1 / 18

Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA) Path Forward Discussion

Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA) Path Forward Discussion. Bill Sinclair Deputy Director Utah Department of Environmental Quality July 30, 2009. Agreements in Principle to Date.

dante-carrillo
Download Presentation

Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA) Path Forward Discussion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA)Path Forward Discussion Bill Sinclair Deputy Director Utah Department of Environmental Quality July 30, 2009

  2. Agreements in Principle to Date • UCA 19-1-108(5) states: In order to stabilize funding for the radiation program and the solid and hazardous waste control program, the Legislature shall in years of excess revenues reserve in the restricted account sufficient monies to meet departmental needs in years of projected shortages remains sound.The fund should continue to operate on that basis

  3. Agreements in Principle to Date There should be a decision to modify or not modify UCA 19-1-108 to address the following areas: • 19-3-108(3) the first $400,000 into the General fund as free revenue. • 19-3-108 (4)(c) the Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund, up to $400,000 • 19-3-108 $200,000 to the Department of Public Safety • 19-6-118 (g)(i)10% of the fees to the county in which the facility is located.

  4. Agreements in Principle to Date Throughout the history of the fund where funds were in excess, funds were diverted for a variety of purposes by both the Executive and Legislative branches. If these funds had been left in place, the EQRA would meet its intended purpose described in 19-1-105 and not be in the fiscal crisis that it is facing today.Going forward, all parties agree that future diversions of monies for purposes other than specified in 19-1-105 should not occur.

  5. Agreements in Principle to Date For FY10, the Department must take independent action to shore up the fund.This could include a combination of requesting diversion of monies from other accounts, carryover monies, furloughs or reduction in force of staff, or request of a general fund appropriation of 25% as allowed in 19-1-108 (6)

  6. Agreements in Principle to Date • For FY11, the Department and stakeholders will work towards agreement of reasonable steps to ensure the continuation of Department programs for the oversight of waste management in the state.

  7. Possible Path Forward for stabilizing EQRA into the future (FY11 and beyond)

  8. Path forward - Potential Legislation“Waste Fees Amendments” 3 key components: • Disbursements from the EQRA (options to stop the bleeding) • Moving fee adjustments from a statutory to a fees schedule basis • Increases in fees for FY2011

  9. Component 1 -Disbursements from EQRA Options to stop the bleeding Lines 49-56 of draft Waste Fees Amendments 19-1-108: • In each fiscal year, the first $400,000 collected from all waste disposal fees listed in Subsection (2), collectively, shall be deposited in the General fund as free revenue. The balance shall be deposited in the restricted account created in this section. Discussion: Keep it, modify it, or kick it

  10. Options to stop the bleeding Lines 57-58 of draft Waste Fees Amendments 19-1-108: 19-1-108: • The Legislature may annually appropriate monies from the Environmental Quality Restricted Account to: • the Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund, up to $400,000, for purposes set forth in Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 3, Hazardous Substances Mitigation Discussion: Keep it, modify it, or kick it

  11. Options to stop the bleeding Lines 67-71 of draft Waste Fees Amendments 19-1-108: 19-1-108: (7) The Legislature may annually appropriate not more than $200,000 from this account to the Department of Public Safety, created in Section 53-1-103, to be used by that department solely for hazardous materials: (a) management training; and • response preparation and emergency response training. Discussion: Keep it, modify it, or kick it

  12. Options to stop the bleeding Lines 154-157 of draft Waste Fees Amendments 19-1-108: 19-6-118.   Hazardous waste and treated hazardous waste disposal fees. (g) (i) The department shall allocate at least 10% of the fees received from a facility under this section to the county in which the facility is located. (ii) The county may use fees allocated under Subsections (2)(e) and (f) to carry out its hazardous waste monitoring and response programs.Discussion: Keep it, modify it, or kick it

  13. Component 2 -Moving fee adjustments from a statutory to a fees schedule basis • Moving of statutory fees to the “fees schedule” • Radioactive waste fees - lines 78-80a • Hazardous waste fees - lines 126-127a • PCB fees - lines 186-187 • Nonhazardous solid waste fees - lines 289-290a • Why DEQ thinks this is a good idea • As a practical matter, DEQ would still have to discuss significant fee changes with facility operators • There is a process which includes a public comment period and hearing prior to finalization of a fiscal year fees schedule • The “legislature” still approves the fees through the appropriations subcommittee process • Much less cumbersome process for all parties

  14. Component 2 -Moving fee adjustments from a statutory to a fees schedule basis • Stakeholder discussion: • Could there be support for this idea • Are there “safeguards” that the stakeholders desire to be able to support this idea

  15. Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011 • Changes in statutory fees from present rate (indicated by XX) • Radioactive waste fees - lines 87,89,93,96 • Hazardous waste fees - lines 129, 133, 140, 153 • PCB fees - lines 182, 192 • Nonhazardous solid waste fees - lines 211, 212, 221, 234, 238-251, 253, 275, 278, 279

  16. Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011 Proposed process • Separate meetings with stakeholders during August - early September 2009 • Hazardous waste/PCB hazardous - Clean Harbors • Radioactive waste/PCB radioactive - EnergySolutions • Nonhazardous solid waste • Commercial facilities - Allied Waste • Municipal facilities - SL County, Transjordan, Wasatch Integrated, etc. • Specialty waste - Construction and Demolition waste, etc.

  17. Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011 Meeting agenda: • DEQ will provide financial information as needed for discussion (possible disbursements for FY11) • Review of waste projections from the operators • Negotiations as to potential fee increase • Suggestions/considerations regarding legislation • Goal is to reach consensus as to any potential fee increase Stakeholder discussion: Are there other discussion items or information needed for the meetings?

  18. Where do we go from here? • Timeframe for deliberations: • August/early September 2009 - Individual meetings with stakeholders on fee increases/proposed legislation • September 17, 2009 - Final meeting of stakeholder group

More Related