BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 737|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 737
Author: Chesbro (D), et al
Amended: 8/20/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-3, 8/12/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Ashburn, Emmerson, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
SUBJECT : Solid waste: diversion
SOURCE : Californians Against Waste
DIGEST : This bill requires the Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery to report to the Legislature, by
January 1, 2013, on the current diversion rate in the state
and potential strategies to increase the diversion rate to
75 percent, and report information on the costs of the
strategies identified in the report. This bill requires
certain businesses to arrange for recycling services and
requires local governments to implement a commercial
recycling program. This bill also makes a number of
technical and procedural changes to the laws governing
solid waste facility regulation.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/10 change the date on a
reporting requirement from March 1, 2013 to January 1, 2013
CONTINUED
AB 737
Page
2
and make other technical, conforming amendments.
NOTE: This bill contains similar provisions contained in
AB 479 (Chesbro), 2009-10 Session, which was held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
ANALYSIS : Under current law, local governments are
required divert 50 percent of solid waste through source
reduction, recycling, and composting. The Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is required
to determine whether local governments are in compliance
with this requirement. Local governments that are not in
compliance or are not making a good faith effort to come
into compliance are subject to fines.
Current law authorizes the CalRecycle to designate local
enforcement agencies to permit solid waste facilities and
enforce permit or other requirements. Current law requires
local governments to adopt and submit non-disposal facility
elements to CalRecycle. These non-disposal facility
elements must include a description of new facilities and
expansions of existing facilities and all solid waste
facility expansions that recover for reuse more than five
percent of total disposed volume.
This bill:
1.Requires local governments to update existing
non-disposal facility elements as conditions change and
provide that information to the CalRecycle.
2.Requires CalRecycle, on or before January 1, 2013 to
report to the Legislature on the current diversion rate
in the state and potential strategies to increase the
diversion rate to 75 percent, and report information on
the costs of the strategies identified in the report.
3.Requires businesses that contract for solid waste
disposal and generate more than four cubic yards of solid
waste and recyclable materials per week to arrange for
recycling services. Such businesses are required to
either separate recyclable materials from solid waste and
arrange for their collection or to contract with a
recycling service that provides mixed waste processing
AB 737
Page
3
services.
4.Requires local governments to implement a commercial
recycling program, unless a jurisdiction already has
established such a program. Requires CalRecycle to
review such local commercial recycling programs.
5.Provides that a local agency may charge and collect a fee
from a commercial waste generator in order to recover the
agency's cost incurred in complying with this bill's
provisions.
Prior/Related Legislation
SB 25 (Padilla), 2009-10 Session, increases the required
diversion rate to 60 percent by 2015, and also generally
requires businesses to contract for recycling services. SB
25 is in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
SB 1020 (Padilla), 2007-08 Session, would have required the
Waste Board to develop a plan to achieve a 75 percent
diversion rate by 2020. That bill was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 479 (Chesbro), 2009-10 Session, is substantially similar
to this bill. AB 479 was held in the Senate Appropriations
Committee's suspense file.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/23/10)
Californians Against Waste (source)
Andersen, Bonnifield & Roscha
California League of Conservation Voters
California Refuse Recycling Council - Southern District
California Refuse Recycling Council - Northern District
California State Association of Counties
City of Oakland
CR&R Inc (Perris, CA)
East Bay Sanitary Co. (Contra Costa)
Inland Empire Disposal Association
League of California Cities
AB 737
Page
4
Los Angeles County Waste Management Association
Marin Sanitary Service
Napa Recycling & Waste Services
Palm Springs Disposal Services
Recology
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Republic Services
Sierra Club CA
Solid Waste Association of Orange County
Stockton Tri Industries (San Joaquin)
Stop Waste.org (Alameda County)
Varner Bros, Inc. (Bakersfield)
Waste Management
Westhoff Cone & Holmstedt (Walnut Creek)
Western Truck Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/23/10)
California Association of Realtors (oppose-unless amended)
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Integrated Waste Management Task Force
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee
The Thursday Group
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
California is now the national leader in diverting waste
from landfills at 58 percent (2009). Every year, we find
higher and better uses for more than 50 million tons of
waste.
This bill sets its sights on "the next 50 percent" as we
move toward the goal of becoming a waste-free society.
Recycling is an integral component of California's efforts
to unclog landfills, preserve natural resources, and
protect the environment.
The recycling movement is a powerful fuel additive that
helps propel California's economic engine. The recycling
industry accounts for more than 125,000 green jobs. It
generates $4 billion yearly in salaries and wages, and
produces $10 billion worth of goods and services annually.
Recycling saves natural resources, it saves energy; it
AB 737
Page
5
reduces the amount of water and electricity needed in the
manufacturing process. By one estimate, the amount of
energy saved last year alone across the U.S. from recycling
beverage containers, newsprint and corrugated cardboard was
equal to the annual electrical needs of nearly 18 million
Americans. Solid waste tipping fees, which generate funds
for the Integrated Waste Management Account (IWMA), are not
proportional to the diversion rates. The state's overall
economic and population growth has resulted in an overall
net increase in waste sent to landfills in spite of the
current 58 percent recycling rate. The IWMA continues to
grow with economic activities, so a 75 percent diversion
will not result in a loss of revenue to the Fund.
The original fee was given to the Waste Board to achieve
the 50 percent diversion rate which has now been achieved.
Currently, the statewide diversion rate stands at 58
percent. In establishing statewide commercial recycling,
it is estimated that the statewide diversion rate will be
able to increase by another 10 percent.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Chamber of Commerce
contends that the recycling mandate contained in this bill
is unnecessary. The Chamber points out that CalRecycle is
already engaged in developing regulations to implement a
mandatory commercial recycling program which must be
adopted in 2011. The Chamber contends that this bill
imposes its mandate only on the private sector, rather than
ensuring a greater diversion rate through the inclusion of
all state and local government facilities - such as
schools, hospitals, and more. In contrast, CalRecycle has
committed to including these state and local government
facilities in its mandatory commercial recycling program.
The Chamber contends that the state's goal of greater
statewide waste diversion would be achieved more
cost-effectively and with greater environmental gains by
following the more inclusive approach envisioned by
CalRecycle. The Chamber is opposed to the fees imposed on
businesses by local governments to pay for the commercial
recycling program, and this added cost would be on top of
what businesses would already be required to pay for
recycling services just to be compliant with the new
mandate.
AB 737
Page
6
TSM:kc 8/23/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****