CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE OPPOSES- AB 177
Please help get the word out. CAW Letter January 31, 2005 Assembly Member Loni Hancock, Chair Assembly Natural Resources Committee State Capitol, Room 4126 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: AB 177 (Bogh) - OPPOSE Dear Assembly Member Hancock: We strongly oppose Assembly Bill 177 (Bogh) which would undermine California's nation leading waste reduction and recycling efforts by promoting a spectrum of costly and environmentally damaging solid waste burning technologies. Since 1989, California has promoted a waste management hierarchy that promotes source reduction, recycling and composting (i.e. diversion) of materials and resources over disposal (landfilling and incineration). That hierarchy has worked to help California cut waste disposal nearly in half, reduce pollution, and maximize the conservation of resources, while maintaining reasonable overall solid waste management costs for consumers and businesses. AB 177 would undermine those efforts by providing 'diversion credits' for a spectrum of costly, unproven, and environmentally damaging technologies that rely primarily on the burning of otherwise recyclable and compostable materials in order to capture at best just a fraction of the resource value through energy recovery. These waste incineration technologies go by a variety of euphemisms including: transformation, conversion, gasification, and pyrolysis. AB 177 would undermine the efforts and investments of legitimate recycling and composting enterprises by promoting technologies that destroy rather than recycle, or compost resources. Specifically, AB 177 would allow for unlimited 'credit' under the state's waste reduction and recycling law (AB 939) for biomass conversion, and repeal the prohibition against receiving diversion credit for both transformation and biomass conversion. The 10% limitation on diversion credit for biomass conversion was an attempt to allow jurisdictions flexibility in reaching their mandated diversion requirements while ensuring a proper emphasis on source reduction and recycling. Simply removing the 10% limit will undermine years of work, squander state resources spent developing and supporting the recycling and composting industries, and is contrary to the intent of AB 939. Likewise, the prohibition against receiving diversion credit for both transformation and biomass conversion was specifically put in place to ensure jurisdictions emphasize source reduction and recycling in their efforts to comply with AB 939. Repealing this prohibition further compromises the waste hierarchy in Public Resources Code § 40051 by putting transformation and biomass conversion on an "equal playing field" with recycling and composting. Finally, AB 177 complicates the Public Resources Code with vague definitions and reverses careful protections put in place by the legislature to ensure the hierarchy is followed. By including new and unproven "conversion technologies," the new definition of "biomass conversion" may have significant unforeseen consequences. The California Integrated Waste Management Board has reported that the environmental and public health impacts of these technologies are unknown. The state should not promote these technologies until we know whether they pose a risk to public health, safety, and the environment. We strongly urge you to oppose AB 177 when it comes before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Sincerely, Mark Murray Executive Director |