BILL ANALYSIS
SB 183
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 183 (Alan Lowenthal)
As Amended September 4, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-12
HOUSING 6-0 JUDICIARY 7-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Torres, Harkey, Eng, |Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Evans, |
| |Fletcher, Ma, Saldana, | |Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, |
| | | |Monning |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Tran, Knight, Silva |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 13-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, | | |
| |Ammiano, | | |
| |Charles Calderon, Coto, | | |
| |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, | | |
| |Harkey, Miller, Skinner, | | |
| |Solorio, Torlakson | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Duvall, John A. Perez, | | |
| |Audra Strickland | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Enacts the Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of
2009 (Act) requiring all existing dwellings, completed or
occupied by January 1, 2010, intended for human occupancy that
have a fossil fuel burning appliance, a fireplace, or an
attached garage to install a carbon monoxide (CO) device.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a CO device that has been approved by the State Fire
Marshall (SFM) to be installed in any existing dwelling
intended for human occupancy that has a fossil fuel burning
heater or appliance, fireplace, or an attached garage within
SB 183
Page 2
the earliest applicable timeframe as follows:
a) For all existing single-family dwelling units intended
for human occupancy on or before January 1, 2011; and,
b) For all other dwellings intended for human occupancy on
or before July 1, 2012.
2)Makes legislative findings regarding the number of deaths due
to CO poisoning, the chronic health effects of prolonged
exposure to CO, and the benefit of equipping homes with CO
detectors.
3)Defines a "carbon monoxide device" as a device that meets all
of the following requirements:
a) Detects CO and produces a distinct audible alarm;
b) Is battery powered, a plug in device with a battery
backup or installed as recommended by Standard 720 of the
National Fire Protection Association that is either wired
into the alternating current power line of the dwelling
unit with a secondary battery backup or connected to a
system via a panel;
c) Has been tested and certified pursuant to the
requirements of the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), by a
nationally recognized testing laboratory as specified; and,
d) If combined with a smoke detector the device must:
i) Meet the standards that apply to CO alarms as
described in the Act;
ii) Meet the standards that apply to smoke detectors;
and,
iii) Emit an alarm or voice warning in a manner that
clearly differentiates between a CO alarm and a smoke
detector warning.
4)Defines "dwelling unit intended for human occupancy" to
SB 183
Page 3
include single family dwelling, factory built home, duplex,
lodging house, dormitory apartment complex, hotel, motel,
condominium, stock cooperate, time-share project or dwelling
unit of a multi-family complex. Exempts a property owned or
leased by the state, the Regents of the University of
California, or a local government agency.
5)Defines "fossil fuel" to mean coal, kerosene, oil, wood, fuel
gases, and other petroleum or hydrocarbon product which emit
CO as a byproduct of combustion.
6)Requires the SFM to develop a certification and
decertification process to approve and list CO devices that
must include consideration of the effectiveness and
reliability, including their propensity to record false
alarms.
7)Requires the certification and decertification process of CO
devices to include review of the manufacturer's instructions
to insure that they are consistent with building standards for
new construction regarding the number and placement of CO
devices.
8)Permits the SFM to charge an appropriate fee to the
manufacturer of a CO device to cover the cost associated with
approving and listing CO devices.
9)Prohibits the sale or distribution of CO devices in the state
unless the device has been approved and listed by the SFM.
10)Requires an owner to adhere to the building standards
applicable to new construction or manufacturer instructions
when determining the number and placement of CO devices in a
dwelling.
11)Provides a violation of this Act is punishable by a maximum
fine of $200 for each offense.
12)Requires a resident of a single-family home to receive a
30-day notice to correct a violation of this Act prior to
being assessed a fine.
13)Allows a local jurisdiction to enact or amend an ordinance
requiring CO devices that is consistent with the Act.
SB 183
Page 4
14)Requires an owner of rental units to test and maintain the CO
device in that dwelling unit.
15)Allows an owner to enter into a rental unit to test and
maintain a CO device.
