BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1343
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1343 (Huffman) - As Amended: May 4, 2009
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:7-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires a manufacturer of paint sold in California to
implement a paint recovery program. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a manufacturer of paint sold in California to
implement a recovery program to collect, transport, and
process postconsumer paint, with an inoperative date of July
1, 2013, and a sunset date of January 1, 2014.
2)Authorizes a paint manufacturer to collect a fee from
consumers on all architectural paint sufficient to recover the
costs of collection of storage, transportation, reuse, and
disposal.
3)Requires a paint manufacturer, by July 1, 2011, and each year
thereafter, to report to the California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB) on its paint recovery efforts.
4)Requires CIWMB, on or before January 1, 2012, to report to the
Legislature the results of the paint recovery program and
recommend whether it should be extended and/or modified.
FISCAL EFFECT
One-time costs in the range of $150,000 to $300,000 to CIWMB to
review reports submitted by paint manufacturers and prepare the
report required by this bill. (Integrated Waste Management
AB 1343
Page 2
Fund)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author notes that both latex and oil-based
paints are considered hazardous waste in California and cannot
be disposed of in a solid waste landfill. The purpose of this
bill, according to the author, is to reduce the costs and
environmental impacts of the disposal of postconsumer paint in
this state.
2)Background . According to CIWMB, leftover paint is the largest
source of household hazardous waste in California. Management
of paint costs local governments approximately $6-8 per
gallon, for a total estimated cost of $14-18 million annually.
Nonetheless, most paint is not disposed of properly, and the
average household stockpiles 1 to 3 gallons of leftover paint
per year.
3)Supporters, including the City and County of San Francisco and
Waste Management, Inc., argue that the hazardous content of
paint and the large volume of leftover paint that goes
uncollected each year point to the need for an easy and
affordable way to dispose of paint. Supporters add that the
program this bill authorizes is consistent with a conceptual
agreement among paint manufacturers, government agencies,
recyclers, contractors, and other interested parties to
establish an industry-funded paint stewardship organization.
4)Opponents , including some antitax groups, see the fee
authorized by this bill as another tax on the already
overburdened California consumer.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081