BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2139
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2139 (Chesbro) - As Amended: April 6, 2010
Policy Committee: Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Vote: 6-3
Natural Resources 6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill establishes the California Product Stewardship Act,
which creates a Product Stewardship Program of extended producer
responsibility (EPR). Specifically, this bill:
1)Establishes three products to be covered by the program:
home-generated sharps, pesticides and nonrefillable propane
cylinders.
2)Requires a producers or group of producers of a covered
product, by January 1, 2011, to submit a product stewardship
plan (PSP) to the Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (DRRR) that addresses the environmental effects of
the covered product over its entire life cycle, including
design, manufacture, distribution, and after the product's
useful life, its collection, transportation, reuse, recycling,
and final disposition.
3)Requires DRRR, on or before January 1, 2012, to review
submitted PSPs and to approve or reject each plan. Producers
of rejected plans have 30 days to resubmit plans.
4)Prohibits, as of July 1, 2012, a producer without an approved
plan for a covered product from selling that product in
California.
5)Requires producers of covered products to meet performance
standards, including collection and recycling standards, and
to report to DRRR annually on compliance.
6)Authorizes DRRR to collect a fee of an unspecified amount to
AB 2139
Page 2
cover administrative costs and establishes the Product
Stewardship Account (PSA) for their deposit; to levy a
noncompliance fee against recalcitrant producers and establish
the Product Stewardship Penalty Subaccount for their deposit;
and to conduct audits of producers, producer organizations and
service providers.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Annual, ongoing costs to DRRR of $525,000, equivalent to six
positions, to review producer responsibility plans and
updates, determine compliance, perform audits, collect fees,
and impose penalties (PSA).
2)Annual fee and penalty revenue of an unknown amount but
presumably sufficient to cover administrative costs, in
keeping with the intent of the bill (PSA).
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author intends the California Product
Stewardship Act to require manufacturers of hazardous products
to create products that are less toxic, more durable and
easier to recycle when they enter the waste stream. The
author's goal is to establish one law to address a wide range
of products that end up in California landfills and have a
significant impact on our environment. The author sees this
bill as a free-market solution to drive environmental
improvement. The author also describes this bill, which
applies only to three products, as an opportunity to "test the
efficacy of a consistent framework approach for managing
products that have significant end-of-life waste management
impacts as well as impacts on the environment and public
health."
2)Background .
a) California Programs Manage Waste After the Fact .
California has numerous programs to minimize and manage the
waste that results from the many products we consume. For
example, state law requires local governments to divert 50%
of solid waste generated from landfill disposal through
source reduction, reuse, and recycling. In addition,
legislatively established state programs levy fees on waste
motor oil and electronic goods to facilitate their
collection and recycling; require retailers of cell phones
AB 2139
Page 3
and rechargeable batteries to accept them from consumers
for reuse, recycling or disposal; and compel producers of
home-generated medical sharps to develop a plan for the
safe collection and proper disposal of them.
b) Extended Producer Responsibility Tries to Address Waste
Before It Happens . Rather than seeking to manage waste
after it has been produced, this bill seeks to implement
extended producer responsibility (EPR), which addresses
waste generation at the point of product design.
Typically, producers do not consider recycling
possibilities, disposal costs, and environmental impacts
when designing products because public agencies and other
entities, not the producers, bear those costs, which each
year amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. By placing
responsibility for product disposal on the producer, EPR
provides the producer, rather than state or local
government, a financial incentive to reduce the generation
of waste.
EPR was the adopted policy of the now-defunct Integrated
Waste Management Board The board's EPR Framework, which
was developed and adopted after two years of public
workshops and meetings with local governments, legislative
members, retailers, and producers, was supported by the
League of California Cities, California State Association
of Counties, and the Regional Council of Rural Counties.
3)Related Legislation.
a) Chapter 591, Statutes of 2009 (AB 486, Simitian)
requires, on or before July 1, 2010, and annually
thereafter, a pharmaceutical manufacturer that sells or
distributes home-use medical sharps to submit to the CIWMB,
or its successor agency, a plan for the safe collection and
proper disposal of the waste devices. The bill passed the
Assembly 46-22 and was signed by the governor.
b) AB 283 (Chesbro, 2009) creates the California Product
Stewardship Act of 2009, which requires the Integrated
Waste Management Board to administer an Extended Producer
Responsibility program of product stewardship. The bill
was held by this committee.
c) AB 1343 (Huffman, 2009) requires manufacturers of
architectural paint to develop and implement stewardship
AB 2139
Page 4
programs to manage post-consumer paint. The bill passed
the Assembly 48-29 and was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
d) AB 2176 (Blumenfield, 2010) enacts the California
Lighting Toxics Reduction and Jobs in Recycling Act, which
establishes a producer responsibility program for
mercury-containing lamps and a fee program for inefficient
lamps. The bill is currently before this committee.
e) AB 2398 (J. Perez, 2010) requires, by September 30,
2011, a producer or product stewardship organization to
submit a carpet stewardship plan. This bill currently is
before this committee.
f) SB 1100 (Corbett, 2010) creates a product stewardship
program for household batteries. The bill is awaiting
consideration by Senate Appropriations.
4)Support . This bill is supported by numerous municipal waste
organizations, conservation organizations and local
governments, such as the League of California Cities and
California State Association of Counties.
5)Opposition. The bill is opposed by many industry groups and
the California Chamber of Commerce, who make several
objections to the bill:
a) The authority given to DRRR inappropriately intrudes on
producer product design.
b) The bill makes producers responsible for consumer
behavior, which producers cannot reasonably be expected to
control.
c) It arbitrarily selects products for inclusion in the
program without a rigorous analysis of the unusual waste
challenges posed by those products or the costs and
benefits associated with addressing them.
d) It fails to build upon the state's established programs
for waste management, such as recycling goals and curbside
recycling services.
e) In regard to home-generated medical sharps, the bill
fails to await the details of plans manufacturers of these
products are required by law to submit to DRRR and is
therefore premature.
As a result, these opponents contend, the bill will cost
AB 2139
Page 5
private industry and consumers greatly, yet will not affect
how consumers dispose of their products or significantly
reduce or alter the waste stream.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081