BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1173
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1173 (Huffman)
As Amended May 5, 2009
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 5-1 UTILITIES
AND COMMERCE 12-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Davis, Feuer, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blakeslee, |
| |Monning, Ruksin | |Carter, Fong, Fuller, |
| | | |Furutani, Huffman, |
| | | |Krekorian, Skinner, |
| | | |Smyth, Swanson, Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Miller |Nays:|Duvall, Tom Berryhill |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
---------------------------------
|Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| |Hall, John A. Perez, |
| |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | |
|-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| |Miller, |
| |Audra Strickland |
| | |
---------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits the distribution of moneys from energy
efficiency investment funds for the purchase and distribution of
compact florescent lights (CFLs) that do not meet specified
standards or to retailers that do not establish a recycling
program. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits money from energy efficiency investment funds, or
any other funds generated from usage-based charges on
electricity distribution, from being distributed to any entity
AB 1173
Page 2
for the purchase and distribution of 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 Internet Web
site.
b) The manufacturer or distributor of the CFLs has done
either of the following:
i) Implemented a comprehensive recycling program
for CFLs approved by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC); 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; to encourage public, private, and
nonprofit entities to establish convenient locations for
that collection; and to cover the requirements of this
bill. Requires that the payments are deposited into the
Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Fund (FLRF).
2)Prohibits money from energy efficiency investment funds or any
other funds generated from usage-based charges on electricity
distribution from being distributed to a retailer for a CFL
program, unless the retailer has agreed to provide the public
with a convenient in-store collection opportunity for the
recycling of CFLs.
3)Establishes the FLRF, administered by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), to make payments to retailer-based
collectors, local governments, and other approved collectors
of residentially-generated CFLs.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 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); ongoing annual costs to DTSC of
approximately $450,000, beginning in 2010-11, for inspection,
compliance assistance and enforcement (FLRF); and, 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
AB 1173
Page 3
established by this bill (FLRF).
COMMENTS : The bill's sponsor asserts that AB 1173 is aimed at
reducing mercury emissions from residential florescent lighting
through market-based source reduction and recycling incentives.
They contend that while the environmental benefits of using
florescent lighting over incandecent lighting is clear, the
current generation of florescent lighting contains mercury.
Proponents argue that AB 1173 will motivate manufacturers to
reduce mercury in CFLs, while helping to establish a free and
convenient program for consumers to properly dispose of
florescent lighting.
The California Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) energy
efficiency programs are funded by charges applied to each
customer's bill within each utility's service territory. These
surcharges provide the PUC and the and other agencies with a
total of approximately $540 million to fund public purpose
programs. The PUC oversees the allocation of these energy
efficiency funds for program implementation to each of the four
investor owned utilities (IOUs) in California.
CFLs need a little more energy when they are first turned on,
but then use about 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs.
According to CAW, since 1999, as part of their energy efficiency
programs, IOUs have funded an upstream lighting incentive
program to provide 'pre-bates' to CFL manufacturers and
distributors in order to buy down the purchase price of CFLs
sold at retail. Last year, the IOUs spent approximately $60
million collectively to buy down the price of an estimated 30
million lamps. The IOUs have proposed spending about $45
million annually to subsidize fluorescent lamp purchases over
the next three years.
CAW asserts that the main criteria used by the IOUs to determine
eligibility for these funds have been price. These low-priced
lamps, often imported from the Asia/Pacific region, tend to have
higher levels of mercury and do not last as long as their
counterparts that are manufactured in the United States.
Mercury is an essential part of CFLs because it allows the bulb
to be an efficient light source. Unfortunately, it is also a
neurotoxin.
Since IOUs continue to include substantial subsidies for
AB 1173
Page 4
fluorescent lamp purchases in their programs, tens of millions
on CFLs will be purchased, installed, and eventually discarded
in California. It is imperative that California develop an
efficient program for collecting and properly recyling spent
lights.
Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0001150