permits

the

the which The

scope mandated

statute range As We

delegate

charging rules (CSL)

activities authorizes authorizes. George

Legislature’s however,

activities agree authority

Discharge Elimination 333 Independent

Environmental Re:

reasonable Dear Harrisburg, May

14th

the

state’s

statute

Proposed

are

Department

Market

Floor

14,

and

Chairman

does

that

and

of

are

Department

authorizes.

writing

D.

issued.”

2019

activities

for

such

for

are

regulations

for

we

to

Elimination

Bedwick,

breadth

this

authorize by

the

costs

clearly

when

PA

System

Street

Rather,

the

this

fund

intent

to

the

strongly

Regulatory

any

Rulemaking:

expansive

Department

statute

17101

Quality

in

Bedwick,

be

costs

to

Thus,

apparently

program.

scope,

federal

their

regard

“the

involved

conveys

provided

as

administer

was

Permit

notes

A

we

Chairman

the

reasonableflhingfeesfor

to

plain

associated

disagree

System

does

the

whole

full

Board

contend

clearly

structure,

what

funding

Department

Review

to

or

in

Regulation

Application

Department

economic

the

with

The

reading

to

the

grant

state

box

by

believes

(RIB)

range

(NPDES)

fees

charge

this

with

expressed

intent

federal

Department

statute

water

that 9

Commission

authority

with

law

the

of

and

the

program.

of

to

of

the

the

the

the

and

to

for

of

department

or

the

the #7-533:

amend

quality

activities...”

fees.

and

Department

magnitude

funds

House

must

erred

scope

“charge

the

court

RAF

statute

clear

“filing” Commonwealth

fiscal

when

filing

actual

to

Annual

of

Legislature

We

be the

and It

the

in

protection

the

Water

order

of

language

Environmental

states

impact

applications

of

it

construed asserting

fees.

and

language

have

authorizes

fees

“chargingfeesfor

of

Department,

by

Water

authorized

applications

of

authority

of

Fees;

may

Harrisburg

or

general

the

collect

Quality

Representatives

the

that

in

several

“Filing

are

federal

that

of

box

impose.

IRRC

Quality

proposed

by

Departments

that

of

of

the

taken

to the

them

from

the

to

filed

Pennsylvania

7

all

fund5

the

Management

fees”

“reasonablefilingfees

only

significant reference

of

these Protection’s

Department

statute

regulation.”

and

it

promulgate

other

Department.”

Management

into

statute

the

would

persons

and

to

allow

provided fees,

are

permits.

permits

fees

promulgate

RAF

consideration.

costs

for

is

clearly

operations.

have

number:

for

as

(35 precisely

concerns

that

are

permits

and

(Department)

well

and

associated

appears

regulations

the

under

Nevertheless,

P.S.

by

In

meant

expressly

not municipalities

7tjhese

This

(WQM)

other

the

National

charges

as

§

fees

3227

and

issued.”

authorizing

Chapters

regarding

691.6)

the

is

Legislature.

to

for

to

Had

words,

to

not,

fees

with

purposefully

fact

simply

and

support

done for

applications

it

cover

Pollution

the

only,

proposal

authorizes,

the

however,

35

“reasonable”

that

support

National

ancillary

91

the

the

so.

in

Legislature assume

P.S.

language

Clean a

Independent

and

we

accordance

the

they

sizeable

lack Review

plain

Rather,

§

Discharge

repeat,

through

MAY

92a

whole

limiting

the

691.6.

what

filed

Streams Pollution

and

are

of

that

the

reading

is whole

ommissjon

for statutory

fees,

desired

not

the share

support

142919

and

not

the

statute

range

only is,

Regulatory

fees

We

with

the

in

Law

its

of

of

its

to of

from

the

for

the

additional desired Since

on

statement staffing however, the programs.” Therapy

Bureau and the generated Act

program activities applications statute

potentially analysis costs Again, statute

be Next,

intended contrary, reasonable

explicit

notes agency

authorized Had

penalties. Page

May

justified

the

permit

cost

fees fees

Department

authorizes

permits,

the

14,

the 2

are

the

we

in

review

no

to

of

and

authorization explicitly

staffing

increase

to

to

to

Legislature

authorized

box 2019

Law

far

and

NPDES

paid

contend

the

the

Legislature

disputing

such

Clean

charge

application

positions

in

by

63

evaluate

administer

be

cover

by

to

annual

would

35

and

exceed

10

Attachment but

requires

determined fees

explicit

the

of

P.S.

