BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 590
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Dahle |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |7/9/2015 |Hearing | 7/15/2015 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Rebecca Newhouse |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32),
requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limit equivalent to 1990 levels
by 2020 and to adopt rules and regulations to achieve maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission
reductions. ARB is authorized to adopt a regulation that
establishes a market-based compliance mechanism for sources
that emit GHGs. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §35800 et seq.)
2) Establishes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) in the
State Treasury, requires all moneys, except for fines and
penalties, collected pursuant to a market-based mechanism be
deposited in the fund and requires the Department of Finance,
in consultation with the state board and any other relevant
state agency, to develop, as specified, a three-year
investment plan for the moneys deposited in the GGRF.
(Government Code §16428.8)
3) Prohibits the state from approving allocations for a measure
or program using GGRF moneys except after determining that the
use of those moneys furthers the regulatory purposes of AB 32,
and requires moneys from the GGRF be used to facilitate the
achievement of reductions of GHG emissions in California.
(HSC §39712)
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 2 of
?
4) Authorizes expenditures from the GGRF for investments that
reduce GHG emissions through, among other things, clean energy
and renewable energy generation and advanced biofuels. (HSC
§39712).
5) Requires at least 25% of available moneys in the GGRF to go
toward projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged
communities, and at least 10% to projects located within
disadvantaged communities. (HSC §39713)
6) Under the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires
investor-owned utilities (IOUs), publicly owned utilities
(POUs) and certain other retail sellers of electricity, to
achieve 33% of their energy sales from an eligible renewable
electrical generation facility by December 31, 2020. (Public
Utilities Code §399.11 et seq.)
7) Provides that eligible renewable electrical generation
facilities must use biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic,
wind, geothermal, renewable fuel cells, small hydroelectric,
digester gas, limited non-combustion municipal solid waste
conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, and tidal
current to generate electricity, and requires that renewable
electrical generation facilities must meet certain
requirements, as specified (Public Resources Code §25741).
This bill:
1) Authorizes the use of GGRF moneys, upon appropriation, to the
State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
(CEC) for monthly incentive payments to maintain the current
level of biomass power generation and geothermal energy
generation in the state and to revitalize currently idle
facilities in certain regions.
2) Specifies that solid-fuel biomass electrical generation
facilities are eligible for incentive funding if the energy is
generated:
a) On and after January 1, 2016.
b) Using biomass wood wastes and residues, or geothermal
resources, and is sold to a load-serving entity.
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 3 of
?
c) At a facility with generation capacity of over three
megawatts (MW).
d) In state and sold to customers in state.
3) Requires CEC, in prioritizing projects eligible for grants, to
maximize the reduction of GHG emissions achieved for each
dollar awarded.
4) Requires CEC, in consultation with ARB, to ensure that
projects receiving funding achieve net GHG emission
reductions.
5) Requires facilities seeking funding to demonstrate to CEC that
the facility is a solid-fuel biomass facility and is RPS
certified and requires the applicant to submit monthly
invoices to CEC to document eligible generation.
6) Requires CEC to review the submitted invoices and make monthly
incentive payments based on eligible generation and incentive
rate.
Background
1) Cap and trade auction revenue. ARB has conducted 11
cap-and-trade auctions. The first 10 have generated almost
$1.6 billion in proceeds to the state.
Several bills in 2012, and one in 2014, provided legislative
direction for the expenditure of auction proceeds including:
SB 535 (de Leon, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012)
requires that 25% of auction revenue be used to benefit
disadvantaged communities and requires that 10% of
auction revenue be invested in disadvantaged communities.
AB 1532 (J. Perez, Chapter 807, Statutes of 2012)
directs the Department of Finance to develop and
periodically update a three-year investment plan that
identifies feasible and cost-effective GHG emission
reduction investments to be funded with cap-and-trade
auction revenues. AB 1532 specifies that GGRF moneys may
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 4 of
?
be allocated to reduce GHG emissions through investments
including, but not limited to, energy efficiency, and
clean and renewable energy generation.
