Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee Meeting

Transcription

1 Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee Meeting Chair: Joseph Ramallo (LADWP) Co-Chairs: Sepand Samzadeh (Valley Recycling) Rafael Garcia (Republic Services, Inc.) Lunch served at 11:45, Courtesy of 1. Welcome & Self-Introductions Thursday, June 5, noon 2:00 p.m. VICA, 5121 Van Nuys Blvd., 2nd Floor Sherman Oaks AGENDA 2. VICA Announcements & Updates 3. Legislative Updates from Elected Official Staffers 4. Responses to Regional Water Issues presentation by David W. Pedersen, P.E., General Manager, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District discussion 5. Pacoima Wash Greenway Plan presentation by Max Podemski, Planning Director, Pacoima Beautiful discussion and action item 6. AB 1763 (Perea) Comprehensive Statewide Energy Plan presentation by Chelsea Minor, Californians for Affordable & Reliable Energy discussion and action item 7. AB 1826 (Chesbro) Organics Recycling discussion and action item 8. New/Old Business Committee poll discussion 9. Upcoming 2014 Energy, Environment & Utilities Meetings: Sept. 4, Dec. 4

2 Pacoima Wash Vision Plan Originating Committee: Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee Date: June 5, 2014 Position: The Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) supports/opposes the Pacoima Wash greenway project. Background: The Pacoima Wash is a 10-mile flood control channel constructed in the 1940s. It begins at the Pacoima Dam in the San Gabriel Mountains and ends at the Arleta Spreading Grounds. The wash runs through the Los Angeles communities of Sylmar, Pacoima, and the City of San Fernando. Pacoima Beautiful received a Los Angeles County PLACE Grant in 2008 to adopt an action plan for the restoration of the Pacoima Wash. The goal of the grant is to create policies and a physical project that improves health by promoting active living. Pacoima Beautiful partnered with the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) and Initiating Change in Our Neighborhoods Community Development Corporation (ICON CDC) to meet the goals of the grant. The study area of the Sylmar segment of the Pacoima Wash Vision Plan is the undeveloped area immediately adjacent to the Wash running from Gavina Street to Foothill Boulevard. This area includes the undeveloped hillsides in the northern segment, the Lopez Debris Basin, the transportation right of way along the channelized portion of the Wash, and the spreading grounds adjacent to the Wash in the southern section. The study area also includes the Pacoima Wash channel itself. The Pacoima Segment of the Pacoima Wash Vision plan stretches for 2.3 miles from the City of San Fernando border in the north to the Pacoima Spreading grounds in the south. The study area includes the east side of the Wash from Bradley Avenue to San Fernando Road. The study area then follows the Wash south and takes in the entire spreading grounds. There, the Wash connects to the Tujunga Wash, then the Los Angeles River. Based on community input, the Pacoima Wash Vision Plan includes: Building a multi-use hiking path with a Class-1 bike path along the entirety of the Wash, starting a paved surface along the west side of the Wash from Gavina Street to the Lopez Debris Basin. Building a connecting Class II bike lane on Harding Street and Maclay Street near the Lopez Debris Basin. Building a network of Class III lanes built on residential streets around the Wash that will further augment the Class I and II bike lanes running directly adjacent to the Wash. Designating certain parts of the Sylmar portion of the Wash as accessible open space, including the channelized portion of the Wash below the Lopez Debris Basin and vacant lots along Gladstone Street. Designating Habitat Restoration Areas Turning nearby residential streets into green streets, which capture and treat storm water and clearly connect the Wash and surrounding residential areas. Enhancing existing bridges, including widening the bridge on the west side of the Wash above the Harding Street Bridge, and building new bridges, including a new one at Telfair Avenue. Installing wayfinding and interpretive elements to help people navigate the Wash and by providing information. These elements will consist of signs and informational installations with a unified design and logo that are easily identifiable and placed along the Wash and in surrounding areas. Installing at least two parks the Pacoima Wash Natural Park (which opened this month) and a park on El Dorado Street (which recently secured funding for construction).

