My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2010
>
CC Agenda - 02/22/10 Meeting
>
Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:45:22 PM
Creation date
2/19/2010 11:30:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/22/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB0995.pdf <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation <br />Ethan Nelson PDD-BPS 01/27/2010 Pri 2 Yes IV.A Oppose <br />Comments: 5(a): By allowing generation from facilities in service prior to the 1995 date in the RPS, <br />disincentizes new investments in renewable energy technologies. Oregonians get no net <br />gain. 5(b): linked with 5a but further allows REC’s to be banked for use after 2026. <br />Again, provides financial disincentive toward investments in new clean renewable energy <br />or conservation. 5(c): Okay section if this is decoupled from a and b. But I am thinking <br />there is an existing provision within the RPS legislation that allows non-conforming <br />generation units to be upgraded to meet the requirements (but not sure). 6: Combustion of <br />solid waste cannot be thrown into this without better research and qualifications on what <br />is being sent to the incinerator. This provision incentives greater disposal and <br />disincentives diversion and prevention opportunities. Also, existing technologies such as <br />the Marion County incinerator do nothing to add renewable capacity to the system. <br />Section 2: The language is way too loose to support. What criteria will the PUC use in <br />determining “prudent investments”? This should be decoupled from the biomass and <br />waste RPS provisions in this bill. It is fine to request cost recovery through rates when <br />investing in new technologies, but that needs to be carefully evaluated and monitored, <br />which is not how this bill is written. Section 3 6(a-c): Read comments on d above. MSW <br />incineration should qualify as renewable energy, only if there are other concomitant steps <br />taken to improve the diversion and prevention of wastes. What is happening is a “garbage <br />to gold” strategy that does not address the carbon or natural resource impacts of waste <br />generation in the first place. A comprehensive waste bill that addresses lifecycle should <br />move forward with an incineration element and then update the RPS legislation only after <br />the former has occurred. Lastly, when the RPS was first established, there was a robust <br />discussion on the criteria for what would be allowed under the bill. The legislature should <br />revisit those discussions to clarify the original intent of the law. <br />SB 1008 <br />Relating Clause: Relating to crime; creating new provisions; amending ORS 131.588, 131A.300, <br />166.250, 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291 and 166.470; and declaring an <br />emergency. <br />Title: Modifies circumstances under which person convicted of felony may obtain <br />relief from prohibition against possession and transfer of firearms. Modifies <br />firearms provisions related to commitment of person with mental illness. <br />Eliminates requirement that forfeiture counsel send copy of judgement to Asset <br />Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee. Declares emergency, effective on <br />passage. <br />Sponsored By: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the <br />Senate in conformance with pre-session filing rules, indicating neither advocacy <br />nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request of Senate Interim <br />Committee on Judiciary) <br />6 | Page <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.