SB 1018 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee,
Chapter 39, Statutes of 2012) created the GGRF, into
which all auction revenue is to be deposited. The
legislation requires that before departments can spend
moneys from the GGRF, they must prepare a record
specifying, among other things, how the expenditures will
be used, and how the expenditures will further the
purposes of AB 32.
SB 862 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter
36, Statutes of 2014) requires the ARB to develop
guidelines on maximizing benefits for agencies
administering GGRF funds and guidance for administering
agencies on GHG emission reduction reporting and
quantification methods.
Legal consideration of cap-and-trade auction revenues. The
2012-13 budget analysis of cap-and-trade auction revenue by
the Legislative Analyst's Office noted that, based on an
opinion from the Office of Legislative Counsel, the auction
revenues should be considered mitigation fee revenues, and
their use requires that a clear nexus exist between an
activity for which a mitigation fee is used and the adverse
effects related to the activity on which that fee is levied.
Therefore, in order for their use to be valid as mitigation
fees, revenues from the cap-and-trade auction must be used to
mitigate GHG emissions or the harms caused by GHG emissions.
In 2012, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit
against the ARB claiming that cap-and-trade auction revenues
constitute illegal tax revenue. In November 2013, the
superior court ruling declined to hold the auction a tax,
concluding that it's more akin to a regulatory fee. The
plaintiffs filed an appeal with the 3rd District Court of
Appeal in Sacramento in February of last year.
AB 32 auction revenue investment plan. The first three-year
investment plan for cap-and-trade auction proceeds, submitted
by Department of Finance, in consultation with ARB and other
state agencies in May of 2013, identified sustainable
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 5 of
?
communities and clean transportation, energy efficiency and
clean energy, and natural resources and waste diversion as the
three sectors that provide the best opportunities, in that
order, for achieving the legislative goals and supporting the
purposes of AB 32.
Budget allocations. The 2014-15 Budget allocates $832 million
in GGRF revenues to a variety of transportation, energy, and
resources programs aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Various
agencies are in the process of implementing this funding. SB
862 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), the 2014 budget
trailer bill, established a long-term cap-and-trade
expenditure plan by continuously appropriating portions of the
funds for designated programs or purposes. The legislation
appropriates 25% for the state's high-speed rail project, 20%
for affordable housing and sustainable communities grants, 10%
to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, and 5% for
low-carbon transit operations. The remaining 40% is available
for annual appropriation by the Legislature.
1) Biomass and energy generation. There are various ways in
which biomass, or organic material, can be converted into
usable forms of energy including heat, steam, electricity,
natural gas, and liquid fuels. For example, the decomposition
of food wastes in anaerobic environments generates renewable
gas, or biomethane, and other feedstocks, such as tallow, that
can be processed to produce renewable diesel fuel.
Solid biomass can be converted to electricity through
non-combustion processes, termed "gassification" or
"pyrolosis" which decompose the material at very high heat in
low-oxygen atmospheres. There are relatively few of these
types of conversion facilities in California, and most are
small scale research or demonstration units that generate or
plan to generate anywhere from a fraction of a megawatt to
several megawatts using biomass.
The oldest and simplest known method of creating energy from
biomass, however, is the combustion of solid organic
feedstock, such as wood and agricultural wastes, to generate
electricity.
Biomass electrical generation in California. According to the
bill's sponsor, California Biomass Energy Alliance (CBEA),
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 6 of
?
there are 25 solid-fuel biomass electric generating facilities
in California, distributed across 18 counties. CBEA also
states that the California biomass industry uses approximately
8 million tons of the state's solid wastes and residues
annually, and produces around 565 MW of electricity.
Biomass and RPS. Current law identifies biomass as a
renewable resource, which can be used by electrical generation
facilities to generate electricity that qualifies as
RPS-eligible, following CEC certification. This electricity
can then be purchased by utilities to meet the RPS requirement
that 33% of their energy sales come from renewable energy by
2020.