3 The restoration has been and continues to be funded by county and state grants, including CalTrans environmental grants and state water grants. Pacoima Beautiful has secured earmarked federal funding for the design portion of the remainder of the plans. Entities Impacted: Pacoima, Sylmar and San Fernando residents Business Nexus: By restoring a blighted portion of the north Valley and adding recreational options, the area has the potential to become more attractive to residents and businesses alike. However, the resources and funding secured for the project may prevent more resources and funding for other Valley projects. Discussion: Support Argument: The strategic location of the Pacoima Wash makes it an ideal location to develop a new greenway connecting future and current parks and recreational uses. This new corridor would transform the Wash from a engineered utilitarian flood control device into a recreational and natural amenity. The greenway will improve mobility for residents and provide access to open space in one of the most park-deprived communities in Southern California. Creating a greenway along the Pacoima Wash will refocus the neighborhoods around a vital new public space. Additionally, the greenway would be an alternative route for bicyclists, which would relieve the use of major arterials such as Van Nuys Boulevard for new bike lanes as part of transit projects. Opposition Argument: The project is funded upfront by grants, but the costs of maintenance and operations will have to come from the City of San Fernando and City of Los Angeles. We do not need to add more public work costs at a time where these cities are still below pre-recession levels of these departments in terms of staffing and output. The Pacoima Wash also has the potential to divert transportation funds away from key projects in the Valley. Committee Discussion: Pending discussion in Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee Meeting Supporters: Bikesanas de Valle, City of San Fernando, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, MEND, Mountain Recreation and Conservation Authority, Pacoima Neighborhood Council Opponents: No official opposition as of 5/29/14. Process History: Brought to the Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee on June 5, 2014: Pass Fail Tabled Amended Brought to the Board of Directors on June 26, 2014: Pass Fail Tabled Amended

4 AB 1763 State Energy Plan for 2030 and 2050 Originating Committee: Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee Date: June 5, 2014 Position: The Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) supports/opposes Assembly Bill 1767 (Perea), which Background: The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the state s primary agency for energy policy and planning. Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen and Sher, 2002) requires that the CEC adopt and transmit to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings every two years. That report is called the Integrated Energy Policy Report or IEPR. The IEPR Committee provides oversight and policy direction related to collecting and analyzing data needed to complete the Integrated Energy Policy Report on trends and issues concerning electricity and natural gas, transportation, energy efficiency, renewables, and public interest energy research. In 2013, the Little Hoover Commission issued a report titled Rewiring California: Integrating Agendas for Energy Reforms. The report concluded that state has adopted a series of policy initiatives, one at a time without the benefit of a cohesive design and without an overarching plan. It also reported that California has not produced a comprehensive assessment of the total cost of implementing this group of policies, inhibiting consumers and businesses in their ability to plan for this new future. AB 1767 requires the CEC to prepare a state energy plan for 2030 and Specifically, this bill requires the CEC to prepare a plan that assures its electricity and transportation fuel needs will be met in 2030 and 2050, in a manner that complements the state s air quality, water quality, climate change, energy efficiency, and renewable energy resources goals as part of its November 2015 IEPR. The report must consider a) Energy forecasts based upon California s current and future energy supply mix forecast to 2030 and b) An analysis of California s energy infrastructure needs, including a review of current and new infrastructure needed for an evolving supply mix forecast to 2030 and c) Recommendations on ensuring long-term energy supply reliability and affordability through 2030 and This report is intended to assist in establishing state policy and does not independently change any statute, regulation, or regulatory decision. Entities Impacted: Fuel and oil manufacturers, utility companies, energy providers, taxpayers, Business Nexus: A long-term, integrated energy plan can create a blueprint for the state s energy and fuel industry to base their investments and decisions. Discussion: Support Argument: Over the last 15 years we have seen major changes to California s energy system. We have implemented some of the most innovative environmental programs to help curb carbon emissions and

5 improve air quality. However, to stay on the forefront of energy policy, we must have a focused energy plan to guide our policy-making moving forward. AB 1763 would require the creation of a plan that will consider California s current and future energy supply mix, infrastructure needs, and include recommendations to ensure long-term supply reliability and affordability through 2030 and Opposition Argument The proposed 2030 and 2050 plans are redundant measures that can be implemented through the existing biannual EIPRs. AB 1769 can potentially just create inconsistencies across the multiple platforms that provide input on the state s energy future and more confusion about the state s policy priorities. Committee Discussion: Pending discussion in Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee Meeting Supporters: California Manufacturers and Technology Association, California League of Food Processors, California Retailers Association, Los Angeles County Business Federation, National Federation of Independent Business, Western States Petroleum Association Opponents: California Wind Energy Association (unless amended), Sierra Club California Process History: Brought to the Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee on June 5, 2014: Pass Fail Tabled Amended Brought to the Board of Directors on June 26, 2014: Pass Fail Tabled Amended

