BILL ANALYSIS
AB 283
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 283 (Chesbro) - As Amended: April 23, 2009
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill creates the California Product Stewardship Act of
2009, which requires the Integrated Waste Management Board
(IWMB) to administer an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
program of product stewardship that encourages producers to be
comprehensively responsible for the life cycle of their
products.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Annual start up costs to IWMB through 2011-12, of
approximately $500,000 to coordinate with representatives of
state and local government, producers, retailers, consumers,
transporters, haulers, recyclers, nonprofit organizations, and
other interested stakeholders; convene public workshops;
develop and adopt regulations; and recommend short- and
long-term incentives to foster environmental product design to
reduce waste and use of hazardous materials. (Integrated Waste
Management Account (IWMA)
2)Ongoing annual cost to IWMB in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars to select products to be covered under the act and set
performance goals for those products, review product
stewardship plans and reports, implement incentives to enhance
recyclability and redesign efforts and to reduce environmental
and safety impacts of covered products, and to enforce the
provisions of the act. (IWMA)
3)Fee revenues, as authorized by this bill, should ultimately be
sufficient to cover the costs of implementing and
administering the provisions of this bill. (IWMA)
AB 283
Page 2
4)Possible savings beginning in 2012-13, potentially in the
millions of dollars annually, to various special funds to the
extent IWMB's EPR program replaces the state's other,
product-specific waste management programs.
SUMMARY (continued)
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires IWMB to:
a) Administer the Extended Producer Responsibility
Framework Program that provides protocols to encourage
producers to research alternatives to foster full life
cycle ("cradle-to-cradle") producer responsibility and
reduce the end-of-life environmental impacts of their
products.
b) Adopt regulations, by July 1, 2011, that include
immediate incentives to stimulate waste reduction,
pollution prevention, energy efficiency, and increased
secondary use of recycled and reused materials, as well as
long-term incentives to foster product design to reduce
waste and use of hazardous materials.
c) On and after July 1, 2012, select products with
environmental, waste management and public health effects,
including all produces banned from landfill disposal, to be
covered by the program and set performance goals for those
products.
d) Establish civil penalty of up to $50,000 against a
producer for violation of these provisions.
2)Requires a producer of a covered product to:
a) Submit a product stewardship plan to IWMB within 180
days of IWMB's identification of the covered product or
participate in a stewardship organization that submits such
a plan, and revise the plan every four years.
b) Collect the covered product without charging a fee to
consumers at the time of collection.
AB 283
Page 3
c) Pay a fee to cover all administrative and operational
costs associated with this bill.
d) Report to IWMB every other year on the activities of the
product stewardship plan, to be approved by IWMB within 90
days.
3)Prohibits a covered product from sale or promotional use on
and after July 1, 2012, unless the producer or product
stewardship organization of the covered product submits a
product stewardship plan.
4)Authorizes IWMB to establish and collect a fee sufficient to
cover the costs of implementing and administering the
provisions of this bill.
5)Authorizes IWMB to offer collected penalty and other funds as
incentives to enhance recyclability and redesign efforts and
to reduce environmental and safety impacts of covered
products.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends it is necessary for producers
to design and manufacture products that are more resource
efficient and recyclable, less hazardous, and emit fewer
greenhouse gases. According to the author, currently, the
state addresses products with end-of-life management issues
through a patchwork of product- and material-specific programs
of varying success.
This bill would replace the state's current piecemeal approach
to waste management by giving IWMB the regulatory authority to
address a wide range of products that end up in California
landfills. The author contends that the product stewardship
program created by this bill would protect California's
environment and human health by providing producers with the
financial incentive to design and make products that are less
costly to dispose of. The author further contends that the
program created by this bill would cost significantly less to
administer than does the state's existing, product-specific
waste management approach.
2)Supporters, including environmental groups and many local
governments, believe the the EPR program authorized by this
AB 283
Page 4
bill would alleviate some waste management costs to local
government by shifting the responsibility for end-of-life
management of products to the manufacturer. Supporters
additionally argue this bill would lessen the need for
product-by-product waste-management programs, such as current
programs for electronic waste and used oil disposal, thereby
reducing administrative costs through streamlining.
3)Opponents , including many industry organizations, claim that
the bill provides overly broad authority to IWMB that fails to
provide exemptions for products currently recycled at high
rates and will increase costs to businesses and consumers.
4)Background. California law seeks to reduce the amount of
waste that goes into landfills. Existing law requires local
governments to divert 50% of solid waste generated from
landfill disposal through source reduction, reuse, and
recycling. In addition, the state has different programs,
most of which include fee authority, that restrict the
disposal and direct the collection of motor oil, electronic
waste, cell phones, rechargeable batteries, mercury
thermometers. California state and local government spend
hundreds of millions of dollars a year to collect, recycle and
dispose of waste.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) also seeks to reduce
the amount of waste that winds up in landfills. But, unlike
approaches that address waste at the point of disposal, EPR
seeks to address the generation of waste at the point of
product design. Typically, producers do not consider
recycling possibilities, disposal costs, and environmental
impacts when designing products because public agencies and
other entities, not the producers, bear those costs. By
placing responsibility for product disposal on the producer,
EPR provides the producer, rather than state or local
government, a financial incentive to reduce the generation of
waste.
5)IWMB's EPR Framework. At its January 2008 board meeting, IWMB
adopted a revised "Overall Framework for an EPR System in
California," which called for establishing an EPR system
through statute and subsequent regulations. IWMB's EPR
Framework was developed and adopted after two years of public
workshops and meetings with local governments, legislative
members, retailers, and producers. Similarly, the League of
AB 283
Page 5
California Cities, California State Association of Counties,
and the Regional Council of Rural Counties each have all
adopted EPR policy supporting the IWMB's general framework
approach.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081