The California Energy Commission defines biomass as any
organic material not derived from fossil fuels, including
agricultural crops, agricultural wastes and residues, waste
pallets, crates, dunnage, manufacturing, and construction wood
wastes, landscape and right-of-way tree trimmings, mill
residues that result from milling lumber, rangeland
maintenance residues, sludge derived from organic matter, and
wood and wood waste from timbering operations.
Biomass conversion and GHGs. Although biofuels are
carbon-based fuels, the carbon in biofuels is already part of
the active global carbon cycle in which carbon exchanges
rapidly between the atmosphere and plant matter. This is in
contrast to fossil fuels, that, when extracted and burned,
remove carbon from permanent geologic stores and add it as net
new carbon to the atmosphere. For this reason, biofuels
combusted for electricity are broadly considered carbon
neutral. Additionally, like all renewable energy generation,
bioenergy production avoids the production of an equivalent
amount of energy from fossil fuels.
Alternative fates. In assessing other GHG emission reduction
benefits of using biomass for energy production, alternative
fates of that biomass, such as open burning, landfilling,
accumulation, mulching, and composting, must also be
considered.
The alternative fates of biomass residue can result in higher
emissions of more potent GHGs emitted, in addition to toxic
and criteria air pollutants. Specifically, open burning of
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 7 of
?
biomass leads to significantly higher release of methane and
black carbon due to the inefficient combustion; anaerobic
decomposition of biomass in landfills results in methane; and
accumulation of forest residues can provide fuel for severe
wildfires, destroying huge swaths of forests and eliminating
their GHG sequestration potential. For composting, although
methane emissions can be largely avoided with well aerated
operations, new research suggests that the amount of GHGs and
types of other gasses produced appears to be highly variable,
and is influenced by feedstocks, management practices, and
climate.
However, the use of compost can potentially provide net GHG
emission reduction benefits. Composting transforms organic
materials into a nutrient-rich soil amendment capable of
improving depleted or disturbed soil environments, reducing
the need for external fertilizers, thereby reducing GHGs from
the use and production of those fertilizers. Additionally,
compost application also improves water retention in soils,
reducing water demand in agricultural applications, reducing
energy use associated with transporting and distributing
water. Recent studies have also shown that the application of
compost can improve sequestration of atmospheric carbon in
soils.
Not all biomass, though, can be composted. For instance,
whereas some agricultural wastes may decompose efficiently
through a composting operation, wood wastes are not readily
compostable.
2) Composting and mulching biomass. The controlled aerobic
decomposition of organic material such as leaves, twigs, grass
clippings, and food scraps results in compost, which can be
used a nutrient rich soil amendment. Mulch is the soil
covering used to control weeds or erosion, retain moisture in
soil, and insulate soil from cold weather. Organic materials
commonly used for mulch include wood chips, ground up
landscape trimmings, shredded bark, coarse compost material,
straw, and shredded paper. According to the 2010 CalRecycle
survey of composting and mulch infrastructure in the state,
composters and processors receive a wide array of feedstocks
in California, and process an estimated total of over 9
million tons of organic material per year. Specifically, the
survey reported that 72% of all respondents process some
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 8 of
?
quantity of green material and another 52% of all respondents
process wood waste (which technically, as defined by
CalRecycle regulations, is a subset of green material).
However, some of this green material ends up in landfills. In
2003, approximately 2.1 million tons of the total tons
processed were comprised of green material used as landfill
alternative daily cover.
3) MSW thermal conversion. Municipal solid waste (MSW),
according to CalRecycle, is composed of primarily food and
greenwaste (e.g., lumber, leaves, etc.) at about 47%, with the
next highest contributors being paper, plastic and metal waste
comprising 17.3%, 9.6%, and 4.6%, respectively. There are
currently three commercial facilities in the state that use
combustion technology to combust unprocessed or minimally
processed MSW. Collectively, they have the capacity to
process 2,500 tons per day of MSW and produce about 68 MW of
electrical power. Only one of the three existing power plants
using MSW feedstock, Covanta Stanislaus, is certified as an
RPS-eligible electrical generating facility.