within

through

63

be

“fees

statutory

P.S.

of

increase

program

Water).

is

NPDES

that

permits. authorizes

10%

a

covered

fees

P.S.

current

to

§

that

the

requesting

not

fees

fraction

the

§

intended

627.11(a).

by

its

the

sufficient

to

cover

the

only

authorization

7110.401.

is

§

in

and

the

to

the

review

RAF

the

the have

the

fulfill

staffing

221.2(a)

statutorily number

and

“in

current the

for

authorization

scope

cover

fees

We

that only

8-7:

intended

Board

by

NPDES

18%

Department’s that

C5L

proposed

a

an

of

CSL fees

included

the

WQM

fraction

the

all are

for

tasks

were

only

the

amount

to

“the

covers

an

are

appearto

all

needs

Finally,

and

its

amount

of

to

of other

to

These

to

to

fees the

cover

not

Program.”

additional

or

program’s

authorized “costs

permit

only

staff pays

its

charge

set

Department

found

support

in

commensurate

the

cover

magnitude

a

fees

fees

disputing

of

the

approximately

the

for

is

permitting

functions

substantial

fees

at

the

the

is

examples

fees

meant

the

whose for

also

of

annual

provided

the to

leastsufficient

restricting

be

to

CSL

go

additional

in

applications,

fees

fees

indirect

Radiation

approximately by

program.

process

its

to

Attachment 63

cover

limited.

reasonable

beyond

costs.

It

Clean

is

to

regulation

to

operations

the

to

cost

cover

is

of

positions

generated.”

currently

limited

must

appropriation

be

unclear

illustrate

cover

responsibilities

cover

the

portion

the

in

Department’s

and

with

Water

can

funded

and

word

$3.7 costs

the

the

Protection

a

In

Legislature’s

be The

whole

fraction

direct

and

to

applications

be

all

RAF

the amounts

issue

to

B-i

intent

are CSL

covered

what

to

has

million

from “filing.”

of

charging

of

Program.

Department

10%

the

that

presented

cover

by

the

meet

costs box

This the

a

and

needed

to

cost

47

casts.”

WQM

fees

costs

program’s

from

percentage

of

when

of of

the

Department

charge

Act

10

engineer

of program.

Attachment

estimated the

in

is

because

by the

projected of

of

the the

This

intent.

“filing

program

is the

revenue

how

an

specifically

of

and permits

the

They the

adding

other

department’s

(38

the

35

not

as

total

program,

Legislature

the

effective

fees

continues

is

Department

justification

General

it

program

P.S.

permits,

in

costs, the

63,

Legislature

fees”

positions

provide

should

the

funding

WUM

of

program

the For

these

beyond

number

expenditures.

determined

it

and

expenditures

§

but

case

costs

B-2

generates

4006.3

legislature

example,

regional

authorizes

the only.

it

manner.”

Fund.”

perform

rather,

and

then

in

are does

it

later

be

2

analysis

in

sources. costs

go

across

would

amount

the

positions, magnitude.

summarizes

of

costs.

for

other

if

intends

relevant.

NPDES

to (a).

the

only

that

so

needed

costs

offices

increasing

that

Similarly,

only

of

the

from

the

follow-up

did,

explicitly.

on

The

Pennsylvania have

the

for

Legislature

If

programs

Similarly,

administering

The

the

“the

of

Thus,

the

Air

filing

to

it programs.

average,

2,

for

in

then

staffing

fees,

EUB

staff

Board

requires

and

staff.

The

workload

remainder

authorize

as indicated

Pollution

fact,

The

fee

revenue

its

the

of

“fee

the

per

these

to

they

25

fines

compliance

workload

costs

costs

There

increases

the

applications

filing

Department

where

only

of

We

set

only

the

actual

DEP’s

in

or

revenue

two

Nursing

that

To

would

Massage

the

fees.

and

that

18%

of

are,

analysis

the

Control

so

an

entire

intend

of

of

is

the

the

the

focus in

own

no

the

civil

that can

of

the

If is

funding

the

pllp their The

The

fiscal

‘WOM

$15.480 or been

2flQualitv%208oa authority stated,

http://fües.dep.stte.pa.us/PublicParticipation/Puhlic%20Pai Department is appropriated, recognizing * Department

2oQuality%2osoard/2018/August%2021/Fee%2oReports/Chapter%2092a%20Fee%2ORePort,Pdf. Department’s however,

NPDES Department Page

paper, May

Year

Fl Fl FY

Fl Fl FY

Fl Fl

*Fy FY Fl

Actual

a

a

proposed statute.

