From: WOODROW Beth
Sent: Thu Dec 06 09:58:08 2012
To: FULLER Brian
Cc: ROICK Tom; SPENDELOW Peter H; MASON Palmer
Subject: RE: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Importance: Normal
Thanks. I didn’t see the meeting request until after I’d responded.
From: FULLER Brian
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:57 AM
To: WOODROW Beth
Subject: RE: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
This all sounds good Beth, we’ve scheduled a call today at 1:00 to discuss, which you are invited (and a key participant).
From: WOODROW Beth
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:52 AM
To: ROICK Tom; SPENDELOW Peter H; FULLER Brian; MASON Palmer
Cc: ROYS Jim
Subject: RE: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
The BUD rules were a little different – we took them to the EQC right after session without having mentioned it at Ways and Means. I thought we were doing this one properly (after learning our lesson from the BUD rules.) I didn’t think we could add it to the ARB at the late date that we had specifics, so we just described where we were with the rulemaking. I full well expected that this would be a “technical adjustment” during session. More lessons learned about this confusing process.
I think Peter’s answer is a good one re: the advisory committee wanting certainty sooner. I would add that we had expected to present this in our Ways and Means presentation and to seek approval.
If the rulemaking team is agreed that we’d like to keep rulemaking on track, I can brief Wendy this afternoon.
Palmer – Would you be ok with this approach, and if so, how do we go about seeking Dick’s ok?
From: ROICK Tom
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:06 AM
To: SPENDELOW Peter H; WOODROW Beth; FULLER Brian; MASON Palmer
Cc: ROYS Jim
Subject: RE: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Beth,
You may recall the Beneficial Use of Solid Waste rulemaking – the same scenario:
The draft rules and fees weren’t far enough along to include in the ARB
Stakeholders supported the rulemaking, there were no objections to having fees
Nevertheless, DAS was concerned about the potential perception that we had circumvented the budgeting process
During session at the request of DAS, Dick ended up having to gain Ways & Means “approval” for the fees – a rather awkward situation that I expect he would like to avoid.
I’d hate to delay the rulemaking, but as you’ve said Beth, we should make sure Wendy, Palmer, and Dick are on board with moving forward.
Tom
From: SPENDELOW Peter H
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 5:54 PM
To: WOODROW Beth; FULLER Brian; ROICK Tom
Cc: ROYS Jim
Subject: RE: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Beth-
I thought your original answer to Lisa on her question 1 and 2 are a good part of the answer:
“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).”
You can add to that the fact that this was mainly a policy rule-making, and the fee issues were small and very much secondary to the questions of what regulatory controls and permit structures are needed to make sure that conversion technology facilities can operate in Oregon without causing environmental damage. In addition, the effect this will have on our budget is almost imperceptibly small. To delay adoption of these rules by another three months would probably be a disappointment to the advisory committee members who worked on them, would continue regulatory uncertainty for those seeking to build new facilities, and also a bit of a legislative embarrassment since we had committed to promptly adopting conversion technology rules last session.
Peter Spendelow
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
503-229-5253
From: WOODROW Beth
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 5:10 PM
To: FULLER Brian; SPENDELOW Peter H; ROICK Tom
Cc: ROYS Jim
Subject: FW: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
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