4) Geothermal energy. Due to its location on the Pacific's "ring
of fire" and because of tectonic plate conjunctions,
California contains the largest amount of geothermal electric
generation capacity in the United States. According to CEC,
in 2014, geothermal energy in California produced 12,183
gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity. Combined with another
700 GWh of imported geothermal power, geothermal energy
produced over 6.18% of the state's total system power. There
are a total of 43 operating geothermal power plants in
California with an installed capacity of 2,689 MW.
The largest concentration of geothermal plants is located
north of San Francisco in the Geysers Geothermal Resource Area
in Lake and Sonoma Counties.
According to the CEC, "geothermal energy is a significant
source of renewable energy in California. The [CEC] promotes
development of geothermal energy resources and technologies
through research, development and demonstration partnerships
and consultant contracts, as well as through financial
assistance to eligible applicants via competitive project
solicitations. Funding is provided through the Energy
Commission's Geothermal Grant and Loan Program and the Public
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 9 of
?
Interest Energy Research Program."
5) Geothermal amendments taken in Senate Energy Committee.
Amendments taken in the Senate Energy, Utilities and
Communications Committee add geothermal energy facilities as
eligible facilities to receive the incentive payments
established through this bill, if the facilities meet
specified requirements. According to the staff analysis for
that committee in outlining the rationale and proposed
amendment, "The author and sponsor want to subsidize the
operation of biomass facilities in danger of closing in order
to enable the achievement of environmental and economic
benefits, as described above. However, biomass facilities are
not the only type of in-state renewable energy facilities in
danger of closing and with the potential to provide broad
environmental and economic benefits. Therefore, the author
and committee may wish to consider broadening the scope of the
program created by this bill to make eligible for funding
other types of existing renewable energy resources that have
the potential to provide environmental and economic benefits
in addition to net GHG emissions reductions."
Comments
1) Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "Wildfire
suppression costs are an increasing drain on the state budget.
In 2014-15, CalFire burned through its $209 million wildfire
budget by the end of the September - just three months into
the fiscal year. In the summer of 2014, federal fire-fighting
costs were $175 million in Siskiyou County alone. The costs
of suppressing fires far exceed what we pay for prevention and
fuel reduction. CalFire's statewide budget for fuel reduction
projects under its existing grant program is roughly $30
million.
"California is in danger of losing the one asset it has to
divert forest fuel reduction residues and other wood waste
materials today. In the last 12 months alone California has
closed five biomass facilities due to expiring contracts and
poor economics. That's a loss of 108 MWs of baseload
renewable power and hundreds of jobs, both at the plants and
in the fuel supply infrastructure. California's RPS program
is failing to provide any incentive to procure biomass power
for a more balanced portfolio of renewables. Despite the call
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 10 of
?
for environmental and economic benefit considerations in the
RPS program, the only growth that is occurring in the
renewable industry is coming from solar and wind. By 2020,
when the state is mandated to procure 33 percent of its
electricity supply from renewables, intermittents could
account for some three-quarters of total renewables while half
of the biomass plants in the state will be closed.
"Without these biomass resources, the health, environmental
and economic well-being of these regions which rely on them
are damaged. Cost sharing strategies are essential to
resolving this."
2) Alternatives to biomass combustion. The sponsor of the bill
argues that compared with open burning, decomposing biomass in
landfills, and accumulated forest residue, biomass combustion
for electrical generation provides GHG emissions reductions,
and a whole host of environmental and economic benefits.
The question then arises: Is the only other option for
managing forest and agriculture biomass waste to avoid those
negative environmental and public health impacts to use it as
feedstock in a solid biomass power plant?
In fact, certain biomass wastes can also be mulched and used
for ground cover, and composted to produce healthy soils, with
numerous other cobenefits. If mulching or composting is
considered as the alternative fate for the material, it is not
as clear that biomass combustion to produce electricity
generation is environmentally preferred.
