Reducing California’s Landfill Methane Emissions: SB 1383 Implementation

Reducing California’s Landfill Methane Emissions: SB 1383 Implementation Report #274 | June 2023 Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy www.lhc.ca.gov LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Dedicated to Promoting Economy Pedro Nava, Chair and Efficiency in California State Sean Varner, Vice Chair Government Dion Aroner The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton David Beier† Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Anthony Cannella* Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency. Asm. Phillip Chen Bill Emmerson By statute, the Commission is a bipartisan board composed of Gil Garcetti five public members appointed by the governor, four public members appointed by the Legislature, two senators and José Atilio Hernández two assemblymembers. Sen. Dave Min Asm. Liz Ortega In creating the Commission in 1962, the Legislature declared Janna Sidley its purpose: Sen. Scott Wilk ...to secure assistance for the Governor and itself in †Served as subcommittee chair promoting economy, efficiency and improved services in the *Served on study subcommittee transaction of the public business in the various departments, FORMER COMMISSIONERS agencies and instrumentalities of the executive branch of WHO SERVED DURING THE the state government, and in making the operation of all STUDY state departments, agencies and instrumentalities, and Asm. Tasha Boerner Horvath all expenditures of public funds, more directly responsive Cynthia Buiza to the wishes of the people as expressed by their elected representatives... Sen. Jim Nielsen COMMISSION STAFF The Commission fulfills this charge by listening to the public, consulting with the experts and conferring with the wise. In the Ethan Rarick, Executive Director course of its investigations, the Commission typically empanels Tamar Foster, Deputy Executive advisory committees, conducts public hearings and visits Director government operations in action. Krystal Beckham Ashley Hurley Its conclusions are submitted to the Governor and the Legislature for their consideration. Recommendations often take the form Shara McAlister of legislation, which the Commission supports through the Allie Powell legislative process. Tristan Stein Contacting the Commission All correspondence should be addressed to the Commission Office: Little Hoover Commission 925 L Street, Suite 805, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-2125 | LittleHoover@lhc.ca.gov This report is available from the Commission’s website at www.lhc.ca.gov. 2 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................5 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................8 PART I: A PAUSE IN IMPLEMENTATION ..........................................8 Where Are We Now? .....................................................................................10 A Temporary Pause .......................................................................................11 Recommendations ........................................................................................12 PART II: CONFLICTING PRIORITIES, MISSING PERSPECTIVES RESULTED IN CONFUSING REGULATIONS ....................................13 Conflicting Policy Priorities ..........................................................................13 Procurement Requirements ..............................................................13 SB 1383 Promoted Renewable Natural Gas ......................................13 The State Prioritizes Zero-Emission Energy ......................................13 “It’s a Lot of Mulch” .............................................................................14 Hydrogen: An Impractical Solution for 2025 ....................................14 Moving the Goalposts .........................................................................17 Recommendations ........................................................................................18 PART III: SB 1383 WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR RURAL CALIFORNIA ......................................................................................18 Recommendation ..........................................................................................19 PART IV: MISSING COMMUNITY-CENTERED RESPONSE ............19 Recommendation ..........................................................................................20 PART V: MISSING INDUSTRY EXPERTISE .......................................21 Recommendation ..........................................................................................21 PART VI: EDIBLE FOOD RECOVERY ...............................................22 Recommendation ..........................................................................................22 PART VII: LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS .................................23 Recommendation ..........................................................................................24 PART VIII: THE LEGISLATION DID NOT INCLUDE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................24 Regulations Exclude Some Existing Infrastructure ...................................24 Procurement Requirements Represent Unfunded Mandate ..................24 Other Financial Concerns ...................................................................25 Recommendation ..........................................................................................25 APPENDIX A: LETTER FROM JOSÉ ATILIO HERNÁNDEZ, COMMISSION MEMBER ..................................................................27 NOTES ...............................................................................................28 REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 3 Letter from the Chair June 8, 2023 The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor of California The Honorable Toni Atkins The Honorable Brian Jones President pro Tempore of the Senate Senate Minority Leader and members of the Senate The Honorable Anthony Rendon The Honorable James Gallagher Speaker of the Assembly Assembly Minority Leader and members of the Assembly DEAR GOVERNOR AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE: Combatting climate change is perhaps the defining issue of our era, and California has long been a leader in that fight. In 2016, the state enacted a landmark reform in this area by passing SB 1383, which required the state to reduce the amount of organic material deposited into landfills. The stakes could not be higher. As it decomposes, organic material produces methane, which is extraordinarily efficient at trapping heat and contributing to climate change. In the effort to constrain climate change, no short-term step is as important as reducing methane emissions. The livability of our planet depends on it. Yet California is falling short of its goals. The state missed its 2020 target, and is poised to miss its 2025 goal. Local governments – the front-line warriors in this fight – are struggling to implement the state’s program. This report follows an extensive study process by the Commission. We held three hearings and convened an online roundtable of stakeholders – a process in which the Commission heard from more than two dozen stakeholders, including state officials, local government leaders, industry executives, environmental advocates, and others. Commission staff conducted dozens of additional background interviews and reviewed hundreds of documents. As a result of this process, the Commission concluded that significant changes are needed if the state is to meet its target of reducing the amount of organic material going into landfills. We believe the state should reaffirm its goal, while reconsidering its method. Changes in law are needed. Additional funding is required. Local jurisdictions must be given a realistic amount of time to develop infrastructure. The unique requirements of rural California must be considered. Perhaps most important of all, everyday Californians must be educated about the critical need for change. No program of this magnitude succeeds without the public’s buy-in and belief. The recommendations in this report present a critical opportunity to advance California’s fight against climate change. We hope and believe you will consider this report in that light – as a plea to fix what is wrong in the pursuit of a noble and critical challenge. Sincerely, Pedro Nava, Chair Little Hoover Commission 4 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Executive Summary In 2016, California adopted stringent goals for time, the state is highly unlikely to add sufficient reducing the amount of organic material deposited capacity by 2025. into landfills. Using 2014 as a baseline, the Local Governments Still Catching Up. More than a legislation required a reduction of 50 percent by hundred local jurisdictions have sought an extension 2020 and 75 percent by 2025. The purpose was of the deadline for complying with the state’s to reduce methane emissions to make near-term requirements. improvements to climate change. Methane is a short- lived super pollutant that is extraordinarily efficient A TEMPORARY PAUSE at trapping heat and thus contributing to climate Given these problems, we believe the Legislature change, and landfills are the largest point source of should enact a temporary pause to the methane emissions in California. implementation of SB 1383. Successfully achieving the goals will require changes in law and regulation, California’s ambitions far exceeded those of any additional funding, and creating a more holistic other state, a fact of which the state should be proud. approach to reducing landfill methane emissions. Sadly, however, California is falling short of its goals. Local jurisdictions must be given a fair and realistic The state missed its 2020 target and is poised to miss amount of time to make necessary changes. Just as the 2025 target. importantly, Californians must support the legislation The state should recognize the importance of and its goals. None of this can happen overnight, and reducing methane emissions as part of the fight it is worth taking the time to get it right. against climate change, but should consider We recommend the following steps be achieved changes in implementation that can advance the during the temporary pause: ultimate goal. Repeated failure to meet the goals of the program could undermine public confidence, ◊ Educate Californians about the importance of the increase noncompliance and delay mid-course policy goals. corrections that are routine in projects of this size. ◊ Improve coordination among state agencies. Part I: A Pause in ◊ Create a multidisciplinary team to expand market Implementation opportunities for recycled organic waste. ◊ Reconfigure the relationship between state 2020 Target Missed. The state missed its 2020 target agencies and local governments to better reflect to reduce the amount of organic material deposited shared responsibility for solid waste management. into landfills by 50 percent below 2014 levels. ◊ Exempt low-population, low-waste counties from Instead, the amount of organic waste going into procurement requirements. landfills increased by a million tons from 2014 to 2020. Leaders at CalEPA said they were not surprised ◊ Separate edible food recovery from SB 1383 by this because until 2022, the regulations created to implementation. meet organic waste targets were not enforceable. ◊ Invest in repairing and upgrading the super- emitter facilities that produce the majority of 2025 Target in Doubt. California is unlikely to meet landfill methane emissions. its 2025 goals. Even if state estimates of increased ◊ Develop a realistic financing plan based on holistic processing capacity are met, California is likely to cost-benefit analysis understood and supported be short of the necessary capacity by approximately by Californians. 