Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB0995.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Ethan Nelson PDD-BPS 01/27/2010 Pri 2 Yes IV.A Oppose Comments: 5(a): By allowing generation from facilities in service prior to the 1995 date in the RPS, disincentizes new investments in renewable energy technologies. Oregonians get no net gain. 5(b): linked with 5a but further allows REC’s to be banked for use after 2026. Again, provides financial disincentive toward investments in new clean renewable energy or conservation. 5(c): Okay section if this is decoupled from a and b. But I am thinking there is an existing provision within the RPS legislation that allows non-conforming generation units to be upgraded to meet the requirements (but not sure). 6: Combustion of solid waste cannot be thrown into this without better research and qualifications on what is being sent to the incinerator. This provision incentives greater disposal and disincentives diversion and prevention opportunities. Also, existing technologies such as the Marion County incinerator do nothing to add renewable capacity to the system. Section 2: The language is way too loose to support. What criteria will the PUC use in determining “prudent investments”? This should be decoupled from the biomass and waste RPS provisions in this bill. It is fine to request cost recovery through rates when investing in new technologies, but that needs to be carefully evaluated and monitored, which is not how this bill is written. Section 3 6(a-c): Read comments on d above. MSW incineration should qualify as renewable energy, only if there are other concomitant steps taken to improve the diversion and prevention of wastes. What is happening is a “garbage to gold” strategy that does not address the carbon or natural resource impacts of waste generation in the first place. A comprehensive waste bill that addresses lifecycle should move forward with an incineration element and then update the RPS legislation only after the former has occurred. Lastly, when the RPS was first established, there was a robust discussion on the criteria for what would be allowed under the bill. The legislature should revisit those discussions to clarify the original intent of the law. SB 1008 Relating Clause: Relating to crime; creating new provisions; amending ORS 131.588, 131A.300, 166.250, 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291 and 166.470; and declaring an emergency. Title: Modifies circumstances under which person convicted of felony may obtain relief from prohibition against possession and transfer of firearms. Modifies firearms provisions related to commitment of person with mental illness. Eliminates requirement that forfeiture counsel send copy of judgement to Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Sponsored By: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with pre-session filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Judiciary) 6 | Page