However, as previously noted, some biomass feedstocks, such as
wood wastes, are not readily composted, and for those wastes,
composting may not be a feasible alternative fate. In
contrast, agricultural wastes, currently used as feedstock for
a dozen or so biomass powerplants in the central valley, can
be composted. However, in many areas of the central valley,
composting is not a viable option due to the lack of
sufficient composting infrastructure.
With 2014-15 GGRF funds, CalRecycle recently awarded about
$5.5 million from the GGRF for two composting operations in
the San Joaquin and South Coast air districts.
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 11 of
?
3) Still emits criteria air pollutants. Of the 25 solid-biomass
powerplants, 13 are located in the central valley and
primarily use agricultural wastes as their biomass feedstock.
The Central Valley has some of the worse air pollution in the
country and is an extreme (highest designation) nonattainment
area for the federal ozone standard. Ozone is regulated at
the federal and state level because it is a primary
contributor to smog formation and has a number of negative
health effects including irritated respiratory system, reduced
lung function, aggravated asthma and inflammation and damage
of the lining of the lung. Active children are the group at
highest risk from ozone exposure.
NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in sunlight to
form ozone and are regulated by the local air district in
order to meet the federal and state ozone standard.
Because biomass powerplants are all permitted through a local
air district, and are required to have emissions control
equipment to reduce emissions of NOx, VOCs and other air
pollutants, based on local air district requirements, there
are substantially fewer emissions when biomass is used as a
feedstock for electricity generation, than when that same
biomass is burned in the open. However, as discussed above,
burning the biomass or leaving it to accumulate are not the
only options for biomass disposal. Certain biomass feedstocks
can be processed through chipping, mulching, and composting,
which may provide significant air quality benefits, especially
in regard to the emission of ozone precursors and other
criteria air pollutants. However, as previously noted, some
biomass feedstocks are not well suited for these alternative
management options. In other cases, the composting facilities
or mulching operations may not be available or sufficient to
take in the quantity of biomass waste generated in an area.
4) A low bar. AB 590 authorizes every medium to large
RPS-certified biomass plant operating and selling electricity
in California to receive incentive funding from the GGRF.
Recent amendments to AB 590 require the CEC to prioritize
funding based on GHG emissions reductions, as those can vary
significantly depending on the feedstock, transportation,
facility and other factors. However, nothing in the bill
requires facilities to reduce criteria air emissions, or
operate with some threshold efficiency. Under AB 590, all of
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 12 of
?
these RPS-certified facilities would receive an incentive no
matter the inefficiencies of the plant, how old, or polluting
the technology, or how long it has been since the facility
invested in upgraded emissions control technology.
5) Additional GHG emissions reductions? Under AB 590, biomass
power plants and geothermal plants qualify for a subsidy
funded through GGRF if they meet several specified
requirements. If those powerplants are already in operation,
ostensibly already providing GHG and other benefits over
certain alternative fates of the biomass, those GGRF incentive
payments would not necessarily be going toward any additional
GHG emissions reductions. The author notes that GHG emissions
reductions from the biomass powerplant component of the bill
are achieved primarily through avoided shutdowns of plants, or
idled plants that are put back on line, since this avoids
alternative fates of the biomass material that could emit
substantially more GHG and criteria air emissions. However,
how does the bill ensure that moneys from the GGRF for this
program only go toward achieving GHG emissions reductions that
wouldn't have occurred on the natural?
6) Displacing fossil fuels and what else? All renewable energy
potentially displaces energy produced from fossil fuels.
However, the proponents argue that, for biomass powerplants,
there are additional and significant reductions of GHG
emissions, and criteria and toxic air emissions from biomass
powerplants when compared to the alternative fates of that
material (such as decomposing to methane, allowing it to
accumulate as fuel for large-scale wildfires, or open burning
of the material). The author and proponents also note that
many biomass powerplants are in danger of closing and that
these alternative fates of biomass will occur, and result in
significant emissions increases, unless their industry is
provided incentive payments to support their operations in the
near term. According to the author and proponents, this
provides ample justification for the use of GGRF moneys.