16)Requires an owner of a rental unit to give a tenant
twenty-four hours notice, except in an emergency, before
entering the unit to install, repair, test or maintain a CO
device.
17)Requires a tenant to notify the manager or owner of a rental
unit if the CO device does not work.
18)Provides that if the Department of Housing & Community
Development (HCD) in consultation with the SFM determines that
there are not enough tested and approved CO devices on the
market by the date that the devices are required to be
installed in existing dwellings, HCD may suspend enforcement
of the Act for six months.
19)Requires HCD, if a decision to delay installation of CO
devices is made, to post a notice on the Secretary of State's
Internet Web Site that describes the findings and decision.
20)Provides that if the California Building Standards Commission
(CBSC) adopts building standards relating to CO devices an
owner is not required to install a new device meeting those
requirements until the owner makes an application for a permit
for alterations requires to a dwelling of more than $1,000.
21)Revises the statutory transfer disclosure statement that the
seller of a manufactured home or a one- to four-unit
residential property must provide to a buyer by:
a) Requiring the seller to check off whether or not the
property has one or more CO devices;
b) Adding a footnote to the form advising buyers that
installation of a CO device is not a precondition of sale;
and,
c) Requiring a seller to certify as opposed to check-off on
SB 183
Page 5
the list of present items, that the property is in
compliance with laws requiring smoke detectors and the
bracing of water heaters.
FISCAL EFFECT : One time cost of $10,000 to the SFM to develop a
certification and decertification process for carbon monoxide
devices.
COMMENTS : The California Building Standards Law establishes the
CBSC and the process for adopting state building standards.
Under this process, relevant state agencies propose amendments
to model building codes, which the CBSC must then adopt, modify,
or reject. HCD is the relevant state agency for residential
building standards.
Building standards are generally prospective in that they only
apply to new construction or to existing buildings that undergo
alteration or rehabilitation. There are a few exceptions to
this rule however. Current law requires that all water heaters
in existing residential structures be braced, anchored, or
strapped to resist falling or horizontal displacement due to
earthquake motion. Current law also requires that smoke
detectors be installed in all existing multifamily residential
dwellings and in single family dwellings which are sold. To
comply with the smoke detector statute, an affected residential
property owner must install a smoke detector approved and listed
by the SFM.
With respect to multifamily rental housing, the smoke detector
must be operable at the time that a tenant takes possession.
The tenant is then responsible for notifying the owner if the
smoke detector becomes inoperable. The owner must correct any
reported deficiencies in the smoke detector but is not in
violation of the law if he/she has not received notice of any
deficiency. An owner may enter the unit for the purpose of
installing, repairing, testing, and maintaining the detector
provided that standard notice is provided. Failure to comply is
an infraction punishable by a maximum fine of $200 for each
offense.
With respect to single-family housing, a seller must provide a
buyer as soon as practicable prior to the sale with a written
statement indicating that the home is in compliance with the
smoke detector statute. Real estate agents and other agents to
SB 183
Page 6
the transaction, however, are not required to monitor or ensure
compliance with the law. Moreover, third-party agents to the
transaction are not held liable for any error, inaccuracy, or
omission relating to the disclosure, except that a real estate
agent may be held liable where he/she participates in the making
of the disclosure with actual knowledge of the falsity of the
disclosure. The exclusive remedy for failure to comply is an
award of actual damages up to $100. A transfer of title may not
be invalidated on the basis of a failure to comply.
The purpose of this bill: CO is an odorless, colorless, deadly
gas. At lower levels of exposure it can cause health problems
such as headaches, fatigue, nausea, dizzy spells, confusion and
irritability. Later stages of CO poisoning can cause vomiting,
loss of consciousness and eventually brain damage or death. CO
is produced by furnaces, common household appliances, vehicles,
generators, fireplaces and other systems that are powered by the
burning of fuel such as natural gas propane, gasoline, oil and
wood.