8 million tons a year. For reasons of both cost and REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 5 Recommendation 1: The state should enact a to develop recommendations on how to expand temporary pause on SB 1383 implementation market opportunities for recycled organic waste. while the recommendations cited above – and Recommendation 5: The state should reconfigure discussed in more detail throughout this report – the relationship between state agencies and are implemented. local governments to better reflect statutorily- Recommendation 2: The state should fund required shared responsibility for solid waste an educational campaign that explains to management. Californians why the SB 1383 requirements are Recommendation 6: The state should support important. near-zero emission vehicles until commercially Part II: Conflicting Priorities viable zero emission vehicles are available in the waste sector. In order to achieve methane emission reductions, California must do something with the organic waste Part III: Not Designed for Rural that is diverted from landfills. California The language in SB 1383 clearly identifies renewable The legislation and regulations potentially natural gas as an end-use for methane. However, disadvantage rural Californians. For example, the other state actions make plain that the state regulations require most jurisdictions to create prioritizes zero-emission energy. Governor Newsom curbside organics recycling programs, but many rural issued an executive order in September 2020 communities lack curbside trash pickup and paved declaring a state goal for sales of zero-emission roads that can accommodate heavy garbage trucks. vehicles. The state subsequently developed a rule to speed the process for government vehicles, although The state has created limited temporary waivers many local governments were planning on fueling for some rural areas, but most of these waivers their waste collection fleets with renewable natural only exempt eligible communities from parts of the gas. Doing so would have helped them to meet a requirements, and only for a few years. separate state requirement that local government Recommendation 7: The state should procure specified amounts of end-products derived permanently exempt counties that produce less from diverted organic material, such as renewable than 200,000 tons per year of waste from SB 1383 natural gas. requirements, including edible food recovery, Local governments are also concerned about how except to provide options at self-haul facilities for they will meet procurement requirements if they residents to separate their organic waste from choose other end-products, such as mulch. their trash. Recommendation 3: CalEPA, CalRecycle, and Part IV: Missing Community- CARB should coordinate to prevent conflicting Centered Response directives and produce consistent and clear guidelines. The state should carve out space for community organic waste recycling. This includes reclassifying Recommendation 4: The Legislature and those who pick up organic waste on a small scale Governor should require a multidisciplinary team 6 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION as something other than a hauler and designing Recommendation 10: The state should regulations appropriate to the niche they fill. separate edible food recovery from SB 1383 implementation. Recommendation 8: The state should embrace a concept of keeping waste local, and allow Part VII: Landfill Methane communities to be innovative with organic waste Emissions solutions. A three-year survey of the state’s point source Part V: Missing Industry methane emissions revealed that some facilities Expertise were leaking at levels six times previous estimates. However, the survey also revealed that a small Many industry experts discussed regulations number of facilities were responsible for nearly half and decisions that did not make sense from an of landfill methane emissions. operational perspective. In order to be compliant with regulations, for example, organic waste must Recommendation 11: The state should help lower be sent to facilities that can achieve a 75 percent landfill methane emissions by fixing the small organics recovery rate from a mixed waste stream. proportion of super-emitters that produce the Industry officials say this is unrealistic in most majority of emissions. facilities; the average recovery rate in 2020 was 42 percent, according to CalRecycle. ◊ The state should permanently fund satellites to monitor greenhouse gas emissions and Recommendation 9: The state should position integrate the findings from that data into CalRecycle as an international expert and leader its strategic planning for climate change in solid waste management by facilitating adaptation. exchange visits with other countries, externships Part VIII: Insufficient inside and outside of government, and field- testing the regulations it proposes from these Resources for Implementation knowledge exchanges. The legislation made CalRecycle responsible for Part VI: Edible Food Recovery oversight of this project, but did not supply the agency with adequate additional resources. Good SB 1383 requires the state to recover and governance requires sufficient staffing. redistribute at least 20 percent of edible food that otherwise would have been thrown away. Recommendation 12: The state should conduct the holistic cost-benefit analyses discussed in Organic waste comprises more than a third of the this report, determine measurable outcomes, the state’s waste stream, and food comprises about costs to achieve those outcomes, and an outline 15 percent of municipal waste streams. However, of who will pay, and how, to meet those costs, slightly less than 4 percent of that food waste is and be transparent with Californians about what potentially donatable: The rest is unfit for human it is asking from them and what they will receive consumption. in return. The Commission urges to the state to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the edible food recovery requirements. REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 7 Introduction In 2016, California’s leaders enacted a once-in-two- has made insufficient progress to make the generations reform to combat climate change. 2025 goal realistic. Keeping an unrealistic target In passing SB 1383, the state set an ambitious could undermine public confidence, increase and laudable goal to divert large amounts of noncompliance, and delay adoption of mid-course organic material out of landfills, reduce dangerous policy corrections that are routine in projects of this greenhouse gas emissions and improve the state’s size. air, water, and soil quality, as well as Californians’ The outcomes are too important and the costs of health. The change impacted every city and county, failure too high to let this effort fade into irrelevance. and required Californians to change habits so The state must reduce its landfill methane emissions, ingrained they had become muscle memory. and it must do so in a way that is transparent, Regulations subsequently adopted to implement the compatible with its larger climate strategy, and has bill authorized fines of up to a $10,000 per day for the buy-in of the Californians it protects. local governments that did not comply. Part I: A Pause in California set specific goals with short deadlines. Using 2014 as a baseline, SB 1383 required the Implementation state to reduce the amount of organic material deposited into landfills by 50 percent by 2020, In 2016, the Legislature and Governor enacted SB and by 75 percent by 2025.1 The purpose was to 1383, which sought to divert most organic waste reduce methane emissions to make near-term away from landfills and into greenhouse gas reducing improvements to climate change. Methane is a short- activities. Using 2014 as a baseline, the legislation lived super pollutant that is extraordinarily efficient required Californians to divert 50 percent of organic at trapping heat, and thus at contributing to climate waste away from landfills by 2020 and 75 percent change. Landfills are the largest point source of by 2025. It also required the state to recover and methane emissions in California,2 and meeting the redistribute at least 20 percent of edible food that state’s 2025 goal would achieve the environmental otherwise would have been thrown away. This is the equivalent of removing 3 million cars from our largest change to how Californians throw away their roads.3 waste since the enactment of the state’s recycling program in 1989. California’s ambitions far exceeded those of any other state in the United States, a fact of which the The objective of the bill was to provide tools state should be proud. Sadly, California is falling to combat climate change through a focus on short of its goals. Despite the importance of diverting pollutants that exist in the environment for a shorter organic waste, the state not only missed its 2020 period of time than carbon dioxide but still greatly target, but sent a million tons of organic waste above contribute to a warming planet. Such pollutants the 2014 baseline to landfills.4 The Little Hoover also cause health impacts. Particulate pollution and Commission’s review of the bill’s implementation increased ozone levels have been linked to cancer, found that the state is poised to miss its 2025 target. heart disease and asthma. The impact is especially pronounced in disadvantaged communities. This report on organic waste disposal and its central role in responding to climate change is The Legislature charged the California Department consistent with the state’s ambitions, but seeks to of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), focus attention on how changes in implementation in consultation with the California Air Resources can advance the ultimate goal. To date, California Control Board (CARB), to create the implementing 8 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION What Can Be Done with Organic Waste? Organic waste can be used to create many useful products, including fuel, electricity, compost, and mulch. California regulations currently allow the following four uses for diverted organic waste: Anaerobic Digestion: In anaerobic digestion, microorganisms break down organic waste in an oxygen-free environment. This creates digestate, a solid material that can be composted, and biogas, which can be used to produce electricity, heat, and low-carbon transportation fuel, notably compressed renewable natural gas. Anaerobic digesters are expensive and require maintenance and monitoring to prevent leaks, and the facilities must compost or otherwise dispose of the digestate. Biomass Electricity Production: California’s biomass energy plants primarily process woody and agricultural waste, and could service similar materials diverted from landfills. In this method of electricity generation, the organic material is converted into steam, which is then transferred into electricity.5 Some biomass electricity facilities also use the steam to create heat. Two large hurdles currently hinder widespread adoption of this electricity production model. One is that California’s biomass processing capacity is shrinking. The state could produce more than 800 megawatts (MW) of electricity from 66 facilities during biomass electricity’s heyday in the early 1990s.6 Largely due to the end of government price supports in 1996, the state’s production output has fallen to approximately 600 to 650 MW annually from 25 facilities, or 2.9 percent of the state’s electrical generation capacity.7 The other hurdle is the state’s turn toward zero-emission energy sources, discussed in further detail in the report. Composting: California employs two methods for large-scale composting. About three-quarters of facilities use aerated windrow composting, in which organic waste is arranged into long rows and then aerated by mechanically turning the organic matter. Oxygen controls the temperature, kills pathogens, and speeds up the decomposition process. This type of composting requires large tracts of land, making it particularly expensive in California. The other common method is aerated static pile composting, in which pipes pump oxygen into piles of organic matter. Organic matter can be piled into high vertical mounds instead of long horizontal rows, thus requiring less land than the other method. However, it requires more technology and careful monitoring than windrow composting, which raises costs. In both methods, naturally occurring microbes break down the organic waste into carbon dioxide, leachate, minerals, and stabilized organic matter, which we call compost. Mulching: Mulch is material spread on the ground to protect or enrich soil. It can be made from many materials, including some that are inorganic. Commonly-used mulches are made from compost, forest waste, and landscape trimmings. Mulch is made by chipping and/or grinding this material into the desired size and density; some mulches are sterilized to prevent the spread of insects and disease. REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 9 regulations, specifying they could not to go into effect have the capacity to process 10 million tons of that before 2022. It also tasked CalRecycle with assessing waste.11 the progress the waste sector and state and local Building the additional infrastructure that would be governments had made toward meeting the waste needed to meet the goal is expensive. “The single reduction requirements by 2020. If the department largest factor impacting the cost of the proposed found insufficient progress, the legislation authorized regulation is the projected amount of disposal that it to include additional incentives and requirements must be redirected to recovery activities,” wrote in the regulations, as well as the ability to CalRecycle during the rulemaking process.12 recommend revisions to the goals to the Legislature. Finally, it authorized local jurisdictions to charge fees Setting aside the cost, there is little hope the to cover the costs of compliance.8 infrastructure could be planned, permitted, and WHERE ARE WE NOW? constructed by 2025. A $100 million anaerobic The state missed its 2020 target and will likely miss its digester in Perris, California, for example, took 2025 target. At least 126 local jurisdictions have taken six years to permit and construct.13 Even if this advantage of a legislative extension for meeting SB funding and speed were replicated elsewhere, the 1383 requirements. facilities would not be online until well after the 2025 deadline. Additionally, the time and money necessary 2020 Target Missed. The state missed its 2020 to construct roads and other infrastructure needed target to reduce the amount of organic material to comply with the legislation in rural areas