://fiIesdep,state,

2014-15

2017-18 2013-14 2009-10

2016-17 2012-13

2015-16 2011-12

2018-19 2010-11

Legislature

Department

3%

14,

3

proposal

2019-20 decreasing

year

page

page

it

7g)iven

source

increase

increase 2019

million

is

they

because

2019-20,

actually

6:

the

2:

in

wants

by

Actual

Actual

Actual

Actual Actual Actual

Actual

Available Actual

Actual

3%

total

Proposed

chose

to

are

their

is

the

intended

variability

from

the

rd/2018/August%202

in

compared

states

change

desired.”1

increase.

of

they

not

recent

the

being

pa.us/PublicParticioation/Pu appropriations

potentialfiuctuations

Legislature:

while

3%

Three-Year

not

the

authorized

source

were

in

(See

to

the

to

Environmental

offset

the

years.”

RAF

and

delegate

Note

to

cover

The

paragraph

statute.

aware

proposed

fluctuations

Fl

and

box

by

Regulatory

Department

the

2018-19.

transfers

Total

$160,666,000

a

to

$

$ $ Amount This

$ $

$ $ $

$ $

transfers

10

from

method

$

significant

1/Fee%ZflReports/Chapter%209

that

139,233,000 142,114,000

146,477,000

148,356,000 124,837,000

142,620,000 132,509,000

156,049,000

125,856,000 154,259,000

this

request

following

135,186,000

that

Until

statement

funding

directly

total

the

Stewardship

the

authority

in

the

are in

This

then,

of

Fee

appropriations

General

that

available

it

appropriation

is

economic

blic%2OPa

their

“Department’s

portion

chart

included.

be

certainly

will

above.)

and

funding

when

the

provide

by

fulfilled

to

funding

be

Program

which

the

Fund

program

the

Fund.

resources

of

rticipation%2Ocenter/PubPartCenterPortal

conditions

increase

entitled

Department

the

the

Department.

outside

have

shows

to

by

from

+11%

-1% +1%

+4% -6%

+2% -7%

+7% -8%

*43%

Percent

Thus,

Cost

program’s

Department

total

must

be

the

both

of

to

the

includes

1%2OFee%2OReport.odf.

changed,

the

Analysis

legislature,

of

which

there

appropriations the

advocate

abide

Increase/Decrease

their

General

increased

does

last

regulated

Instead,

costs

is

directly

$10

with

eleven

by

statutory

Reports

not

they

no

the

for

from

Fund

a

decrease

million

tell

an

and

more

the

must

current

their

years

community

impact

from

overall

the

the

appears to

decreased

Legislature

authority.

from

stable

the

present

preferred

entire

General

of

for

the

fee the

increase

funding

EQB

the

2019-20.

to

General

and

structure

amounts

story.

also

to

Files/Environ

be

over

on

The

Recycling

maintained

Fund,

funding

sustainable

the

decreasing

fluctuates.

August

of

of

Legislature,

the

The

Fund

the

Legislature

$4.6

In

yet

that

designed

years.

fact,

source,

Fund

21,

the

have

menta

million

maybe

this

there

on

2018

If

and

For

the

1% by

justification.

The

the

A

the that these

substantially

design instant causes

upon to Certification, competition.”

overall or adjustments Administrative Another

many proposal proposed however, the 71

regulation. Potentially Because another Having and Commonwealth. administrative

increase,

proposed impact revised Museum

notification particular Page

May

measure

comprehensive

whether

require

fiscal

P.S.

fee

Employment

eight

final

not

the

14,

4

the

fee

dimensions

purposely

a

§

economy

submission,

a

on

increases

fiscal

the

impacts

criterion

Legislature

2019

area

of

loss

232.

area

will

better

of

economy

Commission

various

enumerated

some

increases

fee

cap

proposal

the

some

the

to

the

the

Furthermore,

expostfacto.

costs

in

higher

cost

of

Safe

note.

of

increases.

be

executive

of

and

Incredibly,

71

regulation

departments.

