BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                             Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
                            2015 - 2016  Regular  Session

          SB 742 (Hertzberg) - Solid waste: diversion.
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |                                                                 |
          |                                                                 |
          |                                                                 |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |                                |                                |
          |Version: April 6, 2015          |Policy Vote: E.Q. 7 - 0         |
          |                                |                                |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |                                |                                |
          |Urgency: No                     |Mandate: No                     |
          |                                |                                |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |                                |                                |
          |Hearing Date: May 18, 2015      |Consultant: Marie Liu           |
          |                                |                                |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. 


          Bill  
          Summary:  SB 742 would raise the requirement for each state  
          agency and large facility to diver 50% of its solid waste from  
          landfills to 60% by January 1, 2018.


          Fiscal  
          Impact:  Unknown costs and cost pressures, potentially in the  
          millions of dollars, from the General Fund and various special  
          funds, to a limited number of state agencies and facilities to  
          increase their waste diversion rates.


          Background:  Existing law requires that each agency and each large state  
          facility to divert at least 50% of all solid waste through  
          source reduction, recycling, and composting. These requirements  
          are the state government's complement to the California  
          Integrated Waste Management Act that establishes a state policy  
          goal that 75% of solid waste generated be diverted from landfill  
          disposal by 2020.







          SB 742 (Hertzberg)                                     Page 1 of  
          ?
          
          
          Each state agency is required to annually report to CalRecycle a  
          summary of their progress in implementing solid waste diversion  
          programs. CalRecycle is allowed to consider an agency's or  
          facility's per capital disposal rate and growth rate to  
          determine compliance (PRC §42921.5). 




          Proposed Law:  
            This bill would raise the waste diversion requirement for the  
          state from 50% to 60%


          Staff  
          Comments:  Based on the reports submitted to CalRecycle, of the  
          282 reportable state agencies and large state facilities, only  
          27 facilities are have diversion rates of less than 60% already.  
          And of these 27, 13 have diversion rates exceeding 55% and  
          therefore may only need relatively minor measures to reach the  
          new limit set by this goal. The remaining 14 facilities,  
          however, would require more significant investment to comply  
          with this bill's requirement as many of these 14 have diversion  
          rates in the 30 and 40 percent range. 
          As allowed by statute, CalRecycle determines compliance based on  
          disposal amounts per employee (referred to as the diversion rate  
          equivalent). However, this per employee can be somewhat awkward  
          for agencies that may handle solid waste from other people other  
          than employees, such as visitors in state parks and inmates in  
          prisons as this can significantly skew the estimated diversion  
          rates. In recognition of this skewing and in recognition that  
          some facilities have unique waste diversion challenges (i.e.  
          state hospitals that generate significant amount of  
          bio-hazardous and non-recyclable waste), CalRecycle does not  
          solely rely on the diversion rate equivalent rates for these  
          agencies to determine compliance. 


          Considering how CalRecycle determines compliance with the state  
          diversion rate requirements and given the existing diversion  
          rates of state agencies and facilities, the costs to implement  
          this bill may be relatively controlled. The costs would vary  
          significantly between state agencies but given the number of  
          agencies and facilities affected, statewide total costs could be  








          SB 742 (Hertzberg)                                     Page 2 of  
          ?
          
          
          at least in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.


           However, staff notes that the leniency that CalRecycle grants  
          state agencies in determining compliance, while reasonable, is  
          not explicitly allowed in the statute. Thus agencies and  
          facilities with low diversion rates because of special  
          circumstances would be under pressure to continue to raise its  
          diversion rate equivalent rates to 60% regardless of whether  
          CalRecycle considers them compliant or not. Because of their  
          special circumstances, the cost pressures to achieve 60% are  
          likely at least in the millions of dollars. 




                                      -- END --