were deposited into landfills by 50 percent below 2014 not factored into the regulatory timeline and cost levels. Instead, the amount of organic waste going estimate.14 into landfills increased by a million tons from 2014 to 2020.9 California state environmental leaders Local Governments Still Catching Up. Regulations explained that this was not unexpected: “Until this required most local governments to adopt year, CalRecycle’s regulations to meet organic waste ordinances implementing the legislation and have targets were not enforceable,” testified CalEPA an organic waste curbside collection program in Deputy Secretary Sheereen D’Souza in September place by January 2022. Noncompliance can be 2022, “so it makes sense that the 2020 diversion rate punished by fines ranging from $500 to $10,000 per required in 1383 was not met.”10 day, depending on the violation. There are steps CalRecycle must take to help the local government 2025 Target in Doubt. California is unlikely to meet attain compliance before it levies fines. its 2025 goals. To do so, the state would need to divert 27 million tons of organic matter per year It was unclear how many local jurisdictions were in away from landfills. The state believes 9 million of compliance at the time of this report’s publication, that is edible food that can be recovered for human but it appeared that at least a quarter of local or animal use, contains fibers that can be converted jurisdictions had either sought an extension of time into paper products, or is suitable as feedstock for from the state or for some other reason did not have biomass energy plants. The other 18 million tons will an ordinance or organic waste curbside collection need to be processed, per CalRecycle’s regulations, program in place. at composting, anaerobic digestion, co-digestion, Recognizing the difficulty facing local governments, biomass electricity, and mulching facilities. As of the Legislature in 2021 pushed back state 2020, the state anticipates that by 2025 it will only enforcement of regulations by up to three years 10 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION for local jurisdictions willing to file and adhere to any additional updated information on this issue. an action plan known as an Intent to Comply.15 However, CalRecycle did provide information to some When CalRecycle and CalEPA testified before the news organizations. According to that information, Commission in September 2022, officials said more as provided to the Commission by the news than 120 jurisdictions had filed for this opportunity organizations, 445 of 614 local jurisdictions “already to extend the deadline to adopt ordinances, adjust have residential food waste collection,” although it contracts with their waste management service was not clear if that signified full compliance with providers, and make programmatic changes the requirements of SB 1383. The remaining 169 necessary to implement the legislation.16 As jurisdictions – or 27 percent of the total – apparently this report was finalized in the spring of 2023, did not have residential food waste collection. Commission staff asked CalRecycle for updated CalRecycle said that 126 jurisdictions – presumably information on local compliance rates. On May 12, 11 a subset of the 169 – had used the formal extension days before the Commission was scheduled to review process approved by the Legislature.17 the draft report, CalRecycle staff emailed Commission A TEMPORARY PAUSE staff and said, “Unfortunately, we don’t have specific The methane reduction goals of SB 1383 are of numbers for you, as we are currently conducting utmost importance to ensuring a livable state. compliance evaluations which includes determining if the jurisdictions’ ordinances are compliant with The Commission encountered a passionate SB 1383.” In the wake of the meeting at which the community of devoted public servants, Commission considered the draft report, CalRecycle environmental champions, industry leaders who did not respond to the Commission’s request for Methane Reduction Matters Carbon dioxide has long starred as the greenhouse gas receiving the most attention from California policymakers, and for good reason. Alone, it contributes approximately half of the greenhouse gases contributing to climate change and remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. We have to reduce carbon emissions in order for our children and grandchildren to have a livable planet. Unfortunately, reductions in carbon emissions will not effect immediate results in slowing and reversing climate change. For that, we must reduce short-lived climate pollutants, meaning gasses and particulate matter that live in the atmosphere for fewer than 20 years. Combined, these pollutants constitute the other half of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. Even though methane remains in the atmosphere for only about 12 years, scientists consider it to be the worst contributor to climate change among short-lived pollutants. This is because methane is especially efficient at absorbing radiation (sunlight) and converting it to heat. In a 20-year timespan, one ton of methane will absorb and convert the same amount of energy as 75 tons of carbon dioxide. This highlights the importance of reducing methane to see short-term effects in climate change reversal. Finally, methane reacts with other pollutants in the atmosphere to create another climate pollutant, tropospheric ozone, which impairs the ability of plants to sequester carbon dioxide. REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 11 believe their role includes stewardship of the The Commission believes it is particularly environment, and entrepreneurs willing to bet important that the state complete the following their livelihood on the idea that reducing methane recommendations during the temporary pause: emissions can be profitable and spur economic development. Despite differing perspectives, goals, ◊ Educate Californians about the importance of the goals behind SB 1383 and how SB 1383 will create and visions for the future, the Commission found a path toward accomplishing those goals. the community largely to be engaging in good faith conversations and efforts to implement the ◊ Coordinate among its own agencies to prevent legislation and reduce landfill methane emissions. conflicting directives and create clear guidelines on meeting statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as to streamline permitting requirements to Californians must understand develop waste-processing infrastructure. why they are making these ◊ Create a multidisciplinary team to expand market changes and see how their opportunities for recycled organic waste. actions impact the state’s ◊ Reconfigure the relationship between state agencies and local governments to better reflect outcomes. None of this can statutorily-required shared responsibility for solid happen overnight, and it is waste management. worth taking the time to get it ◊ Exempt low-population, low-waste counties from procurement requirements. right. ◊ Separate edible food recovery from SB 1383 implementation to create an evidence-based However, given the problems outlined above, we initiative to prevent food waste and address believe the Legislature should enact a temporary hunger, while allowing infrastructure funding to be pause to the implementation of SB 1383. used for edible food recovery requirements until the law is revised. Successfully implementing the bill will require changes in law and regulation, additional funding, ◊ Invest in repairing and upgrading the super- emitter facilities that produce the majority of and creating a more holistic approach to reducing landfill methane emissions. landfill methane emissions. Local jurisdictions must be given a fair and realistic amount of time to make ◊ Develop a realistic financing plan based on holistic necessary changes. Just as importantly, Californians cost-benefit analysis understood and supported must buy in to the legislation and its goals. Public by Californians. works agencies have been diligent about updating Recommendation 1: The state should enact a Californians about changes to what waste they can temporary pause on SB 1383 implementation put into which bin, but Californians must understand while the recommendations discussed above are why they are making these changes and see how implemented. their actions impact the state’s outcomes. None of this can happen overnight, and it is worth taking the Recommendation 2: The state should fund time to get it right. an educational campaign that explains to Californians why the SB 1383 requirements are important. 12 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION amount – of compost, mulch, renewable gas, and Part II: Conflicting Priorities, electricity from biomass conversion.20 Missing Perspectives Resulted in Confusing Regulations SB 1383 Promoted Renewable Natural Gas The regulations implementing SB 1383 reflect a The language in SB 1383 clearly identifies regulator caught in between administrative and renewable natural gas as an end-use for methane. legislative priorities, the exclusion of the input Renewable natural gas is pipeline-quality gas of the regulated, and the increasing need for a that is interchangeable with conventional natural multidisciplinary, multi-departmental approach to gas.21 The legislation directed the California Energy rulemaking. At best, the regulations are confusing. Commission to develop recommendations for the At worst, they all but ensure noncompliance, development and use of renewable gas as part of deter investment, and contribute to mistrust in its 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report.22 The bill government. instructed state agencies to “significantly increase the sustainable production and use of renewable gas, The Commission’s recommendations aim to navigate including biomethane and biogas.”23 priorities among different branches of government, build multidisciplinary expertise into the rulemaking The State Prioritizes Zero-Emission Energy process, incorporate industry expertise without The implementing regulations duly created pathways regulatory capture and recognize the different needs for renewable natural gas to meet procurement of different communities. targets. However, other state actions make plain CONFLICTING POLICY PRIORITIES that the state prioritizes zero-emission energy. In order to achieve methane emission reductions, Notably, Governor Newsom issued an executive California must do something with the organic waste order in September 2020 declaring a state goal that is diverted from landfills. The biggest policy clash that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger in SB 1383 implementation is what to do with that cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035, waste: The bill’s authors saw renewable natural gas with a 100 percent goal for medium- and heavy- as the logical end-use for organic waste, while the duty vehicles by 2045.24 “At present, zero-emission current administration does not. vehicle technologies are battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles,” advises CARB on Procurement Requirements its webpage.25 A market analysis found that there would not be To implement the executive order, the California enough demand for the anticipated organic deluge Air Resources Board developed a rule to speed upon full implementation of SB 1383;18 the state’s up the process for government vehicles: In most solution was to create demand by requiring local California counties, half of all new government governments to acquire specific amounts of end trucks purchased by 2024 must be zero emission, products from California-permitted facilities.19 The and all new government truck purchases must be amount each local government must obtain is zero emission by 2027,26 or follow a ZEV Milestones determined by a population- and product-based schedule that would require garbage trucks to be formula, and local governments can choose any zero emission by 2039.27 This matters because many combination – so long as they meet their required local governments were planning on fueling their REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 13 is decentralizing with the expansion of Community International Goals Choice Aggregation and communities largely do not choose bioenergy; it’s expensive; it’s not zero Other countries have adopted plans that emission; and energy companies neither need it nor are more ambitious than California’s. South want it.32 Korea, for example, banned landfilling Testifying on behalf of the Rural Counties organic waste in 2005. Households can Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority, purchase special biodegradable bags Staci Heaton reiterated the political and financial in which to put their waste then leave it challenges facing biomass-to-energy facilities, then outside for curbside pickup. In some places, discussed the practicalities of trying to meet the households are assigned a barcode that procurement requirements with mulch: is scanned when residents deposit their waste in local bins, and are charged based For example, Nevada County has a population on how much they discard.28 The country’s of 101,242 and is required annually to procure food waste recycling rate increased from 2.6 5,000 tons of recovered organic waste products, or percent in 1996 to just shy of 100 percent around 20,000 cubic yards. If you’re a football fan, by 2022.29 Similarly, Switzerland banned you can think of that in terms of covering an entire sending any type of waste to landfills in football field with mulch up to the crossbars of the 2000. To manage their food and yard waste, goalposts, which are 10 feet from the ground. In residents can compost on their own property other words, it’s a lot of mulch! It’s especially a lot of or drop it off at local collection centers. mulch if you need to find people to take it off your About half of the approximately 1.7 million hands and put it to use in a county where 30% of tons of organic waste collected annually is the acreage is national forest land.33 recycled into other products.30 By 2030, all European Union member states must ban Hydrogen: An Impractical Solution for 2025 the landfilling of waste that can be recycled.31 Methane can be converted to hydrogen with zero carbon dioxide emissions if the right process is waste collection fleet with renewable natural gas to used and carbon dioxide is captured and stored meet their procurement targets. This is especially underground. This is called “blue hydrogen.” The relevant as zero-emission technology has yet to reach hydrogen then can be used in fuel cells or to store the point where it can cost-effectively power heavy energy. trucks with routes that in some areas can encompass However, this technology will not be deployed at 180 miles per day, witnesses testified. scale in time to play a substantial role in meeting “It’s a Lot of Mulch” the SB 1383 target for 2025. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), California has In addition to wondering how they will fuel their 63 light-duty and six heavy-duty retail hydrogen heavy fleets, local governments have concerns about refueling stations operating in California, the vast how they will meet their procurement requirements. majority in Los Angeles County. Another 30 light- In its February 2018 report on forest management, duty and four heavy-duty refueling stations are the Little Hoover Commission outlined the challenges currently planned or in construction.34 To put these in expanding bioenergy facilities: The energy industry numbers into perspective, in 2021 the California 14 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Energy Commission estimated there were more than greenhouse gases. Over a 10-year period, hydrogen 10,000 retail fuel stations in the state.35 Even under has a global warming effect about 100 times stronger ambitious expansion plans, the state’s hydrogen than carbon dioxide.39 fuel network would remain a small sliver of the Work on future use of hydrogen in California should total. For example, the state’s Clean Transportation and will continue. In 2022, the Legislature passed Program, in partnership with the private sector and a bill requiring that by June 2024 the California funding from the Volkswagen Mitigation Trust Fund, Air Resources Board evaluate “the development, is planning a network of 200 hydrogen refueling deployment, and use of hydrogen.” But while low- stations with the capacity to serve nearly 274,000 carbon hydrogen has promising implications for vehicles by 2027.36 The California Department of the future, it would be unrealistic and unreasonable Motor Vehicles reports there are more than 32 to expect even the state government to meet the million cars and trucks registered in the state.37 procurement requirements with hydrogen by 2025 The state is in the process of evaluating ways to scale given the factors noted above. Presenting it as a up production of low-carbon hydrogen. In February, feasible alternative for local governments to have in 2023, for example, the California Energy Commission place by 2025 is setting them up to fail. produced a draft report which includes an analysis Moving the Goalposts of the role of hydrogen in California’s clean energy future. That report cited a future energy scenario The conflicting directives are seen as moving the developed by the California Air Resources Board “in goalposts by local governments, testified Ms. which low-carbon hydrogen will help decarbonize Heaton. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the transportation and industrial sectors,” but notes local governments to determine how to meet their that under that scenario, “the supply of low-carbon procurement requirements. The state’s changing hydrogen would need to increase by 1,700-fold.” its priorities also prevents investment from both The Energy Commission report goes on to identify government and private sector investors. Writing barriers to the widespread adoption of low-carbon about co-digestion at wastewater treatment plants hydrogen, including: (WWTP), one market analyst concluded: ◊ Higher production costs than for fossil fuel- …WWTPs cannot typically justify high-risk derived hydrogen. ventures that come at significant cost to their ◊ The need to scale up infrastructure and storage ratepayers. They are often unable to take capacity. on risk associated with a new technology or ◊ No state framework for blending low-carbon burdensome requirements for contract lengths, hydrogen into existing gas pipelines. energy production guarantees, or similar contract terms. Furthermore, many communities ◊ The potential for fugitive hydrogen emissions.38 cannot or will not agree to rate increases for The last point is particularly salient considering the upgrades perceived as unrelated to a WWTP’s purpose of SB 1383 was to combat climate change. core business.40 Hydrogen is the smallest known molecule, making The goalposts may not be done moving. There is a it easy to escape faulty containment methods. type of hydrogen called green hydrogen, in which Once in the atmosphere, it extends the life of other electricity derived from clean renewable energy is greenhouse gases, including methane, by reacting used to split water molecules into hydrogen and with radicals that otherwise would neutralize REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 15 International Innovations in Organic Waste Products AUSTRIA: FROM WOODY WASTE TO ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS Austrian researchers have discovered that the skin, called mycelium, from a type of mushroom grown on woody waste can replace the substrate in electrical chips. THE NETHERLANDS: USING AI TO Substrate, usually made from plastic, PREVENT COMMERCIAL FOOD insulates and cools the conductive metal WASTE in the circuit. While long-lasting when kept Dutch entrepreneurs are harnessing dry, the mycelium decomposes in two artificial intelligence to prevent food waste weeks when composted. Researchers are in commercial settings. One company developing uses for the mycelium in wearable has unveiled scanning technology that health monitors and electronic near-field growers, distributors, and retailers can use communication tags. to determine the shelf life of produce down There are qualities to the mycelium that to an accuracy, it says, of one day, even for provide advantages to other biodegradable the notoriously tricky avocado. Another materials, the researchers told CNN, “but company has developed a camera designed most importantly, it can simply be grown to scan trash cans in kitchen restaurants to from waste wood and does not need energy analyze what is being thrown away, when, or cost intensive processing.”41 and at what stage in the preparation/cleanup process the waste occurs. Consequently, kitchens are able to adjust their processes and menus to minimize food waste.42 GERMANY: OVERCOMING CONSUMER FEARS OF EXPIRED FOOD A small grocery chain in Germany prevents 2,000 tons of food waste per year by selling expired and close-to-expired food at up to 80 percent off. It works with 700 farmers, logistics companies, and sellers to obtain its stock, and shares overstock with charities. Going beyond companies that focus on selling “ugly” (misshapen, discolored, or bruised) produce, the chain offers a wide variety of perishable products that might give others pause, such as yogurt. Supported by a German law that allows the sale of expired food as long as it’s labeled as such, the grocery store tests taste, smell, consistency, and packaging before putting products on its shelves – and calls in a laboratory if there is any doubt. Beginning operations in 2017, the company initially was funded through crowd-sourcing and a loan from a bank cooperative focused on sustainability. By 2018, the company had made a €1.2 million profit –and tripled it the next year, showing it can be a profitable business model.43 16 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION SPAIN: FISH SKINS TO FASHION Spanish salmon smokeries discard more than 300,000 tons of salmon skin annually. Industry leaders realized that salmon skin could be turned into leather goods much like reptile skin, but did not know how to bring their idea to market. The European Union solved this problem through funding designed to help small companies that lack the capacity for this type of research and development. The smokeries partnered with research centers, tanneries, and leatherwear producers in Spain, France, Italy, and Greece, ultimately creating salmon leather shoes and accessories that were well-received by the fashion industry. In developing environmentally-friendlier ways of processing the leather, ultimately the partnership reduced water consumption by 60 percent, processing time from 14 days to five, and the use of amines and sulfur- containing compounds to about a quarter of traditional leather processing techniques.44 NORWAY: USING AGRICULTURAL WASTE TO MIMIC HARDWOOD PROPERTIES A Norwegian company, in conjunction JAPAN: FROM FOOD SCRAPS TO CEMENT with universities and research Cement is responsible for 8 percent of the world’s institutions, developed a wood human-caused carbon emissions; a Tokyo-based treatment that both adds value to company is working to change that by replacing agricultural waste and prevents tropical the limestone in cement with dried, compressed, deforestation. It uses agricultural and molded food scraps. byproducts to create furfuryl alcohol, which it then uses with heat to Roughly half of the carbon emissions during impregnate sustainably-sourced fast- typical cement production comes from limestone growing softwoods, such as maple and calcination, meaning the limestone is broken Nordic pine. The resulting alterations down into calcium oxide and carbon dioxide. to the wood’s cellular structure give the Another 40 percent comes from using fossil treated wood characteristics typically fuels to heat the limestone and other materials. found in tropical hardwoods, protecting Replacing the limestone and using clean it from decay, moisture, and insects. renewable energy to create the cement not only This allows it to replace wood such as can reduce deadly greenhouse gas emissions, but teak and mahogany for applications that allows the finished product to be edible. While require a particularly hard material.46 currently creating household goods and panels for emergency shelters, the company’s ultimate goal is to produce completed and furnished emergency shelters that could be used as a food source in a disaster.45 REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 17 oxygen: no methane required, no carbon dioxide ◊ The state should allow procurement of to capture and store. The oxygen is able to be California-derived materials processed out of vented into the atmosphere. The bill discussed state. earlier that requires the state to evaluate the use of ◊ The state should allow woody waste chipped hydrogen, SB 1075, is about green hydrogen. Given onsite to count toward procurement targets. Californians’ preference for clean energy, it is not ◊ Agencies inside and outside of CalEPA should difficult to imagine the future of the state’s hydrogen work together to ensure that conflicting needs development centering on green hydrogen, raising are addressed. the question of what will happen to investments in blue hydrogen. In short: The state should build in as much flexibility as possible for local governments to The Commission does not mean to discourage the recycle their organic waste, and let communities development of hydrogen fuel cells and other clean choose the best options for them. technologies. The Commission does not see it as a viable option, however, for local governments to Recommendation 6: The state should support meet their procurement requirements by 2025. near-zero emission vehicles until commercially viable zero emission vehicles are available in the Recommendation 3: CalEPA, CalRecycle, and waste sector. CARB should coordinate to prevent conflicting directives on waste processing, and produce Part III: SB 1383 Was Not consistent and clear guidelines on how to Designed for Rural California meet statutory and regulatory requirements. Additionally, they should work together The legislation and regulations potentially and with other state agencies to streamline disadvantage rural Californians. The 26 counties permitting requirements to construct necessary represented by the Rural Counties Environmental infrastructure. Services Joint Powers Authority contribute only 5 percent of the state’s organic waste stream,47 raising Recommendation 4: The Legislature and the question of whether the environmental and