docx: Explanation of fee change
Please contact me with any questions.
Beth Woodrow
Land Quality Fiscal Analyst
503-229-6997