State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Public Comments Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition This document is a compilation of written* comments received during public comment period for the Indirect Source Rulemaking Petition. The public comment period was open from Jan. 14, 2020 until 4 p.m., Feb. 14, 2020. The comments have been organized into three categories, comments in support of the petition, comments opposed to the petition, and those that are neutral. Comment Category Neutral Page 2 Opposed Page 19 Supports Page 146 *DEQ received verbal testimony at the Jan. 24, 2020 public hearing. That verbal testimony was recorded and is part of the EQC meeting record. DEQ considered verbal testimony but did not transcribe those comments into written form. To: Department of Environmental Quality (attn: Karen Williams) From: Tracy Rutten, League of Oregon Cities Date: February 14, 2020 RE: Comments for EQC Consideration – Indirect Air Source Permitting Petition for Rulemaking Comments submitted electronically to [email protected] The League of Oregon Cities appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Indirect Source Rules Petition that was submitted to the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) on December 20, 2019. The LOC has been engaged in discussions and programs to address air quality emissions, including investments in Oregon’s Residential Solid Fuel Heating Air Quality Improvement Fund. While the LOC has not taken a formal position on the petition, we do have significant concerns that we urge the EQC to carefully consider. Impacted Cities - Construction Permits; Operating Permits: As proposed, the petition seeks to require the regulation of emissions from the construction and operation of indirect air sources in cities and metropolitan service districts with a population of 50,000 or more. Under the proposed petition, 31 cities would be subject to regulations both in terms of direct regulation of city facilities and operations. In addition, there will be impacts to economic development and housing costs resulting from the construction and operation of various non-public facilities within city limits: • Cities within metropolitan service district: Beaverton; Cornelius; Durham; Fairview; Forest Grove; Gladstone, Gresham; Happy Valley; Hillsboro, Johnson City; King City; Lake Oswego; Maywood; Milwaukie; Oregon City; Rivergrove; Sherwood; Tigard; Troutdale; Tualatin; West Linn; Wilsonville; Wood Village • Cities with a population of 50,000 or more: Eugene, Salem, Bend, Medford, Springfield, Corvallis, Albany • Types of public facilities that are likely to be considered as indirect sources under the proposed regulations: water and wastewater treatment facilities, city hall facilities, libraries, schools, parking facilities and public recreation facilities. The petition proposes that certain activities be subject to indirect source construction and operation permits. This includes construction or demolition of permanent residential, commercial or residential structures with areas exceeding 10,000 square feet; construction of parking facilities with capacity of 500 or more parking spaces, excavations exceeding 8,000 square feet of disturbed area, and Page 1 of 3 development projects exceeding $1 million total contract value where estimated construction emissions may exceed certain annual thresholds. Again, the LOC urges the EQC to consider how these requirements will impact the ability of the state and local governments to meet identified needs for infrastructure investment, economic development and job creation, as well as housing affordability. Infrastructure Impacts: We anticipate there will be increased costs associated with infrastructure projects as a result of the proposed regulations via the threshold for excavation (of more than 8,000 square feet) and mobile source operating provisions included in the petition. In 2016, the LOC surveyed cities across the state and identified $7.6 billion in water and wastewater infrastructure needs. In addition, over $3.5 billion in transportation needs were identified. This number represents the needs of 120 out of 241 cities in the state. The ability to address the backlog of infrastructure needs in this state should be a consideration of the EQC in the context of this deliberation and decision. In addition to addressing the general backlog of aging infrastructure, cities have clearly identified needs associated with seismic resilience for drinking water and wastewater systems. The LOC has no estimates of the potential increased infrastructure costs that could result should this petition be approved but we do ask the EQC to take the time to better understand how this may increase cost, delay needed improvements, and impact the ability of local governments to become more resilient against earthquakes and other natural disasters. Most local governments operate under budgetary constraints. As construction costs increase, the ability of local governments to invest beyond basic needs and repairs can be negatively impacted. Impacts to Housing: One of the most critical issues facing communities statewide is the cost of housing and lack of affordable and workforce housing supply. Again, LOC has no estimates of the increased housing costs that may result should this petition for rulemaking move forward, but we ask the EQC and DEQ staff to work with other state agencies and stakeholders to estimate the potential cost impacts. It has been shown that one of the key mechanisms to address the affordable housing crisis that so many communities are facing, is to increase the supply of housing units available. With recent legislation passed in 2019 (HB 2001) many cities will be required to allow for middle housing (i.e. higher density homes) on single-family lots. In addition, it is our understanding that the construction of additional multi-family housing complexes, including affordable housing complexes made available to low-income Oregonians, will be subject to these proposed requirements. Potential increased costs for housing development should be well understood prior to moving forward with this petition. Potential for Unfunded Mandate: Finally, the LOC will be further exploring as to whether the proposed regulations and requirements that directly relate to public facilities and services might trigger unfunded mandates provisions under Article XI, Section 15 of the Oregon Constitution. Subsection 3 reads: (3) A local government is not required to comply with any state law or administrative rule or order enacted or adopted after January 1, 1997, that requires the expenditure of money by the local government for a new program or increased level of service for an existing program until the state appropriates and allocates to the local government reimbursement for any costs incurred to carry out the law, rule or order and unless the Legislative Assembly provides, by appropriation, reimbursement in each succeeding year for such costs. However, a local government may refuse to comply with a state law or administrative rule or order under this subsection only if the amount appropriated and allocated to the local government by the Legislative Assembly for a program in a fiscal year: (a) Is less than 95 percent of the usual and reasonable costs incurred by the local government in conducting the program at the same level of service in the preceding fiscal year; or Page 2 of 3 (b) Requires the local government to spend for the program, in addition to the amount appropriated and allocated by the Legislative Assembly, an amount that exceeds one-hundredth of one percent of the annual budget adopted by the governing body of the local government for that fiscal year. Ultimately, the LOC is urging the EQC to be diligent in gathering the necessary data to understand the potential impacts that these regulations could have on these key areas. This is a significant policy that we believe could result in very real impacts within the 31 cities identified above. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to share our perspective and concerns. Page 3 of 3 January 15, 2020 Kathleen George, Chair Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232-4100 Re: Indirect Source Rules for Construction and Operation Dear Chair George: As a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Metro has over a two-decade history collaborating with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on the implementation of air pollution and greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Metro is interested in the concept of addressing air quality impacts through indirect source permitting and believes now is an appropriate time to have this conversation. While our region’s formal federal obligations pertaining to reducing transportation emissions were successfully completed in 2017, Metro remains aware much more needs to be done to achieve our region’s air quality and climate goals. For example, Metro is joining other jurisdictional partners to adopt clean diesel construction standards to reduce diesel emissions and pollution hotspots resulting from construction. In addition, Metro continues to partner with DEQ on implementing the Employee Commute Options Program through Metro’s Regional Travel Options program. On the horizon, Metro is aware DEQ will apply to participate in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Ozone Advance program to develop and implement proactive strategies to address