Governor should require a multidisciplinary financial costs of complying with SB 1383 outweigh team to develop recommendations on how the benefits. to expand market opportunities for recycled organic waste, and then work to implement those The regulations require most jurisdictions to create recommendations. curbside organics recycling programs, but many rural communities lack curbside trash pickup (or Recommendation 5: The state should reconfigure curbs) and paved roads that can accommodate the relationship between state agencies and heavy garbage trucks. Instead, residents self-haul local governments to better reflect statutorily- their refuse to local transfer stations. Few organics required shared responsibility for solid waste recycling facilities exist near rural communities, and management. the closest ones may lie outside of state borders, ◊ The state should expand the list of and therefore are unlikely to be licensed under compliance pathways and products eligible a California permit as regulations require. Many to count toward a jurisdiction’s procurement rural jurisdictions are located in rugged terrain that requirements. lowers fuel efficiency and for which electric batteries 18 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION cannot yet accommodate, and experience extreme community where the waste originated, benefiting temperatures and weather events that can close residents who garden. This solution could also roads seasonally. Many rural communities also employ members of the community and provide contend with permanent wildlife populations; in teaching opportunities to local schoolchildren to these areas, leaving food waste curbside can lead instill environmentally-friendly habits. to catastrophic consequences for both humans and There are myriad benefits to keeping organic waste wildlife. hyperlocal. There are the obvious environmental The state has created limited temporary waivers benefits: a reduction in the amount of waste that for counties with less than 70,000 people; must be transported long distances by heavy, low- unincorporated census tracts with a population mileage vehicles. The Commission learned about density of less than 50 people per square mile; community composting efforts accessible by foot or jurisdictions with fewer than 7,500 people and that bicycle, the cleanest method of waste collection. disposed of less than 5,000 tons of solid waste in This helps equalize the burden of solid waste; 2014; and census tracts above 4,500. Most of these landfills and waste processing facilities – even the waivers only exempt eligible communities from parts ones transforming organic waste into useful products of the requirements, and only for a few years.48 – historically have been located such that waste The timeline required by SB 1383 and the estimated typically flows from wealthier communities to lower- costs of implementation did not account for income communities. The state should do all it can planning, permitting, and constructing new roads to create a waste management system where, for or paving existing roads to accommodate collection example, Malibu’s waste stays in Malibu. vehicles across the Sierra Nevada or Mojave There are few reasons for state and local Desert. Compliance means so much more for rural governments not to encourage these community Californians than simply adding organic waste pickup efforts. However, entrepreneurs who try to create to already-existing trash and recycling pickup. a business model from it report legal obstacles Recommendation 7: The state should because waste technically belongs to the hauler who permanently exempt counties that produce less has the contract for the region – and one-person than 200,000 tons per year of waste from SB 1383 operations cannot, nor desire to, compete with requirements, including edible food recovery, multinational companies in bidding for contracts. except to provide options at self-haul facilities for Residents who choose to pay for the hyperlocal residents to separate their organic waste from approach still have to pay for their jurisdiction’s their trash. mandatory organic waste pickup. Even volunteers working to establish drop-off locations in community Part IV: Missing Community- locations report reticence to use public land for this Centered Response purpose.49 California communities have other needs that can The Commission recommends carving out space be better accommodated by a community-centered for community organic waste recycling. This means response to organic waste. One such solution is reclassifying those who pick up organic waste on a community composting. Community composting small scale as something other than a hauler and keeps the value-added product, compost, in the designing regulations appropriate to the niche they fill. The state should consider a tax credit or some REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 19 The Potential of Satellite Monitoring California is partnering with scientific, academic, and charitable institutions to deploy satellites to find and measure methane and carbon dioxide emissions and leaks, as well as 25 other environmental indicators.50 Carbon Mapper, a nonprofit devoted to accelerating reductions in methane and carbon dioxide emissions, will launch two satellites in 2023, with a full constellation of satellites expected to be in place by the end of 2025.51 The goal is to be able to pinpoint methane and carbon dioxide emissions at the facility level in order to rapidly address leaks and better understand the sources and scale of these emissions.52 Additionally, this data should yield useful information to help policymakers make greenhouse gas reduction and climate change decisions, as well as influence new technology and strategies to combat emissions.53 The data from this monitoring program will be made publicly available at no cost. This initiative is California’s first foray into using “homegrown satellites,” as described by Governor Newsom,54 to combat climate change. The state joins a growing international effort to use satellites to monitor and reverse climate change. Methane, carbon dioxide, and the other 25 environmental indicators represent only a small fraction of information this technology can provide. Other countries are using satellite monitoring to reduce fuel emissions from vehicles, ships, and trains by optimizing when and how trips are made.55 They’re tracking changes in forest and wildland ecosystems, ice and permafrost, and soil health.56 They are incorporating satellites into early-warning systems for extreme events and improved forecasting models.57 The possibilities for California to improve its natural resource and environmental health via satellite monitoring are promising. Even with the latest technology and the brightest minds to analyze the data, there still is one catch to satellite monitoring, scientists say: It’s useless without leaders willing to act on the information collected. The full promise of satellite monitoring depends on Californians’ willingness to adapt to the lessons we learn from the data. other financial incentive to ease the burden for Recommendation 8: The state should embrace those who pay a community provider to collect their a concept of keeping waste local, and allow organic waste. The state should create opportunities communities to be innovative with organic waste for community composting in state parks where solutions. practical, as well as incentives for local governments to allow public land to be used for the same purpose. ◊ The state should reclassify community Nonprofit organizations running community composters and develop regulations targeted composting operations exist on a shoestring budget, to their end product. so the state should take steps to ensure grant ◊ The state should legally protect community funding they receive is distributed in as short a compost operations by encouraging timeframe as possible. jurisdictions to develop contracts or carve- 20 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION outs in franchise agreements for community most facilities; the average recovery rate in 2020 was composting. 42 percent, according to CalRecycle.61 Further, study participants said, this requirement deters investment ◊ The state should provide a tax credit or other because if, for example, a facility only achieves a 70 incentive to households that use community percent recovery rate, jurisdictions won’t be allowed composters while also being subscribed to to send organic waste to them, and that’s a risk many their jurisdiction’s collection service. investors do not want to take.62 ◊ The state should expand regulatory permissions to allow community composting in In short, study participants argued, a lack of parks. familiarity with the operations of the facilities ◊ The state should expand funding opportunities processing California’s waste resulted in some to community-based composters and shorten regulations that aren’t workable and can even be at the post-award processing time. cross-purposes with the state’s goals. Part V: Missing Industry California previously has proven that it can lead the world on environmental concerns, and the Expertise Commission sees the potential for CalRecycle to Many industry experts discussed regulations become an international leader in solid waste and decisions that did not make sense from an management. It needs to build into its organizational operational perspective or did not meet best culture at all levels familiarity with the industry, practices. Sampling regulations, for example, within California and the United States as a well as are expensive and, as written, will not obtain abroad. The Commission is sensitive to the need to a representative sample of the waste, study prevent agency capture, so it is recommending short- participants told the Commission.58 The definitions term interactions such as externships. Companies for compost feedstock, the Commission heard, create have indicated to the Commission that they would be poor quality and unsaleable compost. One example: happy to participate in such endeavors. Carpet technically is defined as compostable, but Naturally, the new ideas encountered and shared it has been decades since organic carpet was in during these information exchanges would result in widespread use, and composting facilities do not new regulations. To ensure feasibility, the proposed want the synthetic product that most people have.59 regulations should be field-tested in advance to the Industry insiders said the in-state processing extent possible. requirements and lack of geographic consideration Recommendation 9: The state should position hurt them, as rural waivers mostly apply to collection CalRecycle as an international expert and leader and not the processing requirements. Hauling in solid waste management by facilitating organic waste to the nearest composting site, exchange visits with other countries, externships operators told the Commission, can require a lengthy inside and outside of government, and field- journey over rugged terrain in low mileage trucks.60 testing the regulations it proposes from these In order to be compliant with regulations, organic knowledge exchanges. waste must be sent to facilities that can achieve a 75 percent organics recovery rate from a mixed waste stream. Industry officials say this is unrealistic in REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 21 requirements, for example, what are the Part VI: Edible Food Recovery consequences to the state’s forest health initiatives On their face, the edible food recovery requirements if local governments quite reasonably switch to sound like a great idea: Reduce landfill methane activities that do count toward their organics emissions and feed the hungry. However, while much procurement requirements? is made of the fact that organic waste comprises more than a third – 35 percent – of the state’s Slightly less than 4 percent of waste stream, food comprises about 15 percent that food waste is potentially of municipal waste streams. And, according to the state’s own studies, slightly less than 4 percent of donatable: The rest is unfit for that food waste is potentially donatable: The rest is human consumption. unfit for human consumption.63 Typically, the food bank model is not to collect The annual greenhouse gas emissions anticipated to leftover food from local businesses. Food banks work be saved when SB 1383 is fully implemented may be with growers and manufacturers to obtain large equivalent to removing 3 million cars from the road, amounts of food either as a donation or at wholesale but California’s wildfire emissions in 2020 alone were prices. The food banks then deal with the logistics equivalent to adding more than 24 million cars on the of transportation, warehousing, and distribution to road for a year.66 Should that information impact how individual food pantries, which distribute food to California incentivizes what type of organic waste community members.64 A significant percentage of is burned in bioenergy facilities? The Commission these community members are children; children believes good policymaking depends on it. comprise nearly half of food insecure people in California.65 So in addition to ensuring the right The Commission urges to the state to conduct a food is available where and when it is needed, comprehensive