Code

the

ripple

full

of revenue

grasp

concern

fee

concern of

added

Cost

must

annual

and

in

of

to

the

P.S. It

look

of

Drinking

trade

the

fee

of

a

be

impact

are

is

imposing

the

meant fee

the

payers.

the

political

directs

regulation,

Pennsylvania.”

effect

explicitly

Commonwealth

not

(HMC)

of

§

Index.

proposed

viewed points

at

schedules.”

be

approved

to

745.5b

increases,

aggregate.

branch

CSL

petition

the or

Commonwealth

fees

For

is

the

is

the

conforms

considered.

this known

As

these

to

the

of an

Water,

the

these

that

the

impact

As

perspective,

and

subdivisions

This

impact

of

that

fiscal

you

hidden

these

Specifically,

limit

increase

proposal

in

inadequacy

keeps

Department’s (b)

to

you

consideration

Office

fee

specifically

amounts,

the

that

the

why

the

there

justify

know,

proposal

fee

will

a

(1)

Noncoal

when

note

Contrary

In

fees

to

of

know,

careful

increases

of

fees

broader

costs

Department

71

fee the

the

increases

(ii).

reality,

increase

the

$1563

these

of

in

the

violates

will

in

the

should

P.S.

its

it

and

the

changes

EQB the

consider

be

which

Office

the

intention

the

on though

the

passed

of

NPDES

clearly

Mining,

analysis

exercise

be

the

Regulatory

to

fee

“reasonable.”

§

context

cost

Budget

are

the

the

the

proposal

billion

“fiscal

voted

required

(up

745.2.

Regulatory

Bulletin

significant

costs

the

will

the

be

“adverse

make

of

increases

presented

consequences

fiscal

Pennsylvania

of

of

in to

circumvents

the

and not

that

obtained

the

assertion

essential

of

Unconventional

have

of

of

view programs

to Corrections

to

note

2,900%)

by to

of

We

submitted up

Regulatory

the

the

WQM

the Budget

merely

to

accept

$1978

since note

by

prepare

nearly

Review

the

throughout

effects

a

shall

costs

of

automatically

contend

Review

General

will

the

authority

impact

substantial

Admittedly,

Department’s

here

the

from

provided

of

2017

principle

fee

would

Administrative

show

on states:

$50

only

billionl

state

to

the

on

economy “nominal

Act

a

and public

(DOC)

of

increase to

as

the

April

Act

the

Review fiscal

on

Assembly

the political

that

million

prices

intent

considered

requires

the

evidence

Well, whether

have

whether

to

ramifications

the

the

Commonwealth

“No

requires

Office

in

of

Department

to

In

portion

will

16,

regulate

the

note

regulatory “reasonable”

adjust

the

government

individual

economy without

costs”

light

Act of

allow

of

a

fiscal

NPDES,

must

(Radiological

other

2019.

face

subdivisions

Department

drastic,

goods

the

that of

Bulletin

in

for

the

to

the

of Code

of

the

the

of

the

the

the

for

nominal

be

impact.

by

before

“curtail a

law

regulatory

recently

the

the

proposed

The

proposal

all

authority

WOM,

pattern

of

fees

IRRC

and

considered

enactment

the

review

scrutiny Budget

it

costs

and

and

or has

that

permittees.

notice.

these actual

commission

is

petitioners is

or

transparency.

specific

Office

services,

imperative

imposing

every

increased,

to therefore

throughout

ultimately

a

Health

The

excessive

has

costs

its

to

fees

and

approved

subjective

of

process

consider

which

is

fees

oction

actions

the

political

and

and

rather

Historical

been,

As

Departmental

in

Air

two

of

must

resulting

of entity

in

and

keeping

HMC

you

without

ripple

proposed

the

productivity

the

Quality

the

hidden

A

estimate

should

shall

years

regulation

unreasonable,

or

or

yet,

than

and

that

reissue

of

more

be

Radon

and the

the

know,

Budget,

standard,

subdivisions.”

procedure

statute

The

context

and

proposed

out and

set

“determine

is,

is

from

this

economic

with

currently

based

costs

adequate

evaluate

fees).

the

the

accurate

statutory

the

by

by

across a

this

the

growth

if

the

upon

or

and the

of

DOC

on

to all

44th Thank

fees).

41St form

Therefore, emission

Act.

Sincerely, fee the

Representative representatives In intent

have which

Representative General 169th Page

Representative deny For authority principles (i).

magnitude,

laid

powers,

May

%kANaøt

summary,

these

levels

General

out

Legislative

Because

Legislative

71

14,

allowed

of

5

this

Legislative

the

of

you

taxation

above,

P.S.

