BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 341 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 341 (Chesbro) - As Amended: May 5, 2011 Policy Committee: Natural ResourcesVote:5-3 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill requires the Department of Recycling and Resources Recovery (Calrecycle) to ensure that 75% of solid waste is diverted from landfill and makes related requirements of commercial solid waste generators and local governments. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires Calrecycle to ensure, by January 1, 2020, and each year thereafter, that 75% of California solid waste is source reduced, recycled or composted. 2)Requires a commercial waste generator-meaning a business that contracts for solid waste services and generates more than four cubic yards of solid waste per week or is a multifamily residential dwelling of five units or more-to arrange for recycling services to the extent that the services are offered and reasonably available from a local service provider. 3)Requires a local government to implement a commercial solid waste recycling program designed to divert solid waste from businesses. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Cost to Calrecycle of approximately $1 million in 2014 and again in 2019 to contract for waste characterization studies to determine waste streams and materials upon which to concentrate waste diversions efforts. It is not clear whether the Integrated Waste Management Account (IWMA) would be able to support these costs absent revenue increases. AB 341 Page 2 2)Unknown additional annual costs to Calrecycle, possibly in the hundred thousands of dollars, depending upon how Calrecycle decided to ensure waste diversion of 75%, as it is directed to do by the bill. (IWMA) COMMENTS 1)Rationale. According to the author and Californians Against Waste (CAW) (sponsor), diversion of solid waste from landfill benefits California in numerous ways. The author notes California's success at reducing the portion of its solid waste it buries in the ground, highlighting that, according to Calrecycle, the state diverts from landfill 58% of the solid waste it generates each year. The author also notes, however, the amount of waste generated in California per person continues to climb and that it is important for the state to work towards further reducing the amount of solid waste going to landfill. The author contends the waste diversion goal established in this bill will help the state achieve further waste reduction and that the mandatory commercial waste reduction will provide opportunities to do so. 2)Background. a) Diversion Goal Achieved, but More Waste Than Ever Landfilled. AB 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989, Sher), among other things, established the state's 50% diversion program and a state tipping fee imposed at $1 per ton of solid waste brought to a solid waste facility for disposal. Subsequent legislation increased the maximum tipping fee. The state has since achieved and surpassed the 50% diversion goal, as noted above. Achieving the solid waste diversion goal does not mean that the volume of solid waste disposed of in landfills in California has decreased by 50%. Actual disposal of solid waste statewide has increased substantially since 1990 and has outpaced the state's population increase. According to Calrecycle, the commercial sector accounts for more than 60% of the state's solid waste disposal. b) Multifamily-Building Residents Find It Hard to Recycle. According to Californians Against Waste (CAW), there are approximately 7.1 million Californians living in approximately 2.4 million multifamily dwellings. CAW AB 341 Page 3 contends less than 40% of these residents have access to residential recycling services because the building owner does not provide recycling facilities on premises. 3)Related Legislation. SB 1020 (Padilla, 2007) would have required Calrecycle's predecessor to develop a plan to achieve a 75% statewide rate of diversion of solid waste from landfill by 2020. The bill passed the Senate 23-14 but was held by this committee. 4)Opposition. The policy committee notes opposition from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and several waste management businesses. Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081