analysis of the edible food recovery food banks are concerned with food safety and a requirements. If so, is the state’s model the most nutritious diet for the most vulnerable Californians. effective way to redistribute food? Day old-croissants from a chain restaurant don’t fit that bill, yet food banks are expected to expand Recommendation 10: The state should their operations and the way they do business to separate edible food recovery from SB 1383 help local governments follow the law. Again, the implementation. It should conduct studies to Commission wonders if this is the most effective better understand from where the edible waste is use of taxpayer dollars, and there is no cost-benefit being initiated. Once that factor is understood, it analysis to provide answers. should create incentives for bottom-up solutions to prevent food waste and distribute unused food To answer this and other complex questions, the to the hungry in ways that meet communities’ Commission recommends the state create an needs instead of imposing top-down solutions. interagency or independent environmental analysis Until that happens, the state should consider unit that can provide policymakers with vital infrastructure to meet current edible food information across multiple sectors of the state’s recovery requirements as eligible for SB 1383 environment and economy to inform decision- infrastructure funding. making. If woody waste burned in bioenergy facilities is prohibited from counting toward procurement 22 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Part VII: Landfill Methane A $40 Billion Price Tag Emissions The estimated cost to implement SB 1383 Aside from setting a goal of reducing methane steadily increased from the bill’s inception emissions by 40 percent below 2013 levels as part of to implementation. A legislative analysis a suite of other goals to reduce short-lived climate drafted in April 2016 stated its fiscal impact pollutants, and the 20 percent edible food recovery was “Unknown, but potentially millions of requirement, SB 1383 did not identify measurable dollars.”69 By August 2016, the fiscal impact outcomes or the role it expected landfill diversion had increased, with the analysis stating and livestock operations to play in achieving those “unknown cost pressures, potentially in the goals. tens of millions of dollars or more.”70 The assumptions underlying SB 1383 appear to be The state’s 2018 Standardized Regulatory that decomposing organics create methane; landfills Impact Assessment (SRIA) summary are a leading contributor to the state’s methane estimated the costs of implementing the bill inventory; therefore, diverting organics out of to be approximately $20 billion, largely due landfills will reduce the state’s methane emissions. to “ the required expansion of solid waste It’s not that simple, however, and digging into landfill infrastructure necessary to collect, process, data reveals nuance that needs to be addressed. and recycle 20 million tons of material that are currently landfilled.”71 First, it is true that landfills are by far the largest point source of methane emissions in California.67 A point By 2019, the gross cost of implementation source refers to a non-moving origin of emissions, under the state’s chosen implementation whereas a mobile source refers to a moving origin, scenario was determined to be $40 billion such as a vehicle or gas-powered leaf blower. between 2019 and 2030.72 About 5 percent Clusters of point sources with emissions too small to of this figure represents soft costs: the measure individually, such as gas stations, but that work local jurisdictions must do to create combined create a measurable effect are referred to organic waste programs, educate the public, as nonpoint or area sources. and ensure health, safety, and quality control measures are met. The other 95 In fact, a three-year survey of the state’s point percent represents the cost of disposing source methane emissions conducted by NASA’s of organic waste, including constructing Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), CARB, and the infrastructure.73 California Energy Commission revealed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s methodology half of landfill methane emissions. The researchers that previously had been in use to estimate methane surveyed 436 landfills and composting facilities, and emissions had underestimated those from the solid found persistent methane plumes from 32 of them: waste industry. Some facilities were leaking at levels 30 landfills and two composting facilities.74 These six times the estimates afforded by the federal super-emitters, as they’re colloquially called, were government’s measure.68 responsible for 41 percent of landfill emissions.75 However, the survey also revealed that a small Alone, they were responsible for 20 percent of CARB’s number of facilities were responsible for nearly total 2016 methane inventory.76 REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 23 The Commission would like to see the data indicating funding, plus an additional $180 million in the 2022- that the best environmental benefits the state can 23 budget.78 Additionally, CalRecycle testified, the achieve with $40 billion come from rural Nevada Legislature provided $60 million in local assistance County having an organic waste collection program grants.79 instead of, for example, fixing the super-emitters. These are not insignificant sums, but they fall Addressing those 32 facilities creating 20 percent of far short of $40 billion, leaving the burden of the the state’s methane inventory would help the state remainder on ratepayers. Yes, the state hopes to make significant progress toward its goal of a 40 attract private investment to cover some of the $40 percent methane reduction. billion, but investors will recoup their investment The Commission also notes that two of the super- by charging for the services they provide, putting emitters were composting facilities. Without ratepayers on the hook again. understanding and addressing the causes of the REGULATIONS EXCLUDE SOME EXISTING methane leaks at the composting facilities, how can INFRASTRUCTURE the state be sure that diverting even more organic Given the hefty price tag attached to implementing waste to composting facilities will decrease methane the legislation, government officials expressed emissions? surprise that the regulations de facto excluded some existing infrastructure from counting toward Recommendation 11: The state should help lower procurement targets: wastewater co-digestion plants landfill methane emissions by fixing the small that already are converting methane into renewable proportion of super-emitters that produce the natural gas. majority of emissions. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts testified ◊ The state should permanently fund satellites that they have the infrastructure, expertise, and to monitor greenhouse gas emissions and desire to process organic waste through their integrate the findings from that data into wastewater facilities, though they would need to its strategic planning for climate change scale up to meet the anticipated supply of organic adaptation. waste. However, they cannot source their feedstock Part VIII: The Legislation from facilities that meet the 75 percent organic waste requirement discussed earlier in the report, which Did Not Include Sufficient means the renewable natural gas they produce Resources for Implementation doesn’t “count.” This effectively removes their infrastructure from the available pool to process The Legislature’s analysis of SB 1383 estimated the organic waste – a problem when the state already fiscal effect to be “potentially in the tens of millions of lacks the capacity to process 45 percent of the dollars or more” due to unknown cost pressures for organic waste it has mandated to be diverted.80 programs to implement the strategies.77 PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS As discussed in the background of this report, the REPRESENT UNFUNDED MANDATE estimated price tag over an 11-year period is $40 Many stakeholders questioned whether the billion. CalRecycle testified that the Legislature had procurement requirements were an unfunded provided $193 million in funds for organic recovery mandate. The state claims it is not, because local and recycling as part of larger circular economy governments theoretically can obtain these products 24 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION without buying them from an outside organization. Finally, providing financial assistance via competitive CalRecycle’s website advises: grants hurts those who need the assistance the most: the smaller and less-resourced local governments Procurement does not necessarily mean that who cannot afford grant writers. products must be purchased. Jurisdictions that own an organics recovery facility can procure end There is too much at stake for the state to not have a products for city and county use without a financial solid financial plan to implement SB 1383. It should transaction. A jurisdiction may also acquire use the pause the Commission recommends in products in another way, such as free delivery Recommendation 1 to develop a financial plan to or distribution of products from a hauler, and implement the legislation and clearly communicate subsequently use or donate those products to meet what that plan will cost, who will pay it, and what its procurement target.81 Californians will receive in return. This is a somewhat disingenuous read of the Recommendation 12: The state should conduct procurement requirements. Local governments with the holistic cost-benefit analyses discussed in the ability to produce these products themselves will this report, determine measurable outcomes, the have to scale up to process an increased supply of costs to achieve those outcomes, and an outline organic waste. This will require investment in land, of who will pay, and how, to meet those costs, facilities, machinery, and labor, and it is difficult and be transparent with Californians about what to see how local governments could secure these it is asking from them and what they will receive additional resources, presumably adhering to wage in return. and hour laws and health and safety codes, without financial transactions. As for local governments ◊ The Office of the Governor should ensure that the state’s financial experts across state without the capacity to produce these products: government weigh in on the realistic costs of The Commission heard from many industry officials the strategy’s implementation. during its study process, but did not encounter any with a business model based on helping local ◊ The state must give its agencies the necessary governments meet their procurement targets for resources, including administrative resources, free. to successfully implement the changes the law requires. Other Financial Concerns ◊ The state should not rely on competitive There are other financial concerns with regard to the grants to meet basic requirements. implementation of SB 1383. Currently, food banks Competitive grants redirect resources away are ineligible for infrastructure funding despite their from implementation and into competing. need to expand operations. Additionally, they disadvantages less- resourced jurisdictions, which are the very The legislation made CalRecycle responsible for ones that most need financial assistance. oversight of $40 billion’ worth of facilities and ◊ If private sector investment is part of the operations, plus significant enforcement and financial plan, then: outreach activities, all without supplying the ◊ Be clear with Californians about what kind department with adequate additional resources.82 of returns these investors will expect, and Good governance requires sufficient staffing. REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 25 who will pay for them, e.g. ratepayers, and what burden that will put on them. ◊ Investors need stability and to know the rules won’t change mid-stream, so the state must commit to using the facilities in which they invest. ◊ The state must create regulations that attract private investment and allow for reasonable profit. If there are benefits the state wants to achieve that cannot be achieved with market incentives, then don’t plan on private investment in those areas. 