Today, if a California municipality places green waste in a landfill for use as alternate daily cover, this is credited toward its increased mandate for 75% diversion.  If the same green waste were used as a feedstock for the production of advanced biofuels or green power, it would be counted as disposal.

Currently, with the exception of gasification technologies, the production of advanced biofuels or green power from municipal wastes does not qualify as "renewable energy."  However, the permitting of gasification facilities in California is so uncertain and such a lengthy process that emerging technology providers are unwilling to risk the time or financial resources to required to site and permit a project in the state.  They are taking their projects elsewhere.

Under a new mandate passed by the legislature in 2011, each city, county, and regional agency in California is required to divert 75% of its solid waste from landfills, the methods for which are limited to source reduction, recycling, and composting.  Current California statute does not allow the source reduction and recycling element to include, in the fraction that can be counted as diversion, solid waste that is subject to recovery through conversion technologies.

The History of Waste Diversion in California

The Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) was enacted in 1989 to address what were perceived as urgent problems of “diminishing landfill space and potential adverse environmental impacts from landfilling.”  The Legislature found: “The reduction, recycling, or reuse of solid waste generated in the state will, in addition to preserving landfill capacity in California, serve to conserve water, energy, and other natural resources within this state, and to protect the state’s environment.”

While similar recycling and reuse policies were ultimately adopted by most states, California law was unique in imposing mandatory diversion requirements on local jurisdictions, backed by sanctions for failure to accomplish these goals by specified deadlines.  Local compliance was documented through the development of elaborate tonnage tracking and reporting systems that monitor annual disposal rates, and provide diversion credit for designated management practices that recover waste stream materials for beneficial use.

The Legislature felt such aggressive measures were necessary to overcome existing economic barriers to recovery and recycling efforts.  Net recycling costs in the early 1990s typically ranged from $90 per ton to over $180 per ton (depending upon program design and other local factors), while disposal options were generally available at a fraction of these costs.  By establishing diversion mandates and diversion credit for preferred waste management practices, AB 939 created an intervention in a solid waste marketplace that would have otherwise continued to favor disposal.

Then and Now: The 30-Million-Ton Challenge

AB 939 diversion incentives stimulated investments in recovery technologies and the development of a new recycling and composting infrastructure throughout California.  Statewide recycling have increased from an estimated 10% in 1988 to 58% in 2011.  (12% of this calculation, however, is green waste which is actually being placed in landfills for use as alternate daily cover.)

These figures, however, belie the sheer magnitude of California’s burgeoning disposal problem.  Increases in the rate of recycling over the past 15 years have been largely offset by significant increases in per capita waste generation.  In 2011, after a significant decline in waste generation resulting from the recession, more than 30 million tons of wastes were disposed in California.  Despite the progress in recycling to date, factors such as population and economic growth have effectively offset current diversion efforts in terms of the amount of post-recycled residual wastes that must be managed.

Further, there is no regulatory oversight whatsoever for the recyclable materials that are being sent (sold) to markets in the Far East, while opportunities for using these materials here in California for the production of advanced biofuels, green power and other biobased products are being stifled due to outmoded and repressive statutes for permitting and regulatory oversight.

The 30-Million-Ton Challenge, simply stated, is how to recover and return to beneficial use that portion of the post-recycled municipal waste stream, for which no viable commodity markets or uses currently exist.  Experts agree that successful diversion of this post-recycled fraction of the waste stream from disposal requires strategic enhancements to the State’s integrated waste management infrastructure--the addition of new technologies, new industries, and new market entry points.

Approximately 75%-80% of the targeted post-recycled stream going to landfills and incinerators consists of plastics and various forms of biomass—materials that can be converted into valuable products such as power, fuels, and chemicals through industrial processes known collectively as “conversion technologies” (CTs).  University of California and Research Triangle Institute studies conducted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board have concluded that CTs can enhance existing glass, metal, and plastics recycling by 7-13% through the pre-processing of incoming waste feedstocks, and additionally can divert up to 80% of the post-recycled materials they receive and convert them to beneficial use.[1] These technologies and the new industries they support not only complement recycling, but represent the next generation of waste diversion facilities.

Diversion Incentives for Residual Waste Infrastructure Development

CT facilities will play an important role in California’s future solid waste infrastructure, and will also make a positive contribution to the State’s renewable energy supplies, greenhouse gas reduction goals, and economic development.  Their commercialization, however, faces many of the same economic hurdles as did other diversion technologies two decades ago.

Creation of the recycling infrastructure required substantial investments in new collection fleets, material recovery facilities, secondary materials marketing, and recycled product industries.  These capital-intensive activities had to prosper in a highly competitive environment that gave a decided edge to cheaper disposal alternatives.  As noted earlier, this market pricing advantage was effectively counterbalanced by diversion mandates and the strategic application of diversion credits, which combined to create the necessary investor confidence and materials flow for infrastructure development.

CTs capable of diverting post-recycled residual wastes to beneficial use also represent capital-intensive industries that must capture market share from established, and less costly disposal alternatives.  Current law, however, neither anticipates these new industries, nor provides the diversion credit incentives necessary to jumpstart their development.

In the absence of such market interventions, the flow of both capital and materials to the emerging residual waste infrastructure is compromised.  Investors are reticent to commit risk capital to technologies and projects that are being denied an equal economic footing in a free market setting.  Similarly, many local governments are reluctant to pursue new alternatives to disposal or to provide their municipal wastes to biofuels manufacturers as feedstocks, if these technologies are not recognized as diversion by the Legislature[2]—even if they are environmentally superior.

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

In March of 2002, the California Integrated Waste Management Board convened a working group of key stakeholders, representing local government, environmental groups, and industry, to consider diversion credit and other statutory changes relevant to CT development.  The issues then, as now, focused on how California’s diversion rates could be enhanced while maintaining environmental standards and the integrity of the existing recycling infrastructure.

The consensus reached by this working group, and Resolution 2002-177 subsequently adopted by the Board, supported the granting of diversion credits to CT projects if the Board determines that:

1. The facility meets or exceeds all State and local regulatory requirements.  This provision assures that all site-specific environmental and public health issues are fully addressed, and that the facility operates in conformance with required permits.

2. The facility meets the conditions consistent with Board Resolution 2002-177 for protection of the existing recycling infrastructure.  Specifically, the Board must find:  a) that the jurisdiction will continue to implement programs in its source reduction and recycling element, b) the facility complements the existing recycling and diversion infrastructure and is converting waste that was previously disposed, c) the facility maintains or enhances environmental benefits, and d) the facility maintains or enhances the economic sustainability of the integrated waste management system.

Nine years have passed.  During this time, more than 300 million tons of post-recycled municipal waste have been placed in California’s landfills and the legislature has done nothing to promote the use of these materials in the production of advanced biofuels, green power or other biobased products—or to create incentives or an expedited permitting process that will encourage biobased technology providers to construct alternative energy facilities in the state.