We humans are a restless sort. Just when it seems we have
everything hooked up and moving smoothly, things change. Sometimes its author is
external—an earthquake, asteroid, solar activity—but most of the time it’s an
internal dynamic, an urge in response to a perception of something better…a
hardwired process that’s allowed us to struggle to the top of the food chain and
hopefully stay there.
Strange, then, that while we are spring-loaded to adapting to
ever-changing situations, we are subject to a societal desire to
institutionalize and thereby stonewall change through the erection of barriers
founded on the premise that the institution is more important than the issues
that gave rise to its existence.
Why this off-the-wall preamble? Well, today—Monday April 27,
2009—California Assembly’s Utilities &
Commerce Committee will consider AB 222 that seeks to accomplish the following
in compliance with objectives set forth in the state’s Bioenergy Action
Plan, and has been the case for at least a decade, we see the same institutional
forces in lock-step opposition. So what’s the deal here?
AB 222 Summary
AB 222 proposes to update the Integrated Waste Management Act
of 1989 to incorporate changes that will enable and expedite the production of
advanced, non-food derived biofuels, green power and other biobased products
from biomass.
California’s
largest source of biomass is found in its municipal waste stream. 70%–75% of the
more than 40 million tons of post-recycled urban waste that California places in
landfills each year represent a
tremendous untapped resource for the in-state production of biopower and
biofuels. From this single source, clean 21st Century biorefineries, now
commercially available, could safely
and efficiently produce some 2.7 billion gallons of advanced biofuels and
3600 megawatts of power.
By providing a pathway for new investments in technologies to
occur in California, while retaining California’s stringent environmental
protections, AB 222 can allow California to lead the nation in the establishment
of advanced technology facilities. Such facilities address a number of
California’s most pressing issues/challenges, and will:
1. Expand the beneficial use of California’s waste streams,
and in so doing, stimulate economic investment and provide high level green
collar manufacturing jobs here at home, rather than exporting materials to the
Far East, India and Nigeria, where essentially no environmental standards
exist.
2. Significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and assist
the State in reaching its AB 32 GHG reduction goals;
3. Provide alternatives to the open-field burning of
agricultural residues and the agricultural land-spreading of biosolids;
4. Promote energy independence and national security by
enabling the in-state production of advanced biofuels, rather than importing
petroleum from the Middle East or ethanol from the Midwest (one billion gallons
in 2008);
5. Reduce by up to 90% CO2 emissions from automobiles as
compared to an energy-equivalent amount of gasoline,
6. Help California achieve the goals of its Renewable
Portfolio Standard, Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Bioenergy Action Plan.
What AB 222 Accomplishes:
1. Removes from
statute a scientifically inaccurate definition of
gasification.
2. Adds to statute
and defines the term “Biorefinergy” and enables them to be permitted under the
same provisions as are required for other manufacturing facilities, while at the
same time, requiring them to meet or exceed all state and local standards for
air pollution and water quality control.
3. Revises
the definition of the term
"transformation" to mean the
incineration of solid waste with or without the recovery of energy.
"Transformation" does not
include:
a.
Composting,
b. Biomass
conversion, or
c. Solid
waste conversion at a biorefinery.
4. Requires that,
to the maximum extent feasible, solid waste feedstock has been pre-processed to
remove all recyclable materials prior to the conversion
process.
5. Clarifies that
green power and advanced biofuels, when produced from carbon-based wastes, will
qualify as renewable energy for purposes of the state’s RPS, and will not count
as disposal for the purposes of complying with State law. This additional
clarity will provide stability to the private sector, and allow companies to
invest in the development of advanced technologies with
confidence.
The Opposition
Points of View (in letters to The Honorable Felipe Fuentes, Chair,
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee State Capitol)
Dear Assembly Member Fuentes:
Sierra Club California opposes Assembly Bill 222 (Adams)
because it would weaken recycling and renewable energy requirements and promote
technologies that may damage our air, water, and public health. '
The bill would authorize local governments to take credit for
solid waste "conversion" at "biorefineries" when calculating compliance with the
AB 939 requirement for 50% "diversion" of solid waste from landfills. The
definition of "biorefinery" covers facilities using a wide variety of disparate
processes, some of which are currently classified in the "transformation"
category and should properly remain there. High-heat processes like pyrolysis,
though touted as "noncombustion," bear substantial similarities to incineration
and may well result in emissions of toxins like dioxins, furans and heavy
metals. Although we have asked repeatedly for the data for several years, we
have still seen no emissions
data indicating that such releases would not occur.
The bill would also include "biorefineries" in the definition
of "in-state renewable electricity generation facility," and would delete the
environmental requirements in current law's definition of "solid waste
conversion." We believe
it is premature at best to give diversion and renewable-energy credit for
high-heat processing of solid wastes. The state should not promote these
technologies until we know whether they pose a risk to public health, safety,
and the environment.
Sincerely,
Bill Magavern.
Director
Sierra Club California
Dear Assembly Member Fuentes:
We [Californians Against Waste] urge your `no' vote on
Assembly Bill 222 (Adams) when it is heard in the Assembly Utilities and
Commerce Committee. This measure by developers of so-called `conversion
technologies' would redefine state law to provide a competitive advantage for
specified types of waste-to-energy technologies by effectively `counting' them
as recycling under the state's 50% waste reduction and recycling mandate.
Conversion and other waste to energy technologies have yet to demonstrate their
environmental or economic viability, and equating them to recycling under state
law may result in the displacement of proven and economically viable recycling
and composting technologies.
CAW has long supported reasonable policy for the research,
development and deployment of new waste management and recycling technologies,
including so-called conversion technologies. Waste to energy facilities such as
those contemplated in AB 222 may play a role in utilizing organic residues that
are not currently economical to recycle. It is imperative, however, to ensure
that any policy is protective of public health and the existing recycling
hierarchy which ensures the highest and best use of our resources. AB 222 fails
to accomplish these objectives in two major ways:
First, by writing a new definition of solid waste conversion,
AB 222 waters down existing environmental standards for conversion technologies.
The new definition of "biorefinery" repeals the requirement that conversion
technologies produce "no discharges of air contaminants or emissions".
Second, by removing conversion technologies from the
definition of transformation, AB 222 eliminates the currently clear lines
between disposal and recycling and grants full recycling credit to any
technology that meets the definition of biorefinery. This marks a
drastic and unfounded change in course from current statute and could
potentially put California's existing recycling infrastructure at risk.
For these reasons we urge your No vote on AB 222.
Sincerely,
Mark Murray Executive Director
Californians
Against Waste
What’s at Stake
Here?
You may wonder why
two leading proponents of “Zero Waste” would oppose a positive step for removing
a massive amount of otherwise non-recoverable materials from the wastestream and
directing them to awaiting markets. You’re not alone, especially in the wake of
what generously may be classified as a collapse of the foreign recyclables
market.
With California
jurisdictions under mandate to divert 50% of its waste from landfills, waste
management costs continuing to increase in the face of decreasing gate receipts,
landfill airspace at a premium and declining in metropolitan areas, and a public
hammered not only economic woes but the weight of increasing regulatory burdens
as well, you’d think the likes of the Sierra Club California and Californians
Against Waste would welcome the passage of AB 222.
Would someone
please tell me what I’m missing here?
Late
News
AB
222 bill passed out of the Utilities & Commerce Committee with no
nay votes!