Is this also the case for geothermal resources? Are there any
GHG emission reduction benefits from geothermal resources,
other than potentially displacing some quantity of fossil
fuel-based energy, which provide a similar rationale or
justification of GGRF subsidies?
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 13 of
?
7) Could be many reasons for a shutdown or an idled plant.
According to the sponsor, GHG emissions reductions would be
primarily achieved through this program through the avoidance
of biomass plant shutdowns, and revitalizing idle biomass
power plants. However, there is no recognition in the bill of
the variety of reasons plants may need to shut down, or why
they remain idle. This could be due to a whole host of
factors, many of which that may not necessarily warrant state
subsidies to keep the plant in operation, or subsidize the
start up and running of the plant.
8) Treated wood waste and biomass? Treated wood contains
hazardous chemicals that pose a risk to human health and the
environment. Arsenic, chromium, copper, creosote, chromated
copper arsenate (CCA) and pentachlorophenol are among the
chemicals used to preserved wood and are known to be toxic or
carcinogenic. Treated wood is commonly used to build
telephone poles, road signs and marine pilings as well as
decks, play structures and raised garden beds. Insects and
mold can damage wood over time. To prevent that damage, wood
is often treated with these pesticides and preservatives.
Treated wood waste (TWW) has its own statute directing the
Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop regulations
managing this waste stream. However, concern has been raised
that these regulations rely almost exclusively on
self-enforcement on the part of the generator, and therefore
do not ensure adequate tracking of the waste, or ensure that
the waste generators or hauler are complying with proper
handling requirements.
According to DTSC, the agricultural and construction sectors
are among the largest generators of TWW. Additionally, the
author notes that biomass power plants process roughly 3.7
million tons of urban wood wastes each year. Due to lax
regulations regarding the tracking of TWW, and the fact that
in many cases it is not possible to know by examining the wood
waste whether it is treated or not, there are questions as to
whether TWW could be ending up as solid-biomass powerplant
feedstock.
9) Not just biomass conversion, MSW may count as well. AB 590
would establish incentive payments for RPS-eligible biomass
powerplants. RPS-eligible biomass powerplant facilities are
limited to CEC approved biomass feedstocks, which is broadly
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 14 of
?
defined as organic matter not derived from fossil fuels.
However, one powerplant, Covanta Stanislaus, was grandfathered
into the RPS program, and in an RPS-eligible facility, despite
the fact that its feedstock is municipal solid waste (some
significant fraction of which is biomass). Based on the
language of the bill, Covanta Stanislaus may also eligible to
receive GGRF subsidies under AB 590.
10)To what end? The author states the subsidies under AB 590 are
needed to protect current biomass resources to ensure the
health, environmental, and economic well-being of these
regions which rely on them are not damaged. However,
subsidies from the GGRF will not be available in perpetuity.
What is being done to ensure that the biomass industry will be
competitive and self-sustaining in the future? When will
subsidies from the GGRF no longer be needed?
11)Expanded to geothermal powerplants. Recent amendments have
expanded the bill beyond biomass powerplants to geothermal
resources as well. As noted earlier, there are 43 operating
geothermal power plants in California. This addition
significantly expands the bill, in terms of potential cost
pressures on the GGRF.
12)Piece by piece. GGRF investments must facilitate the
achievement of GHG emissions reductions. However, after that
requirement is fulfilled, there are a number of other policy
goals that should be considered, including benefits to
environmental quality, resource protection, public health and
the economy, as well as benefits to disadvantaged communities.
And although the fund is growing, it is still a limited
source of revenue. In order to create an optimized investment
strategy from GGRF moneys, proposals should not be considered
in isolation, but be assessed in aggregate to determine what
suite of measures best meets the requirements of the fund,
uses resources most efficiently, and maximizes policy
objectives.
As budget discussions on a cap-and-trade investment strategy
have been pushed to later this session, an opportunity exists
to have a comprehensive discussion on the universe of GGRF
proposals currently in the Legislature, during budget
negotiations this summer. If the Legislature feels that the
program established through AB 590 is an appropriate
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 15 of
?
expenditure of GGRF moneys, then this measure should also be
considered through the budget process for cap-and-trade
expenditures, along with all other measures proposing to
expend, or authorize for expenditure, GGRF moneys.
