BILL ANALYSIS
AB 222
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 222 (Adams) - As Amended: May 5, 2009
Policy Committee: U&C Vote:11-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill allows facilities that convert solid waste into energy
or chemicals to count as a renewable electricity generation
facility for the purpose of California's Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS). It also allows local governments to count solid
waste that is converted into electricity or chemicals toward
their recycling diversion goals. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "biorefinery" and requires such facilities to meet or
exceed all local and state air and water quality standards, as
well as other specified environmental protection criteria.
2)Includes use of conversion of municipal solid waste (MSW) at a
biorefinery to electricity or certain other useful products
among the criteria that qualifies a facility for purposes of
the RPS.
3)Prohibits a local government from including solid waste
diverted to a biorefinery towards its compliance with the
state requirement to divert 50% of solid waste from landfill
or transformation.
4)Allows a local jurisdiction to include solid waste diverted to
a biorefinery towards meeting a requirement to divert more
than 50 % of solid waste from landfill or transformation.
5)Repeals the definition of "solid waste conversion" and
specifies that a gasification facility is not a biorefinery.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible costs, if any.
AB 222
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends this bill updates statute to
enable the production of advanced, non-food derived biofuels,
green power and other biobased products from biomass that
would otherwise be lost to landfill. The author contends that
AB 222 allows California to establish advanced technology
facilities while retaining California's environmental
protections.
2)Background.
a) Existing Waste Reduction Goals. AB 939 (Sher, Statutes
of 1989) established the state's solid waste diversion
program, which requires each city and county to divert 25%
of solid waste from landfill disposal or
"transformation"-generally meaning the burning of waste as
a method of disposal-by January 1, 1995, and to divert 50%
of solid waste on and after 2000. While several
communities have met or exceeded the 50% solid waste
diversion goal, the actual amount of solid waste disposed
in landfills statewide has increased substantially since
1990.
Existing law prioritizes the methods by which a
municipality may manage its waste stream. The two
most-desirable methods of waste management are source
reduction followed by recycling and composting. The
equally least desirable methods of waste management are
"environmentally safe" transformation-which, under current
law, includes MSW conversion-and land filling.
Transformation was so prioritized because of concerns about
air pollution traditionally produced by solid waste
incinerators.
b) Renewable Portfolio Standard. The RPS requires
investor-owned utilities and certain other retail sellers
of electricity to receive 20% of their electricity from
renewable resources by 2010. The RPS defines RPS-eligible
renewable resources to include a variety of energy sources,
such as solar energy, wind, and geothermal energy.
AB 222
Page 3
Faculties that produce electricity from any of these
renewable resources must meet a number of criteria,
including that the facility not violate any California
environmental quality standard or requirement.
c) MSW Conversion Faces Insurmountable Hurdles. In
addition to the criteria applicable to any RPS-eligible
renewable resource facility, MSW conversion alone must meet
additional standards to qualify as a renewable resource, as
shown here:
i) The technology does not use air or oxygen in the
conversion process,
ii) The technology produces no discharge of air
contaminants,
iii) The technology produces no discharges to surface or
ground water,
iv) The technology produces no hazardous waste, and
v) To the extent feasible, the technology removes all
recyclable, materials from the solid waste.
Because no MSW conversion facility can meet some of these
standards, current law, in effect, prohibits MSW conversion
facilities from qualifying for purposes of meeting the
state renewable energy goals.
3)Equal Treatment for MSW Facilities . This bill would apply
criteria to MSW conversion facilities similar to the criteria
that apply to certain other RPS-eligible energy facilities.
In doing so, it would thereby allow MSW conversion to count
toward meeting the RPS.
4)AB 222 Departs From Current Waste Reduction Policy. As
described above, existing law prioritizes the methods by which
waste is to be managed, with transformation of solid waste and
land filling being the least desirable waste management
methods. This bill allows a local government to count
conversion of municipal solid waste at a biorefinery as part
of its diversion of solid waste, should a local government be
required to divert more than 50% of its solid waste. In doing
so, the bill makes one practice that is currently defined as
transformation-conversion of solid waste into electricity-the
coequal of the currently higher goals of source reduction,
recycling and composting
AB 222
Page 4
5)Supporters , including some industry groups and some local
governments, argue this bill will allow California to both
capture the economic value inherent to the tremendous amount
of "waste" that is currently lost to landfill and protect
California's environment. They further argue that existing
law inappropriately lumps conversion of waste into energy
under the definition of "transformation." Such
categorization, supporters claim, reflects an outdated
perception that any technology that reduces waste through the
application of heat is equivalent to highly polluting solid
waste incinerators that wastefully fail to capture the
economic value inherent to solid waste.
6)Opponents , including several environmental and environmental
justice organizations, argue that this bill could result in
the release of toxic air emissions that result from the
"cooking" of waste. These opponents note that municipal
solid waste conversion is unlike biomass conversion, which
relies on a uniform predictable feed stock, such as straw and
grasses, and that produces predictably clean emissions. Solid
waste conversion, conversely, relies on feed stock that is as
varied as the contents of the solid waste stream. The quality
of emissions resulting from such solid waste conversion,
opponents claim, is therefore unpredictable and will most
certainly include high levels of pollutants, regardless of the
bill's language to the contrary.
Opponents also argue that this bill provides local government
with a perverse incentive to send their solid waste to
biorefineries rather than increasing their rate of recycling
or composting or reducing the volume of their waste stream.
Such an incentive contradicts well-established state waste
management goals.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081