26 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Appendix A: Letter from José Atilio Hernández, Commission Member As one of the most recent appointees to the Commission, I first commend my fellow Commissioners and staff for working diligently to address the implementation of SB 1383 and the overall goal of diverting organic waste in order to reduce methane emissions, as well as other landfill issues. This report is inclusive and addresses many of the issues moving forward and is consistent with the Commission’s mission to ensure government is more efficient and effective. Most importantly, the report clearly highlights the goals set by the Legislature that will not be met by 2025. While I support most of the recommendations in the report, I respectfully dissent with regard to Recommendations 1, 7, and 12 for the following reasons. Recommendation 1. Cities and counties are working towards the landfill diversion goals. In some cases, they have sought to take advantage of extensions or temporary exemptions provided by the state, but I believe local jurisdictions remain committed to the goals. In the policy world, it is difficult in my view to pause the implementation of a program and then begin again. A policy this comprehensive needs multiple approaches to implementation, and local jurisdictions should continue to work on those approaches. Moreover, the state should consider augmenting specific technical training and assistance. The state may also wish to address the looming fees and penalties in a way that provides assistance to local jurisdictions without pausing implementation. The State should be especially concerned about the effect a pause will have on emerging industries. Existing capacity does not equate to future investment and opportunity. For the past 25 years California has evolved its investment and support of converting Biomass into electricity, fuel, hydrogen or other forms of energy. SB 1383 has fast tracked investment and technology in this industry. A pause in implementation may send a counter- productive message to investors and companies. Recommendation 7. In my view, policy should not be made by exemption. Smaller cities and counties should use best practices or develop their own strategies to meet the diversion goals. If they are still not able to meet the requirements of SB 1383, even with technical assistance from the state, they should explore ways to collaborate with other jurisdictions. Recommendation 12. The Commission’s goal is to make government more efficient and effective, and I am concerned that this recommendation may create duplication of effort. It seems that several cities and counties have already developed cost estimates with regard to this program, including administrative costs. The State may want to borrow from the education policy world and create communities of learning whereby different jurisdictions can partner and learn how to best meet diversion goals. I thank the Commission for its time and effort on this critical issue, and look forward to implementing most of the recommendations in this report, which will help California achieve its goal of lowering landfill emissions. -- José Atilio Hernández REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 27 Notes 1. The bill also contained other provisions, such as September 8, 2022. Testimony to Little Hoover a requirement for reducing methane emissions Commission. https://www.youtube.com/ from dairy operations, which are not addressed watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc. 57:00. in this report. 10. Sheereen D’Souza, Deputy Secretary, Climate 2. California Air Resources Board. November 6, Policy and Intergovernmental Relations, 2019. “Aerial Methane Survey Finds a Fraction of California Environmental Protection Agency. Point Sources Responsible for More than a Third September 8, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/ of California’s Methane Emissions.” watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc. 3. Rachel Machi Wagoner, Director, CalRecycle. 11. CalRecycle. August 18, 2020. Analysis of the September 8, 2022. Testimony to Little Hoover Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Waste Commission. https://www.youtube.com/ Reduction Goals. Pages 7-15. https://www2. watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc. 59:47. calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1589. 4. Rachel Machi Wagoner, Director, CalRecycle. 12. CalRecycle. November 2019. Appendix to The September 8, 2022. Testimony to Little Hoover SB 1383 Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP) Commission. https://www.youtube.com/ Regulations. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc. 57:00. Docs/Web/115980. Page 3. Available here: https://calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/rulemaking/ 5. U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Energy archive/2020-2/slcp/. Efficiency and Renewable Energy. “Biopower Basics.” https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/ 13. Energy Vision. Case Study: CR&R Perris biopower-basics. Accessed May 9, 2023. Biodigester. https://energy-vision.org/case- studies/crr-perris-biodigester/. Accessed 6. California Energy Commission. “Biomass Energy November 2, 2022. Also, Katie Fletcher. July in California.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- 3, 2014. “CR&R Breaks Ground on California reports/california-power-generation-and-power- AD Facility.” Biomass Magazine. https:// sources/biomass/biomass-energy-california. biomassmagazine.com/articles/10641/crr- Accessed May 9, 2023. breaks-ground-on-california-ad-facility. Accessed November 1, 2022. Also, CalRecycle. October 7. California Energy Commission. “Biomass Energy 27, 2011. CalRecycle Comment Letter – Initial in California.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- Study Mitigated Negative Declaration – State reports/california-power-generation-and-power- Clearinghouse Number 2011091080 – Green sources/biomass/biomass-energy-california. Energy Facility. https://secure.calrecycle.ca.gov/ Accessed May 9, 2023. Also, University of SWISDocument/Document/Details/193231. California Agriculture and Natural Resources. “Woody Biomass Utilization.” https://ucanr.edu/ 14. See the cost analysis at: CalRecycle. November sites/WoodyBiomass/Woody_Biomass_Library/ 2019. Appendix to The SB 1383 Short-Lived Energy/. Accessed May 9, 2023. Climate Pollutants (SLCP) Regulations. https:// www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Web/115980. 8. California Public Resources Code. Chapter 13.1, Available here: https://calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/ Sec. 42653(b). Available here. rulemaking/archive/2020-2/slcp/. 9. Rachel Machi Wagoner, Director, CalRecycle. 28 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 15. Chapter 508, Statutes of 2021. SB 619 (Laird). renewable.html. 16. Rachel Machi Wagoner, Director, CalRecycle. 22. California Health and Safety Code. Section September 8, 2022. Testimony to Little Hoover 39730.8(3)(b). Available here: https://leginfo. Commission. https://www.youtube.com/ legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection. watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc. 58:26. See original timeline xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=39730.8. at CalRecycle. Short-Lived Climate Pollutants 23. California Health and Safety Code. Section (SLCP): Organic Waste Methane Emissions 39730.8(3)(c). Available here: https://leginfo. Reductions. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/climate/ legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection. slcp/. xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=39730.8. 17. Erin Rodriguez, Deputy Secretary of Legislative 24. Gavin Newsom, Governor, California. Executive Affairs, CalRecycle. April 18, 2023. Written Order N-79-20. September 23, 2020. Available communication with Commission staff. Also, Erin here: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/ Rodriguez, Deputy Secretary of Legislative Affairs. uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate. CalRecycle. May 12, 2023. Written communication pdf. with Commission staff. Also, Cole Rosengren. May 24, 2023. “California Commission Recommends 25. California Air Resources Board. Zero-Emission a Pause on SB 1383 Organics Law, Industry Vehicle Program. Accessed February 23, 2023. Disagrees.” Waste Dive. https://www.wastedive. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero- com/news/sb-1383-little-hoover-pause- emission-vehicle-program/about. calrecycle-organics-recycling/651063/. Accessed May 24, 2023. Also, Marc Sternfield, Director 26. California Air Resources Board. May 17, 2023. of Digital Content, KTLA. June 5, 2023. Written “Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation Summary.” communication with Commission staff. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ advanced-clean-fleets-regulation-summary. 18. CalRecycle. August 18, 2020. “An Analysis of the Accessed May 18, 2023. Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Waste Reduction Goals.” https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ 27. Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. April Publications/Download/1589. 28, 2023. “California Approves World’s First Regulation to Phase Out Dirty Combustion Trucks 19. California Code of Regulations. Title 14, Division and Protect Public Health.” https://www.gov. 7. Chapter 12, Article 12. Section 18993.1 refers ca.gov/2023/04/28/california-approves-worlds- to Chapters 3.1 and 3.2 for compost; Section first-regulation-to-phase-out-dirty-combustion- 17852(a)(12) excluding chip-and-grind defined trucks-and-protect-public-health/. Accessed May by Section 17852(a)(10) or Section 17402(a)(30) 18, 2023. and(31) or PRC Section 40195.1 for mulch. 28. Max S Kim. November 20, 2022. “South Korea 20. California Code of Regulations. Title 14, Division Has Almost Zero Food Waste. Here’s What the 7. Chapter 12, Article 12. Section 18993.1(f). U.S. Can Learn.” The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/20/ 21. United States Department of Energy. Alternative south-korea-zero-food-waste-composting- Fuels Data Center. Accessed February 23, 2023. system. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_ REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 29 29. Max S Kim. November 20, 2022. “South Korea Cost Needed to Attain 100 Hydrogen Refueling Has Almost Zero Food Waste. Here’s What the Stations in California.” https://www.energy. U.S. Can Learn.” The Guardian. https://www. ca.gov/publications/2022/joint-agency-staff- theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/20/ report-assembly-bill-8-2022-annual-assessment- south-korea-zero-food-waste-composting- time-and-cost. Accessed May 24, 2023. system. Accessed June 2, 2023. 37. California Department of Motor Vehicles. 30. Schweizerische Eidgenossenchaft. “Recycling.” “Vehicles Registered by County: 2021.” https:// https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/ www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv-research-reports/ home/umwelt/natur/recycling.html. Accessed research-development-data-dashboards/vehicles- June 2, 2023. registered-by-county/. Accessed May 24, 2023. 31. Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European 38. California Energy Commission. February 10, Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 2023. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report amending Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of Update. Page 134. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/ waste (Text with EEA relevance). GetDocument.aspx?tn=248735. Page 112. 32. Little Hoover Commission. February 2018. Fire on 39. Zhiyuan Fan, Research Associate, Center on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Global Energy Policy Columbia University, et al. Sierra Nevada. Page 47. Available here: https:// July 5, 2022. “Hydrogen Leakage: A Potential Risk lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/242/ for the Hydrogen Economy.” Center on Global Report242.pdf. Energy Policy, Columbia University. https:// www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/ 33. Staci Heaton, Deputy Executive Director, Rural hydrogen-leakage-potential-risk-hydrogen- Counties Environmental Services Joint Powers economy/. Authority; Senior Policy Advocate, Rural County Representatives of California. August 25, 2022. 40. Carollo Engineers. June 2019. June 2019. Co- Testimony to the Commission. Digestion Capacity Analysis Prepared for the California State Water Resources Control board 34. California Energy Commission. “Hydrogen under Agreement #17-014-240. Page 5-22. Refueling Stations in California.” https://www. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/ energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero- programs/climate/docs/co_digestion/final_co_ emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/ digestion_capacity_in_california_report_only.pdf. hydrogen-refueling. Accessed May 24, 2023. 41. Hafsa Khalil. November 15, 2022. “Scientists 35. California Energy Commission. “California Retail Have Used Mushrooms to Make Biodegradable Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results.” Computer Chips.” CNN. https://www.cnn. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- com/2022/11/15/world/mushroom-skin- almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail- electrical-circuits-scn-scli-intl/index.html. fuel-outlet-annual-reporting. Accessed May 31, 2023. Also, Doris Danninger, Roland Pruckner, Laura Holzinger, Robert 36. California Energy Commission. December 22, Koeppe, and Martin Kaltenbrunner. November 2022. “Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly 11, 2022. “MycelioTronics: Fungal Mycelium Skin Bill 8: 2022 Annual Assessment of Time and for Sustainable Electronics.” https://www.science. 30 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add7118. Accessed May Gingerbread House-Style Building Option.” 31, 2022. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/ technology-tokyo-climate-and-environment-7b47 42. Brittany Peterson. January 6, 2023. “CES 2023: 827faf0aaa856c6c24dcb749e298. Accessed May Startups Aim to Reduce Global Food Waste.” 31, 2023. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/ CES-2023-las-vegas-climate-technology-0d0e84 46. Lauren Hunter. January 24, 2014. “Kebony 044c3d5218b10dc032cd2ff3c4. Accessed June 1, Brings Its Eco-Friendly Hardwood to the North 2023. Also, OneThird. “Our Food Loss and Waste American Market.” Architect. https://www. Solutions.” https://onethird.io/our-solutions. architectmagazine.com/technology/products/ Accessed June 1, 2023. kebony-brings-its-eco-friendly-hardwood-to-the- north-american-market_o. Accessed June 1, 2023. 43. World Economic Forum. February 14, 2020. Also, Kebony. Sustainability Report 2021. https:// “This Store Only Sells Food Waste – and It’s kebony.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ Saving the Planet.” This German supermarket is KE_CSR-SinglePage_2204062.pdf. Accessed June reducing food waste | World Economic Forum 1, 2023. (weforum.org). Accessed June 1, 2023. Also, Klaus Sieg. January 27, 2020. “Are You Going 47. Staci Heaton, Deputy Executive Director, Rural to Eat That?” Reasons to Be Cheerful. https:// Counties Environmental Services Joint Powers reasonstobecheerful.world/these-potatoes-are- Authority; Senior Policy Advocate, Rural County weird/. Accessed June 1, 2023. Representatives of California. August 25, 2022. Testimony to the Commission. 44. Gareth Evans. November 18, 2004. “A Fashionable Fish Story.” Biocycle 45:11. Page 48. Staci Heaton, Deputy Executive Director, Rural 67. https://www.biocycle.net/a-fashionable-fish- Counties Environmental Services Joint Powers story/. Accessed May 31, 2023. Authority; Senior Policy Advocate, Rural County Representatives of California. August 25, 2022. 45. Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Julia Mio Inuma. Testimony to the Commission. December 9, 2022. “Fuel Made from Ramen, Dishes from Coffee Grounds: Japan Rethinks 49. Michael Martinez, LA Compost Founder & Food Waste.” Washington Post. https://www. Executive Director. July 6, 2022. Written testimony washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/ to the Commission. interactive/2022/japan-food-waste-solutions- 50. California Air Resources Board. “California technology/. Accessed May 31, 2023. Also, Leah Satellite Partnership.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- D. Ellis, Andres F. Badel, Miki L. Chiang, and work/programs/california-satellite-partnership. Yet-Ming Chiang. September 16, 2019. “Toward Accessed May 10, 2023. Electrochemical Synthesis of Cement – An Electrolyzer-Based Process for Decarbonating 51. Satellite Imaging Corporation. “Carbon CaCO3 While Producing Useful Gas Streams.” Mapper Satellite Sensor (30m).” https://www. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences satimagingcorp.com/satellite-sensors/other- of the United States of America. https://www. satellite-sensors/carbon-mapper/. Accessed May pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1821673116. 10, 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. Also, Chisato Tanaka. May 31, 2022. “Food Waste Cement: A REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 31 52. Carbon Mapper. “Our Mission.” https:// September 22, 2023. Little Hoover Commission carbonmapper.org/our-mission/#overview. Advisory Committee Meeting Accessed May 10, 2023. 60. Little Hoover Commission Advisory Committee 53. Carbon Mapper. “Our Mission.” https:// Meeting. September 22, 2022. carbonmapper.org/our-mission/#overview. 61. Jared Paben. January 18, 2022. “California’s Accessed May 10, 2023. Diversion Rate is Now at 42 percent.” Resource 54. Robbie Schingler, Planet Labs. April 15, 2021. Recycling. Accessed February 23, 2023. https:// “Carbon Mapper Launches Satellite Program resource-recycling.com/recycling/2022/01/18/ to Pinpoint Methane and CO2 Super Emitters.” californias-diversion-rate-is-now-at-42/. https://www.planet.com/pulse/carbon-mapper- 62. Little Hoover Commission Advisory Committee launches-satellite-program-to-pinpoint-methane- Meeting. September 22, 2022. and-co2-super-emitters/. Accessed May 10, 2023. 63. CalRecycle. November 2022. “2021 Disposal 55. European Space Agency. January 5, 2010. Facility-Based Waste Characterization Tables.” “Space Technology Helps Mitigate Climate Page 3. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/ Change.” https://www.esa.int/Applications/ Web/122544. Accessed June 6, 2023. Technology_Transfer/Space_technology_helps_ mitigate_climate_change. Accessed May 10, 64. Darby Kernan, Partner, Mosiac Solutions 2023. Also, Miriam Kramer and Alison Snyder. and Advocacy, and Becky Silva, Director of February 7, 2023. “Date from Satellites is Starting Government Relations, California Association to Spur Climate Action.” https://www.axios. of Food Banks. July 26, 2022. Phone call with com/2023/02/07/climate-change-satellites. Commission staff. Accessed May 10, 2023. 65. Let’s Get Healthy California. 2016. Food 56. Canadian Space Agency and Let’s Talk Science. Security. Accessed February 23, 2023. https:// January 12, 2022. “7 Ways Satellites Help Fight letsgethealthy.ca.gov/food-security/. Climate Change.” https://letstalkscience.ca/ educational-resources/backgrounders/7-ways- 66. Emily Dooley. January 5, 2021. “California’s 2020 satellites-help-fight-climate-change. Accessed Wildfire Emissions Akin to 24 Million Cars.” May 10, 2023. Bloomberg Law. Accessed February 27, 2023. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment- 57. Chelsea Gohd, Senior Writer, Space.com. May and-energy/californias-2020-wildfire-emissions- 11, 2022. “Satellites are Critical to Fighting the akin-to-24-million-cars. Climate Crisis, Scientists Says.” https://www. space.com/ipcc-report-climate-change-space- 67. Riley M. Duren et at. November 6, 2019. satellites-goest. Accessed May 10, 2023. “California’s Methane Super-Emitters.” Nature. Volume 575: Page 182. 58. Eugene Tseng, Principal, E. Tseng & Associates. September 22, 2023. Little Hoover Commission 68. Nichola Groom. June 18, 2021. “Methane Menace: Advisory Committee Meeting. Aerial Survey Spots ‘Super-Emitter’ Landfills.” Reuters. Accessed February 23, 2023. https:// 59. Eugene Tseng, Principal, E. Tseng & Associates. www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/ 32 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION methane-menace-aerial-survey-spots-super- 77. Assembly Committee on Appropriations. August emitter-landfills-2021-06-18/. 3, 2016 SB 1383 Analysis. 69. Senate Committee on Appropriations. SB 1383 78. Rachel Machi Wagoner, Director, CalRecycle. (Lara) – Short-lived Climate Pollutants. Version: September 8, 2022. Testimony to the Little April 12, 2016. Hearing Date: May 2, 2016. https:// Hoover Commission. https://www.youtube.com/ leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient. watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc. 48:04. xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1383#. Accessed May 79. Rachel Machi Wagoner, Director, CalRecycle. 30, 2023. September 8, 2022. Testimony to the Little 70. Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Hoover Commission. https://www.youtube.com/ SB 1383 (Lara) – As Amended April 12, watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc. 1:34:40. 2016. Posted August 1, 2016. Hearing Date: 80. Sharon Green, Legislative & Regulatory Programs August 3, 2016. https://leginfo.legislature. Manager, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_ July 6, 2022. Testimony to the Commission. id=201520160SB1383#. Accessed May 30, 2023. 81. CalRecycle. Using Recycled Organics Products. 71. Department of Resources Recycling and https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/ Recovery. November 15, 2018. Standardized procurement/. Regulatory Impact Assessment Summary. (Form DF-131) https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/ 82. Marshalle Graham, Zoe Heller, Cara Morgan, uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Economics/ Erin Rodriguez, and Ashlee Yee, CalRecycle. July Documents/131_EPA.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2023. 20, 2022. Budget and resources discussion with Commission staff. Online meeting. 72. CalRecycle. October 2, 2019. Initial Statement of Reasons Appendix A: Cost Update. Page 15. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/ Web/115980. Accessed May 30, 2023. 73. CalRecycle. October 2, 2019. Initial Statement of Reasons Appendix A: Cost Update. Page 3. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/ Web/115980. Accessed May 30, 2023. 74. Riley M. Duren et al. November 6, 2019. “California’s Methane Super-Emitters.” Nature. 75. Riley M. Duren et al. November 6, 2019. “California’s Methane Super-Emitters.” Nature. Volume 575: Pages 182-3. 76. Riley M. Duren et al. November 6, 2019. “California’s Methane Super-Emitters.” Nature. Volume 575: Pages 182-3. REDUCING CALIFORNIA’S LANDFILL METHANE EMISSIONS: SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION | 33 Little Hoover Commission Members CHAIRMAN PEDRO NAVA | Santa Barbara BILL EMMERSON | Redlands Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. John Pérez in April 2013 and reappointed by Speaker Brown Jr. in December 2018. Former senior vice president of the Assembly Anthony Rendon in 2017 and again of state relations and advocacy at the California Hospital in 2021. Government relations advisor. Former State Association, State Senator from 2010 to 2013, State Assemblymember from 2004 to 2010, civil litigator, Assemblymember from 2004 to 2010, and orthodontist. deputy district attorney and member of the state Coastal Commission. Elected chair of the Commission in March GIL GARCETTI | Los Angeles 2014. Appointed to the Commission by Governor Gavin Newsom in November 2021. Professional photographer and author VICE CHAIRMAN SEAN VARNER | Riverside of ten books. Former Los Angeles County District Attorney, Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. teaching Fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, Brown Jr. in April 2016 and reappointed in January 2018. and president of the California Science Center Foundation’s Managing partner at Varner & Brandt LLP where he Board of Trustees. practices as a transactional attorney focusing on mergers and acquisitions, finance, real estate, and general counsel JOSÉ ATILIO HERNÁNDEZ | Burbank work. Elected vice chair of the Commission in March 2017. Appointed by Speaker of the Assembly Anthony Rendon in April 2023. Founder and CEO of IDEATE California. Also, DION ARONER | Berkeley Founder and Board Chairman of ideateLABS non profit. Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules Committee in April 2019. Partner for Aroner, Jewel, and SEN. DAVE MIN | Irvine Ellis. Former State Assemblymember from 1996 to 2002, Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules chief of staff for Assemblymember Tom Bates, social Committee in September 2021. Elected in November 2020 worker for Alameda County, and the first female president to represent the 37th Senate District. Represents Anaheim of Service Employees International Union 535. Hills, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, DAVID BEIER | San Francisco Tustin, and Villa Park. Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. in June 2014 and reappointed in January 2018. ASM. LIZ ORTEGA | San Leandro Managing director of Bay City Capital. Former senior officer Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly of Genentech and Amgen, and counsel to the U.S. House of Anthony Rendon in March 2023. Elected in November Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. 2022 to represent the 20th Assembly District. Represents Hayward, San Leandro, most of Union City, portions ANTHONY CANNELLA | Ceres of Dublin and Pleasanton, and several unincorporated Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules communities. Committee in March 2022. Civil engineer and principal with Northstar Engineering Group. Former State Senator from JANNA SIDLEY | Los Angeles 2010 to 2018. Previously served on the Ceres City Council Appointed to the Commission by Governor Edmund G. and was twice elected mayor of that city. Brown Jr. in April 2016 and reappointed in February 2020. Partner at Ichor Strategies and appointed to the Board ASM. PHILLIP CHEN | Yorba Linda of the Los Angeles City Employee Retirement System Appointed to the Commission by Speaker of the Assembly (“LACERS”). Former general counsel at the Port of Los Anthony Rendon in October 2021. Elected in November Angeles and city attorney at the Los Angeles City Attorney’s 2016 to represent 55th District. Represents portions of Los Office. Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties and the cities of Brea, Chino Hills, Diamond Bar, La Habra, Industry, SEN. SCOTT WILK | Santa Clarita Placentia, Rowland Heights, Walnut, West Covina and Yorba Appointed to the Commission by the Senate Rules Linda. Committee in April 2023. Elected in November 2016 to represent the 21st Senate District. Represents communities in the Antelope, Santa Clarita, and Victor Valleys. Full biographies are available on the Commission’s website at www.lhc.ca.gov. 34 | LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION “DEMOCRACY ITSELF IS A PROCESS OF CHANGE, AND SATISFACTION AND COMPLACENCY ARE ENEMIES OF GOOD GOVERNMENT.” By Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, addressing the inaugural meeting of the Little Hoover Commission, April 24,1962, Sacramento, California Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy www.lhc.ca.gov