DOUBLE
REFERRAL:
This measure was heard in Senate Energy, Utilities and
Communications Committee on June 30, 2015, and passed out of
committee with a vote of 10-0.
SOURCE: California Biomass Energy Alliance
SUPPORT: (As listed in the Senate Energy, Utilities and
Communications analysis from 6/30/2015)
California Biomass Energy Alliance (source)
ALW Enterprises, Inc.
Agra Marketing
Almond Hullers and Processors Association
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Associated California Loggers
Basic Logging
Beneficial Ag Services
Brahma Group, Inc.
Burney Forest Products
C & S Waste Solutions of Lassen County
CR&R Incorporated
CT Bioenergy Consulting, LLC
Cal Ag Recovery
California Chapters of the Solid Waste Association of North
America
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Forestry Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Licensed Foresters Association
California Pear Growers Association
California Licensed Foresters Association
California State Association of Counties
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 16 of
?
Cascade Resource Consultants
Central Coast Forest Association
City of Bakersfield Mayor, Harvey L. Hall
Clean Harbors Environmental Service, Inc.
County of Del Norte
County of Humboldt
County of Kern
County of Lassen
County of Riverside Supervisor of the 4th District, John J.
Benoit
County of Sierra
Covanta Delano, Inc.
DPS Inc.
Del Logging, Inc.
Del Monte Foods, Inc.
EWP Renewable Corporation
Ecology Auto Parts, Inc.
Fondest Farms Trucking, LLC
G & F Agricultural Service, Inc.
Gardiner Farms, LLC
Galton Solid Waste Management, Inc.
Greenleaf Power, LLC
Greenwaste Recovery, Inc.
Hedrick Logging
Humboldt Redwood Company
IHI Power Services Corporation
Independent Energy Producers Association
J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc.
Karuk Tribe
Kochergen Farms Composting, Inc.
Lake County Waste Solutions
Lassen County Fire Safe Council
Lassen Forest Products, Inc.
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated
Waste
Management Task Force
Merced Power, LLC
Nortech Waste LLC
North of the River chamber of Commerce
Old Durham Wood, Inc.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Pacific Recycling Solutions
Pacific-Ultrapower Chinese Station
Propel AG Services, LLC
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 17 of
?
Quincy Library Group
Rio Bravo Fresno
Rosedale Ranch
Rural County Representatives of California
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Selma Disposal & Recycling
Shadd Trucking
Sierra Land & Farming, LLC
Sierra Pacific Industries
Sonoma Compost
Sustainable Forest Action Coalition
Tri Co Welding Supplies, Inc.
Trinity Construction Company
Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors Natural Resources Committee
Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority
Ukiah Waste Solutions
Vision Recycling
Wadham Energy LP
Wasco Real Properties I, LLC
Wegis & Young
Western Ag Chipping, LLC
Wheelabrator Shasta
Wilson Ag
Z-Best Composting Facility
Several Individuals
OPPOSITION:
Association of Irritated Residents
Biofuelwatch
California Communities Against Toxics
California Environmental Justice Alliance
Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Clean Water Action
Sierra Club California
West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Proponents contend the state needs to
subsidize operation of the state's biomass facilities to ensure
their continued operation so that the state may continue to
realize numerous benefits, including reduction in GHGs and
criteria pollutants, production of renewable energy, diversion
from landfill, and economic activity, especially in some of the
AB 590 (Dahle) Page 18 of
?
most economically depressed areas of the state.
ARGUMENTS IN
OPPOSITION: Opponents state that AB 590 will hurt
disadvantaged communities already overly burdened by pollution;
it will further
degrade air quality in the Central Valley and around the state
from emissions of
high levels of criteria air pollutants due to biomass
incineration; and it will
increase, rather than decrease GHG emissions, thereby violating
requirements for
the use of cap-and-trade moneys.
-- END --