BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1063
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Das Williams, Chair
AB 1063
(Williams) - As Amended April 20, 2015
SUBJECT: Solid waste: disposal facility: fees
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle) to hold public hearings and workshops to
develop a proposal to revise the state's solid waste tipping
fee.
EXISTING LAW, pursuant to the California Integrated Waste
Management Act (Act):
1)Specifies a state policy goal that 75% of solid waste
generated be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020 through
source reduction, recycling, or composting.
2)Requires each local jurisdiction to divert 50% of solid waste
from landfill disposal.
3)Authorizes CalRecycle to collect a solid waste tipping fee of
up to $1.40 per ton of solid waste disposed of in California.
THIS BILL:
AB 1063
Page 2
1)On or before July 1, 2016, requires CalRecycle to hold a
public hearing and a workshop to develop a proposal for the
Legislature regarding a new solid waste management fee to
provide CalRecycle adequate funding to:
a) Develop financial incentives to promote the recycling of
organic material;
b) Provide resources to develop infrastructure and
incentives necessary to achieve the statewide policy goal
of 75%; and,
c) Provide a sustainable funding structure that ensures
CalRecycle's ability to carry out its responsibilities
under the Act.
2)Requires CalRecycle to seek public input from interested
groups, including, but not limited to, representatives of the
solid waste industry, local government, disadvantaged
communities, and environmental groups.
3)Within six months of the public hearing and workshop, requires
CalRecycle to submit the proposal to the Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author statement.
AB 1063
Page 3
Achieving California's 75% recycling goal will eliminate
50% of CalRecycle's revenue, while demanding additional
resources to expand and oversee additional recycling and
waste management infrastructure. Specifically, achieving
75% recycling will reduce CalRecycle's current revenue by
$29 million annually. The immediate loss of revenue does
not account for the statewide investment that will be
needed to develop the infrastructure and capacity necessary
to recycle an additional 22 million tons of material by
2020. CalRecycle estimates that at least $125 million will
be needed annually to develop the market and infrastructure
necessary to achieve the 75% goal. Finally, CalRecycle
will need an additional $11 million to properly manage and
regulate the new infrastructure.
2)History of the state's tipping fee. The current cap on the
tipping fee was established over two decades ago in 1993. At
that time, the tipping fee was set at $1.34 per ton, and
authorized the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(now CalRecycle) to increase the fee as needed, to a maximum
of $1.40, beginning with the 1995-1996 fiscal year. CIWMB
acted on this authority six years later, and raised the state
tipping fee to the maximum $1.40 on July 1, 2001.
3)CalRecycle's expanded jurisdiction and shrinking revenues.
Over the last few years, a number of bills have increased
recycling requirements in the state. CalRecycle is tasked
with diverting at least 75% of solid waste statewide by 2020.
Currently, organic materials make up one-third of the waste
stream and food continues to be the highest single item
disposed at over 15% of disposal. CalRecycle is also charged
with implementing its Strategic Directive 6.1, which calls for
reducing organic waste disposal by 50% by 2020. According to
CalRecycle, significant gains in organic waste diversion are
necessary to meet the 75% goal and implement Strategic
Directive 6.1. Recycling technologies for organic waste
include composting, anaerobic digestion, and other types of
AB 1063
Page 4
processing that generate renewable fuels, energy, soil
amendments, and mulch. Other states have taken similar
actions, and 23 have banned the disposal of green waste (i.e.,
yard trimmings and landscape waste) in landfills.
Recycling organic waste also has substantial greenhouse gas
emissions reduction benefits. According to the Air Resources
Board, landfills emit nearly 8 million tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent every year produced by the decomposition of organic
materials. A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change states that the global warming impact of
methane is 34 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100 year
period.
While increasing diversion has significant environmental
benefits, it results in decreasing revenues for CalRecycle,
which is funded by the state's solid waste tipping fee on
waste disposed of in landfills. In order to address this
combination of increasing challenges and decreasing revenues,
CalRecycle will need to reevaluate its options for ongoing
funding that will be sustainable as the state moves toward 75%
recycling.
4)Other state fees. The total median tipping fee in California
for landfill disposal is $45 per ton, which includes the state
fee of $1.40, local fees, and landfill charges. (California's
average landfill charge is $54 per ton, but according to
CalRecycle that figure is "inflated due to skewed data" based
on the survey methods used. CalRecycle states that the median
cost is more representative of the state as a whole.) While
this is fairly consistent with the national average of $49 per
ton, California's recycling rate of 66% far exceeds states
with similarly low disposal costs. For example, the New
England area has average tipping fees of $77 per ton and a 76%
diversion rate. Areas of the country with disposal fees
similar to California's have much lower rates of recycling;
the Great Lakes area has average disposal costs of $45 per
ton, and a recycling rate of only 24%.
AB 1063
Page 5
Several states have higher state tipping fees, including
Pennsylvania ($7.25 per ton), Wisconsin ($7.00 recycling fee
assessed on each ton of solid waste disposed), Ohio ($4.75 per
ton), and Missouri ($2.11 per ton).
5)Previous legislation.
a) AB 1594 (Williams), Chapter 719, Statutes of 2014,
eliminates diversion credit for green material used as
alternative daily cover at a landfill, but exempts the
material from the state tipping fee.
b) AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014,
requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste
to arrange for recycling services and requires local
governments to implement organic waste recycling programs.
c) AB 341 (Chesbro), Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011,
established a statewide 75% recycling goal and requires
commercial waste generators to arrange for recycling
services and requires local governments to implement
commercial solid waste recycling programs.
d) AB 2866 (DeLeon, 2008) would have increased the state's
tipping fee from $1.40 to $2.00 per ton for purposes of
establishing a trust fund to cover potential closure and
postclosure landfill costs. This bill was held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
e) AB 1610 (Nunez, 2007) would have raised the cap on the
tipping fee to $2.00 per ton. This bill was subsequently
amended to address an unrelated issue.
f) AB 712 (DeLeon, 2007) would have imposed a $0.50
surcharge on the tipping fee to establish a program within
the Air Resources Board to develop clean fuels from solid
waste and landfill gas. This bill was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
AB 1063
Page 6
g) AB 1220 (Eastin) Chapter 656, Statutes of 1993, set the
tipping fee at $1.34 per ton and authorized CalRecycle to
increase the tipping fee to a maximum of $1.40, on or after
the 1995-96 fiscal year.
h) AB 939 (Sher) Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989,
established the Act and the tipping fee at $0.50 per ton
and capping the fee at $0.75 prior to June 30, 1991, and
$1.00 per ton thereafter.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Californians Against Waste (sponsor)
Rural County Representatives of California
Opposition
AB 1063
Page 7
Western Placer Waste Management Authority
Analysis Prepared by:Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092