BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1173
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1173 (Huffman) - As Amended: May 5, 2009
Policy Committee: ESTM Vote:5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits a retail seller of electricity from using
funds intended to promote energy efficiency efforts to purchase
compact florescent lamps (CFL) that do not meet specified
standards. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits money from energy efficiency investment funds, or
any other funds generated from usage-based charges on
electricity distribution, that are provided to retail sellers
of electricity from being distributed to any entity for CFLs,
unless all of the following conditions exist:
a) All CFLs purchased are qualified as the most recent
ENERGY STAR version listed on the ENERGY STAR Web site.
b) The manufacturer or distributor of the CFLs has done
either of the following:
i) Implemented a comprehensive recycling program
for CFL, approved by DTSCs; or,
ii) Agreed to pay an amount for each CFL for which
funding is received that is sufficient to cover the
average cost of collecting and recycling residentially
generated CFLs and to encourage public, private, and
nonprofit entities to establish convenient locations for
that collection and to cover the requirements of this
bill.
2)Establishes the Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Fund (FLRF),
administered by the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) for funding retailer-based collectors, local
AB 1173
Page 2
governments, and other approved collectors of CFLs.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs to DTSC of approximately $150,000 in 2009-10
and 2010-11 to develop regulations, approve retail recycling
programs, establish fee levels, and conduct education and
outreach. (FLRF)
2) Ongoing annual costs to DTSC of approximately $450,000,
beginning in 2010-11, for inspection, compliance assistance
and enforcement. (FLRF)
3)Annual revenues sufficient to cover all administrative costs,
plus an unknown amount of revenue-possibly in the millions of
dollars annually-resulting from retail sellers who pay the fee
established by this bill. (FLRF)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author seeks to reduce mercury pollution
associated with residential florescent lighting. While there
are demonstrated environmental benefits that result from using
fluorescent lighting instead of incandescent lighting,
fluorescent lighting contains mercury, a toxic material. The
author contends this bill will lead CFL manufacturers to
reduce the mercury content of their bulbs, while helping to
establish a free and convenient program for consumers to
properly dispose of fluorescent lighting.
2)Background.
a) California Energy Efficiency Programs . Under the
requirements of AB 1890, (Brulte) Chapter 854, Statutes of
1996, and reconfirmed in subsequent legislation, the
California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) energy
efficiency programs are funded by the electric public goods
charge and natural gas demand side management charge
applied to each customer's bill within each utility's
service territory. These surcharges provide the CPUC and
the California Energy Commission with a total of
approximately $540 million to fund public purpose programs.
The CPUC oversees the allocation of these energy efficiency
funds for program implementation by each of the state's
AB 1173
Page 3
four investor owned utilities (IOUs)-Pacific Gas &
Electric, Southern California Edison, Southern California
Gas Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric. Every year, the
CPUC approves each utility's plan for efficiency programs,
which the utility then carries out within its service
territory. A number of programs are also coordinated on a
statewide basis.
Replacing incandescent lighting with CFLs is a
cost-effective energy efficiency measure that the IOUs
actively pursue. Last year, the IOUs spent millions of
dollars collectively to buy down the price of an estimated
30 million CFL. The IOUs have proposed spending about $45
million annually to subsidize fluorescent lamp purchases
for the next three years. It is reasonable to expect that
tens of millions on CFLs will be purchased, installed, and
eventually discarded in California, largely as a result of
these energy efficiency programs.
b) CFL Efficiency, Toxicity, and Disposal . CFLs need a
little more energy when they are first turned on, but then
use about 75 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs,
making them very efficient sources of electric light. In
addition, CFLs contain trace amounts of mercury. Because of
this mercury content, CFLs are classified as a hazardous
waste. It is illegal in California to dispose of CFLs in
the trash.
c) Energy Star Ratings. Energy Star is a joint program of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Department of Energy that seeks to save consumers and
businesses money and protect the environment through energy
efficient products and practices. In 1992 the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced Energy
Star as a voluntary labeling program designed to identify
and promote energy-efficient products to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The Energy Star label is on major
appliances, office equipment, lighting, home electronics,
and other products.
3)Supporters argue that it is imperative that California reduce
the toxicity of CFLs sold in the state and to develop an
efficient program for collecting and recyling spent CFLs.
According to Californians Against Waste-sponsor of this
bill-the IOUs choose to subsidize the lowest-priced CFLs. But
AB 1173
Page 4
these low-priced CFLs tend to have higher levels of mercury
and do not last as long as some higher-priced CFLs. In
addition, there is no convenient and cost-effective
infrastructure in place for California residents to recycle
CFLs, thereby increasing the liklihood that these toxic
products will be improperly disposed of.
4)Opponents , including the California Taxpayer's Association and
the Stop Hidden Taxes Coalition, argue that taxpayers are
already overburdened by taxes and fees. Further, opponents
assert that the Legislature should not authorize a fee unless
it knows the amount of fee revenue needed and specifies the
fee amount in statute.
5)Related Legislation. AB 1109 (Huffman, Chapter 534, Statutes
of 2007) requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control,
in coordination with the California Integrated Waste
Management Board, to convene a task force to make
recommendations, on or before September 1, 2008, on methods of
collection, recycling, education, outreach, labeling, and
designations for end of life residential fluorescent lamps,
which are considered hazardous waste upon disposal. Task
force recommendations are incorporated into this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081