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