Gmail - ZESC Proposal- requesting Municipal Solid Waste for recycling i... https://mail.google.com/maill?ui=2&ik=954e 193168&view=pt&q=Robin.

I also acknowledged to Mr. White that there is no current proper category for the ZESC facility in the Metro Code
501 at Metro. In our meeting at Metro in December, we had some discussion about the putrescent category and
the need to find a way to describe the ZESC recycling of putrescent material or the conversion of it into building
materials, a possibility not anticipated by the Code. These questions were not resolved as our conversation at the
time moved to the financial aspects of our interim financing.

It is very important that each record be carefully documented so that there is no dispute at a later time. The facts
appear that Metro's designee, Mr. White, declined to carry the proposal of Zero Tipping Fee to the municipalities
and I so today I again offered to take the proposal directly to the haulers. Mr. White also declined to obtain the
written statement you suggested in our phone call that you would provide to Mr. White *but not directly to ZESC?*
for the benefit of the haulers who wish to cooperate with the proposal. In conclusion, your suggestion of utilizing Mr.
White and his contacts seemed reasonable at the time but has not borne the fruit we all hoped to see.

As Metro does not actually command Mr. White and Metro may not insist upon his performance per the law, Metro
and ZESe are back where we started one month ago.

In December my request to Metro (besides my request for Metro's direct assistance per the law, which assistance
was not forthcoming in December) was a statement prepared by Metro for the peace-of-mind of the haulers I have
approached and will again approach. The statement I sought would indicate that Metro would cause all of Metro's
current MSW "flow-control" hauling rules to harmonize with with the existing state law which favors routing MSW to
the ZESC facility (energy/recycling/remanufacturing with identity loss/conversion... ) rather than toward landfills. Now
that Mr. White has extricated himself from contributing which is entirely his prerogative (and I wish him only the best
as moves on) my original question still needs a recorded answer.

I have copied my elected official, Councilor Rod Park, on this email for the single purpose of asking his intervention
to be certain that the "encouragement" I have been seeking from Metro is secured.

Asserted:

Oregon HB 3744, attached, requires that when it is possible to re-use MSW that would otherwise be destined to a
landfill by diverting MSW toward energy or into recycling, that it is the responsibility of all government bodies
(Metro is a government body- a District) to encourage utilization of the capabilities of this private industry which
addresses MSWas feasible.

I further suggested that $0.00 tipping fee is a definition of "feasible",

"Encourage utilization" I understand to mean cooperate, allow, publicize or promote and means neither any type of
punitive action against the ZESC for accepting diverted MSW to convert into energy/manufacturing materials (I
accept that a new category may be created in the Metro Code to accommodate this) nor punitive action against the
haulers who cooperate with the intent of the state law and divert to the ZESC.

If you have a separate understanding of OR HB 3744, please kindly respond.

Without a response by Friday January 15th 2010, I will understand that Metro's position is complete support and
compliance to state law, and that Metro will also allow any haulers who determine to divert MSW for ZESC
re-processing to do so without any punitive action by Metro; the haulers who divert MSW to the ZESC for conversion
to energy or manufacturing materials shall not be fined by Metro, shall not suffer revocation of any license/authority,
or suffer any kind political or legal backlash whatsoever from Metro as a result of any hauler's choice to cooperate
with OR HB 3744.

As Mr. White indicated that he would be meeting with you on Tuesday, this will give you at Metro ample opportunity
to discuss any objections to OR HB 3744 that you wish to voice.

I will understand the absence of an emailed written objection to the state law to mean complete support for
all aspects as clarified above. This email record shall then serve as Metro's encouraging statement to the
ZESe developer and prospective cooperative waste-haulers. I would be happy to work with Marvin (who was
 very pleasant) to adjust the language slightly if requested. I hope this compromise is found to be a welcome way to
meet in the middle.

I think another feasible way in which Metro could comply with the requirement to encourage utilization of ZESC's
opportunity to recycle would be a general announcement in Metro website, referring specifically to the ZESC
proposal and Metro's intention to fully comply with HB 3744 and release all haulers from any Metro requirement that
does not encourage the haulers to divert MSW to our private energy/manufacturing MSW solution per HB 3744.
Kindly let me know if/when you would like to do this as ~I would like to collaborate on the language. I am open to any
other mechanisms Metro would like to put forward in order to encourage/promote the achieving the cooperation
needed to divert the MSW away from landfills using the ZESC facility. I welcome your ,promotion suggestions,
especially those that encourage the humane midwifing of the dramatic changes to many industries that the ZESC
proposal portends.

Best regards,

Marni Zollinger
ZESC Developer

- - - Forwarded message - - ­
From: M <zesc1971@grnaiLcom>
Date: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:01 PM
SUbject: Re: ZESC Proposal- requesting Municipal Solid Waste for recycling into valuable products
To: Scott Robinson <Scott. Roblnson@oregonmetro.gov>
Cc: Marvin Fjordbeck <Marvin.Fjordbeck@oregonmetro.gov>, Paul Ehinger <PauI.Ehinger@oregonmetro.gov>,
"david@slatiwonk.com" <david@slatiwonk.com>, davidw@orra.net

Scott,

I am glad to receive your email.

New combinations of commercial technology can certainly achieve different results than the old combinations. As we
said in our meeting, my investor feels that his previous 250 energy operations (each with different conditions,
equipment combinations, histories and adaptations) have provided him with the insight to combine the technology this
way. He doesn't want to build his 251 st pilot plant. He also has no intention of risking anything on unproven
technology, only investing in new combinations of commercial technology that can achieve the results he seeks. If
you had any concerns on the technology, you could have addressed them to him, he was awaiting your contact.

I know that Metro wants nothing but the best for our community and our environment, which is why I asked Metro to
assist in ''flowing'' the MSW at zero tipping fee.

t will work with Mr. White, thank you for that contact. I have copied him on this email.

Will you clarify one last point, that there is no impediment on Metro's end for any hauler who wishes to divert waste
for recycling/energy conversion to our facility, in keeping with Metro's compliance with Oregon HB 3744 with which
all Metro agreements must harmonize? .1\\
.
. ,~ ,<.: ~ ".
~cY ~ c~... ~ ; '-~.'\.
Many thanks,
V"'"
Marni Zollinger ~ ~~ c<.,xt: ~(.. 1:\
ZESC Developer ~ .JrD \. .s ",\-.1
~L

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Scott Robinson <Scott.Robll1Son@oregonmetro.gov> wrote:

100f12 5/6/20102:08 T