Assembly.

the

2019

the

fee

proposal.

by to

reasons,

regulation

of

for

it

and

§

Assembly

Department the

expanding

our

the

General

is to

they

for

745.2(a).

your

vitally

District

District we

Valerie

Brett

Kate

be

in

intent.

executive

District

form

and,

Constitution

it

did

the

we,

increased

contend

in

taking

As

Klunk

is

R.

Assembly.

the

important

although

not

of

cited

General

you

as

based.”

Gaydos

the

Miller

Furthermore,

If

government

must

statute,

elected

explicitly

these

the

branch,

know,

fee

that

that

based

requires

legislature

strictly

Assembly,

the

setting

71

to

concerns

this

were

In

our

members

but

it

carefully P.S.

General

fact,

authorize

on ?Jj

100th

proposal

is

R

Representative Representative

199th

93

nation

they

demand

the

adhere

not

that

the

discretion

important

§

“inflationary

resentative

745.Sb.(a).

had

for

under

deleterious

Legislative

being

Legislative

Consumer

did

Legislative

all

Assembly

of

discern

was

any

it

wanted

to

clearly

taxation

the

that

not.

in

sufficiently

review.

Legislature’s

birthed

granted

proposal

to

the

House

the

For

the

remember

Bryan

Automatically

District

Mike

Barbara

and

District

impact

Price

CSL,

may

economic

District to

originate

people

example,

will

allow

overthe

of

expressly

to

this

Jones

to have

Cutler Index

Representatives,

of

reviewed

them.

and

raise

Gleim

authorized

the

proposal

setting

have

that

outsourced

and

in

in

the

conformity

issue

people,

taxes.

the

setting

exceeds

the

In

the input

fiscal

Legislature

when

the

respect

General

Air

of

should

source

criteria

The

43Td Representative

into fees

taxation impacts 84th

130th

Representative

Representative

as

fees

Pollution

they

some

the

to

expressed

respectfully

to

Department

Legislative

how

Legislative based

be

Assembly. legislative

of

based

statutory

Legislative

the

for explicitly

passed

this

of

denied.

are

without

much

raising

Control

its

constitutional

on

on

authority

not

discretion

by

the

an

District

an

they

Keith request

authority

District

intene’

allowed

David

Garth

in

Fee

must The

their

District

taxes.

representation. index,

Regulatory

Act. index

the

are

increases

J.

democratic

remains

elected

M

Everett

not

public’s

Greiner

35 were

that

on

they

was

taxed

forthe

For

separation

in

usurp

P.S.

the

scope,

the

the

ey

not

two

would

Review

with (assessed

are §

setting

interest.

air

reasons

4006.3

IRRC

this the

factors

a

in

the

of of May 14, 2019 Page 6

Represe ative Kathy Rapp Representative Jeff Wheeland Representative Greg Rothman 55th Legislative District 83,d Legislative District 87 Legislative District e %4 0j Representative Lee James Representative Marcy Toepel Representative Rich Irvin 54th 147th -‘ Legislative District Legislative District 31St Legislative District QaaflL4+ 71 -&_ %E Representative Dawn Keefer Representative George Dunbar Representative Torren Ecker 92 Legislative District 56th Legislative District 193td Legislative District 6td ---- Representative Tina Pickett Representative Dave Zimmerman Representative Russ Diamond 110th Legislative District ggth Legislative District 102 Legislative District

Representative Clint Owlett Representative Mark Gillen epresentative Andrew Lewis 68th Legislative District 128th Legislative District 105th Legislative District

Representative Brad Roae Representative Paul Schemel Representative-- Jonathan Fritz 5th Legislative District g0thi Legislative District 111th Legislative District

Representative Mindy Fee Representative Jack Rader Representative Jim Cox 37th Legislative District 176th Legislative District 128th Legislative District

82nd Representative

115th

Representative 57th Representative

Representative Page

Representative May g7th

196th

‘7iJt

Legislative

Legislative

Legislative

14,

7

Legislative

Legislative

2019

%AQ

District

District

JohnathaD.

Tarah

Steven

District

Seth

Eric

District

District

Nelson

Grove

Toohil

Mentzer Hershey

10tb

Representative

Representative 9V

ggth Representative

10t

Representative

Legislative

Legislative

Legislative

Legislative

District

Aaron

District

District

Dan

Sheryl

Frank

District

Maul

Bernstine

Ryan

Delozier

5% 761h Representative 60th

66th

Representative Representative

1081h

_

Legislative

Legislative

Legislative

Legislative

District

District

District Jeff

Stephanie

Chis

Lynda

District

Pyle

Dush

Schlegel

6orowcz Culver