BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2176
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 19, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2176 (Blumenfield) - As Amended: April 22, 2010
Policy Committee: Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Vote: 5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill establishes a producer responsibility program for
mercury-containing lamps and a fee program for "inefficient"
lamps. (Summary continued below.)
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs to DTSC in 2011-12 of an unknown amount, but
likely less than $100,000, for legal, technical and
administrative staff to develop and implement reimbursement
agreements, review initial producer plans, and educate
producers on program requirements (Lighting Product
Stewardship Subaccount within the Hazardous Waste Control
Account (HWCA)).
2)Ongoing annual costs to DTSC of an unknown amount, but likely
less than $50,000, to review annual producer reports, enforce
producer compliance, and collect and administer fee revenue.
These costs will likely diminish in the out years as producers
come to understand program requirements and as the number of
new plans submitted by producers decreases.
3)One-time costs to the Energy Commission of approximately
$300,000, equivalent to 2.5 positions, to develop the fee
described by this bill (Energy Efficiency Research Fund
(EERF).)
4)Ongoing annual cost to CEC of approximately $425,000,
equivalent to 3.5 positions, to review and certify producer
plans and reports, administer fee revenue, review grant
applications and award grants (EERF). These costs might
AB 2176
Page 2
diminish in the out years as producers come to understand
program requirements and the number of new plans submitted by
producers decreases.
5)The bill specifies that revenues from fees collected by DTSC
and by CEC pursuant to this bill will be sufficient to cover
the administrative and enforcement costs created by this bill
for those agencies.
SUMMARY (continued)
Specifically, this bill:
Relative to Mercury-Containing Lamps
1)Requires a producer of a mercury-containing lamp to submit, by
September 30, 2011, to the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) a plan that describes how the producer will
collect and recycle the lamps, free of charge to the consumer,
at the end of the lamps' useful lives. Plans must be updated
at least every four years and resubmitted.
2)Directs the department to determine whether the producer's
plan meets the requirements of this bill and, if so, approve
the plan.
3)Prohibits, effective January 1, 2012, a producer who lacks an
approved plan from selling mercury-containing lamps.
4)Requires the mercury-containing lamp producer with an approved
plan to report to DTSC each year on achievement of the plan's
goals.
5)Requires a producer who submits a plan to pay a fee to DTSC
sufficient to cover DTSC's review of the plan and enforcement
and implementation of the plan, and establishes the Lighting
Product Stewardship Subaccount within the Hazardous Waste
Control Account for deposit of the fees.
Relative to Inefficient Lamps
1)Requires a producer of a lamp that produces fewer than 45
lumens per watt to pay a fee, by January 1, 2010 and annually
thereafter, to the California Energy Commission (CEC).
AB 2176
Page 3
2)Directs CEC to base the amount of the fee on the total
environmental impact of that type of lamp, as indicated by its
relative efficiency, and to be sufficient to cover all
implementation costs.
3)Creates the Energy Efficiency Research Fund (EERF) for deposit
of fee revenue and to fund, upon appropriation, CEC research
grants to improve the lighting efficiency of inefficient lamps
and to reduce the environmental and public health effects of
them.
4)Prohibits, effective February 1, 2012, a producer who fails to
pay the fee from selling an inefficient lamp.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, inefficient incandescent
lamps, mainly because of the demands they place on energy
generation, impose serious health and regulatory burdens on
the state. For this reason, the author contends, it is
important to encourage the movement toward energy efficient
bulbs, such as compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs).
However, because CFLs contain toxic mercury, the author argues
it vital to ensure they and other toxic-containing lamps are
handled properly at end of their useful lives. The author
intends this bill to help achieve both these goals while
requiring the producers of these lamps, who earn profits on
their sale, to cover the costs of doing so.
2)Background .
a) Variety of Programs Seek to Manage California's Waste .
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
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.
AB 2176
Page 4
In addition, state law prohibits disposal of hazardous
materials, such as CFLs and incandescent lamps, in the
garbage. Most Californians fail to dispose of their
lighting products properly, presumably, in part because
they lack a readily available was to do so, such as
curbside pick up.
b) California Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act ,
created by Chapter 534, Statutes of 2007 (AB 1109,
Huffman), directed DTSC to convene the Lighting Task Force.
The taskforce recommend ways to achieve collection,
recycling, education, outreach, labeling, and designations
for end of uses residential fluorescent lamps, such as
CFLs. In 2008, the taskforce released 13 recommendations
for a program of collecting and recycling lighting waste,
among them:
i) Focus on residential fluorescent lights- both CFLs
and tubes.
ii) Administration should be by an independent third
party organization.
iii) Implementation should be a shared among all
parties benefiting from fluorescent sale or use.
iv) Explore use of Public Goods Charge energy
efficiency monies as a funding source.
v) Meaningful metrics, clear goals, and data
collection are critical to the program's success.
vi) Only fluorescent lamps from participating
manufacturers should be sold in California.
vii) The collection system must be convenient.
viii) The collection and recycling program should
emphasize compliance and safety.
3)Related Legislation.
a) 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.
b) AB 1343 (Huffman, 2009) requires manufacturers of
architectural paint to develop and implement stewardship
programs to manage post-consumer paint. The bill passed
the Assembly 48-29 and was held in the Senate
AB 2176
Page 5
Appropriations Committee.
c) AB 2139 (Chesbro, 2010) establishes the California
Product Stewardship Act, which creates a Product
Stewardship Program of extended producer responsibility and
identifies three products subject to the act--
home-generated sharps, pesticides and nonrefillable propane
cylinders. AB 2139 is pending in this committee.
d) AB 2398 (J. Perez, 2010) requires, by September 30,
2011, a producer or product stewardship organization to
submit a carpet stewardship plan. This is pending in this
committee.
e) SB 1100 (Corbett, 2010) creates a product stewardship
program for household batteries. The bill is pending in
Senate Appropriations.
4)Support . The bill is supported by numerous conservation
groups and several local governments, who contend making
producers of lighting products responsible for the
environmental and public costs imposed by the products will
encourage producers to design lighting products that avoid
those costs in the first place.
5)Opposition . The bill is opposed by several industry groups,
who contend the bill is expensive, unnecessary and will
discourage use of energy-efficient lighting. This is because,
opponents argue, the bill places all responsibility for
lighting product collection and recycling on the producers
without any role for utilities, retailers, recyclers, or
government, inconsistent with the consensus recommendations
made by DTSC's Lighting Task Force.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081