6 AB 1826 Organic Waste Recycling Originating Committee: Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee Date: June 5, 2014 Position: The Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) supports/opposes Assembly Bill 1826 (Chesbro), which requires businesses and local governments to recycle specified amounts of organic waste. Background: The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 mandates that 75 percent of solid waste generated be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020; local jurisdictions are required to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfill disposal, and businesses and multi-family dwellings must arrange for recycling services. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the California Air Resources Board adopt regulations to report and verify statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adopt a statewide limit equivalent to 1990 emission levels by AB 1826 requires a local government agency, businesses, and multifamily swellings with more than five units to recycle their organic waste. Businesses with 8 or more cubic yards of organic waste must arrange for recycling services by Jan. 2016; 4 or more cubic yards by Jan. 2017; 1 or more cubic yards by Jan Currently, organic materials make up one-third of the state s waste stream and food continues to be the highest single item disposed at over 15 percent of disposal. "Organic waste" is defined as food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, non-hazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper. This bill requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Program (CalRecycle) to identify and recommend actions to address state and federal permitting and siting challenges and to encourage the continued viability of the state s organic waste processing and recycling infrastructure. The Governor's Budget proposal for cap-and -trade revenues requests $30 million for each of the next two years for CalRecycle to support projects designed to increase recycling and composting. The proposal includes $20 million for grants to expand existing or develop new facilities that process organic or recyclable materials. Entities Impacted: Local government, businesses, multifamily housing united, solid waste industry, and compost and soil companies Business Nexus: Recycling organic matter will increase operations costs for businesses, which may be passed on to consumers. Discussion: Support Argument: Organic waste is a major part of our waste system and it is time that it become incorporated into the statewide recycling initiatives. AB 1826 will help California achieve the state s air quality, GHG, and waste reduction goals by diverting organic waste from landfills. Many cities and private waste systems have the capability to handle this requirement, and the phase-in component will give smaller businesses more time to comply. Plus, the cap-and-trade revenues will help offset costs of implementation statewide. Additionally, the recycling process will create more local jobs, according to CalRecycle, as recycling creates an average of four jobs for every 1,000 tons of material.

7 Opposition Argument: Local jurisdictions and businesses are still struggling to create local policies to fully and efficiently comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act and California Global Warming Solutions Act. While some jurisdictions have the infrastructure to comply with an organic recycling mandate, it will be much more difficult for other cites and wastehaulers to follow the mandatory collection timeline. Additionally, individual businesses will have to create expensive and time-consuming procedures to filter organic waste from the rest of the business waste. AB 1826 only creates more regulations and costs for businesses, which will force them to downsize, close or drive them out of the state. Committee Discussion: Pending discussion in Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee Meeting Supporters: American Biogas Council, Association of Compost Producers, Biodegradable Products Institute, Bioenergy Association of California, Breathe California, California Biomass Energy Alliance, California Climate and Agriculture Network, California Coastal Protection Network, California Compost Coalition, California League of Conservation Voters, California Resource Recovery Association, Californians Against Waste (sponsor), Castaway Solutions, Center for Biological Diversity, City and County of San Francisco, Clean Power Campaign, CleanWorld, Coalition for Clean Air, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Costa Mesa Sanitary District, CR&R Environmental Services, Ecology Center, Environment California, Frank M Booth Design Build Co., Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Global Green USA, Grassroots Recycling Network, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, GreenWaste Recovery, Harvest Power, Inland Empire Disposal Association, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, Napa Recycling & Waste Services, Natural Resources Defense Council, NatureWorks, LLC, Northern California Recycling Association, Novamont, Peabody Engineering, Planning and Conservation League, Recology, Sierra Club California, Solid Waste Association of Orange County, Sonoma Compost, StopWaste.Org, Synergex International, US Composting Council, Vasko Electric, Inc. Opponents: California Grocers Association Process History: Brought to the Energy, Environment & Utilities Committee on June 5, 2014: Pass Fail Tabled Amended Brought to the Board of Directors on June 26, 2014: Pass Fail Tabled Amended