BILL ANALYSIS
AB 479
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 479 (Chesbro) - As Amended: April 22, 2009
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill increases solid waste diversion rates and goals and
the tipping fee on solid waste disposal. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Increases the state tipping fee from $1.40 to $3.90 per ton on
and after January 1, 2010, and allocates the increased tipping
fee as specified.
2)Requires local jurisdictions to divert 60% of solid waste from
landfills by January 1, 2015 and requires the Integrated Waste
Management Board (IWMB) to adopt policies that achieve a
statewide diversion rate of 60% by January 1, 2015, and 75% by
January 1, 2020.
3)Requires businesses that contract for solid waste services and
generate more than four cubic yards of solid waste and
recyclable materials per week to arrange for recycling.
4)Requires specified local agencies within a county of 200,000
or more inhabitants to adopt commercial recycling ordinances
by January 1, 2011, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Revenues of approximately $100 million annually resulting from
the increased tipping fee, allocated to local government for
source reduction and recycling programs and other waste
reduction efforts. (IWMA)
2)Minor costs, likely less than $150,000 in 2009-10, to the
AB 479
Page 2
Board of Equalization (BOE) to adjust its imposition and
collection of the solid waste tipping fee to reflect the
increased rate and allocation process, and minor ongoing
costs, likely less than $100,000 annually starting in 2010-11,
to administer allocation of the additional revenue. These
costs are covered by a small percentage of tipping fee revenue
collected.
3)Moderate one-time costs, in the range of $400,000 primarily in
2009-10, to the IWMB to develop an increased diversion rate
plan. (Integrated Waste Management Account (IWMA))
4)Moderate ongoing costs, around $500,000 annually starting in
2009-10, to IWMB to adopt policies, programs, and incentives
to achieve increased diversion rates. (IWMA)
5)Substantial cost pressures, in the millions of dollars
annually starting in 2009-10 and covered wholly or partially
by the fee authorized by this bill, to the IWMA and to local
enforcement agencies to implement the policies, programs and
incentives needed to achieve increased diversion rates.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends additional efforts must be
undertaken to divert more solid waste from disposal in order
to conserve scarce natural resources and avoid pollution, such
as emission of greenhouse gases. Despite the efforts of the
IWMB and local enforcement agencies, the total annual volume
of disposed solid waste is now considerably higher than it was
when the state's program to divert 50% of solid waste from
landfills began in 1990. The author contends this bill
provides the leadership and the resources needed to sustain
and expand solid waste processing capacity to allow the state
to achieve additional solid waste diversion.
2)History . AB 939 (Sher), Statutes of 1989, restructured the
IWMB, established the state's 50% diversion program and a
state tipping fee of $1 per ton of solid waste brought to a
solid waste facility for disposal. Subsequent legislation
increased the maximum tipping fee to $1.34 in 1994 and $1.40
in 1995. If the original $1 tipping fee had been adjusted for
inflation, the 2009 tipping fee would be $2.13.
While several communities have met or exceeded the 50% solid
AB 479
Page 3
waste diversion goals established by AB 939, because these
goals are calculated using factors that reflect population
growth and other growth measures, actual disposal of solid
waste statewide has increased substantially since 1990. Solid
waste disposed and subject to the state tipping fee amounted
to 40.1 million tons in 1990, dropped consistently to 32.9
million tons in 1996, but has averaged around 40 tons in each
of the last three years. The 31% increase in solid waste
disposal statewide since 1996 has outpaced the 17% increase in
the state's population.
3)Opponents , including local governments, state that the
collapse of the recycled materials markets, among other market
changes, make increased diversion of solid waste infeasible.
The value of waste and recyclable materials has dropped
significantly. As a result, waste and recyclable materials of
potential value are being stockpiled. Should the market fail
to rebound in the near future, many of these materials may be
landfilled.
Opponents also point out that landfills have experienced a
drop in disposal by as much as 20%, which has resulted in
decreased disposal fee revenues to local governments. Local
governments in particular state that additional tools are
needed before they can comply with an increased diversion
rate-improved product design and producer responsibility;
meaningful market development for recycled materials;
assistance for siting compost facilities; better organics
management; and efforts to enhance conversion technology.
Increasing the state disposal fee will not alleviate most of
these barriers to greater rates of diversion and will raise
disposal costs.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081