The California Air Resources Board has determine that 30-40
"avoidable deaths" occur just in California each year, on
average, due to unintentional CO poisoning. Additionally, there
are 175-700 "avoidable" emergency room visits and
hospitalizations in California alone. In 2001, 25% of the CO
poisoning deaths from home-related products were adults 65 years
and older. The Carbon Monoxide Health and Safety Association
has determined that the combined cost of CO accidents, lost
productivity and lost wages amounts to $8.8 billion a year.
Eighteen large states and a number of large cities have passed
laws mandating the use of CO devices. The author believes that
adopting such a mandate in California will significantly improve
public health. The existing building standards process can
apply such a mandate to newly constructed units, but an act of
the Legislature is necessary to require installation of CO
devices in existing homes.
This bill would require that all existing owners of single
family homes install a CO device in their home by 2011 and
owners of all other dwellings, including apartments, hotels, and
dormitories, install a CO device by 2012.
How much would this bill cost consumers? CO devices are
SB 183
Page 7
available ranging in price from $20 to $90 and can be purchased
in hardware stores including Lowe's and Home Depot or on the
Internet. If each of the 13 million household in the state
installed one device in their home at the lower range of price
scale the cost would be approximately $260 million. CO devices
have an average useful life of four to seven years; therefore,
owners would be required to replace the devices at some
interval. As a comparison, on average, smoke detectors must be
replaced every 10 years.
Update to International Codes: In September 2008, the
International Code Council (ICC) an entity that adopts and
publishes model codes which are the basis for many state
building codes including California, added a new section to its
International Residential Code requiring builders of newly
constructed one- and two-unit dwellings that have fuel-fired
appliances or an attached garage to install an approved CO
device outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate
vicinity of bedrooms. The new codes adopted by ICC also require
the installation of CO devices in existing dwellings that have
fuel-fired appliances or attached garages when work requires a
building permit. While the inclusion of this section of a model
code does not create a requirement by itself and does not bind
any state to include this section in its codes it indicates that
there is some level of consensus within the code community that
CO devices protect public safety and are cost-effective and
reliable. HCD plans to adopt this requirement for newly
constructed one- and two- unit dwellings in its next code
revision cycle and is considering applying it to other
residential occupancies as well, such as buildings of three or
more units, hotels and dorms.
Previous legislation: The author carried, SB 1386, a similar
piece of legislation that was vetoed last year. Below is the
Governor's veto message:
This bill would require that carbon monoxide devices be
installed in residences beginning in 2010, thus placing
a building standard in statute. This bill would also
require that the Department of Housing and Community
Development to develop additional building standards
concerning specific installation requirements for these
devices.
SB 183
Page 8
While I am certainly concerned with the health and
safety of Californians, this bill is an undesirable
approach. Building standards should not be statutory.
The Building Standards Commission (BSC) was created to
ensure an open public adoption process allowing
experts to develop standards and periodic updates to
the building codes. Placing building standards in
statute rather than regulation circumvents the existing
state regulatory adoption process and excludes the
input of safety and construction experts.
Smoke detectors in homes were approved by the BSC after
a process of review of the safety, need, and
reliability of the product. This process should be
utilized for carbon monoxide devices.
Additionally, product reliability is an issue that has
also affected attempts to require carbon monoxide
devices through national building codes. The
International Code Council, which writes a national
model building code, recently rejected two proposals to
require the
installation of carbon monoxide devices in new
residential dwellings, citing the lack of clear
direction for placement of the devices and the
propensity for false alarm indications. A recent test
study indicated that alarm technology is not adequately
reliable, resulting in false alarms or no alarm at all.
The author has attempted to respond to the Governor's veto by
limiting the requirements of this bill to existing dwellings
which state agencies that adopt building standards do not have
jurisdiction over. The author will defer to the current
building standards process for new construction. In addition,
the author points out that the national standards for CO devices
were recently strengthened and that concerns about reliability
have largely subsided.
Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085
FN: 0002900
SB 183
Page 9