From: PICKERELL Loretta
Sent: Tue Dec 11 09:47:10 2012
To: FULLER Brian
Cc: ROICK Tom; SPENDELOW Peter H; WOODROW Beth
Subject: RE: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Importance: Normal
Brian –
Just confirmed with Beth that this means we can go ahead w/the CT rulemaking notice as planned.
Thanks, Beth!
Loretta
From: WOODROW Beth
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:36 AM
To: MASON Palmer; SPENDELOW Peter H; ROYS Jim
Cc: FULLER Brian; ROICK Tom; WILES Wendy; HARRIS Jim; MCMILLEN Bill; PICKERELL Loretta
Subject: FW: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
I have talked to Paul and he agreed that the solution is for us to request a technical adjustment during session. It will be a revenue reduction package for $10,000. (Our submittal to DAS says the impact is anywhere from $0 to $10,000, but revenue may well be down $10k from the ARB estimate anyway.)
Paul said to make sure to keep it on his radar, so this should be placed on our technical adjustment list. But I will also send an e-mail to Lisa now to let her know of the resolution and will cc Paul.
From: PEARSON Lisa * CFO [mailto:lisa.pearson@state.or.us]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:37 AM
To: 'WOODROW Beth'
Cc: 'MASON Palmer'; 'WILES Wendy'
Subject: RE: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Please go ahead and ask Paul. Unfortunately, DAS won’t be able to process the request completely before the December 14 SoS filing date due to the limited remaining time frame and the schedules of the reviewers. Pursuing discussions with Paul is the best option at this point. 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: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:32 AM
To: PEARSON Lisa * BAM Analysts
Cc: MASON Palmer; WILES Wendy
Subject: FW: Fee approval: DEQ Conversion Technology Rules
Lisa,
We understand and are sensitive to concerns about the timing of this request, coming between the GBB and session. Here is how we would respond to the questions about the timing:
The primary purpose of the proposed conversion technology rules is not to set new fee categories, but rather to address policy questions of what regulatory controls are necessary to ensure that this small class of facilities can operate in a way that protects the environment. The draft rules were developed primarily to address complaints by existing and prospective facilities that the permit category under which they now fall – solid waste treatment facilities – is not the appropriate level of regulation. The proposed rules establish a new permit category for conversion technology facilities and as a result, also establish new lower fees.
When DEQ developed its policy package requests for the 13-15 Agency Request Budget, the conversion technology rulemaking had not yet advanced to a point where there was certainty that new fee categories would be part of the proposal. When that determination was made, we understood that we would need to work with DAS and LFO to obtain legislative approval. It is worth noting that the net reduction of the proposed changes is estimated to be less than $10,000 in 2013-15 on a total permit fee base that is estimated to be about $3.7 million.
DEQ would like to continue with our plan to seek EQC adoption of conversion technology rules at the March 20-21 meeting. This would enable DEQ to meet commitments to address this issue, which is related to legislation introduced during the 2009 and 2011 Legislative sessions. It would also provide regulatory certainty to regulated parties, most of whom have been participants in the advisory committee process.
With your approval, DEQ would like to discuss this issue with Paul Siebert to determine how he would like us to address seeking Legislative approval. Our thought is that Paul can provide us with some sense for how the Legislature might perceive this rulemaking.
Beth
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