Measuring a Statewide Recycling Goal of 75%: Mechanisms and Motivations.

1. Measuring a Statewide Recycling Goal of 75%: Mechanisms and Motivations.

2. AB 341 PRC Section 41780.02 (a) On or before January 1, 2014, the department shall submit a report to the Legislature that provides strategies to achieve the state's policy goal that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020, and annually thereafter, pursuant to Section 41780.01.

3. 75% Recycling Plan CalRecycle’s Plan 75% Statewide Goal Parallel system with existing 50% mandate This measurement system does not change how diversion rates are measured for jurisdictions Implementation of policy options may impact jurisdiction diversion rates

4. MeasurementInspirations “…when you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it , when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind…” Baron William Thomson Kelvin – May 3, 1883

5. Measurement Goals Consistent with statute & policy direction Ambitious target requiring major reductions in disposal Simple & without calculation gymnastics Few, if any, additional reporting burdens on activities that should be encouraged Practical & without reliance on unavailable data

6. Measurement Balance Program implementers need details on individual programs and activities for measuring success, making course corrections & knowing when to stop/reinvent programs Measuring for a statewide goal does not require this level of detail for every material and every activity

7. MeasurementInspirations “Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe.” Ray's Rule of Precision – Unattributed, Undated

8. PossibleApproaches Do a total waste stream census for 2020 Go back to using the old adjustment method Create new, ongoing reporting requirements for all who recycle, compost or source reduce Use current statewide diversion rate system Modify current measurement system

9. 1. “One-time” Census Method used in 1990 for original base-years Costly at about $100,000 (1990 dollars) per City Requires participation from all major players Assumes accurate quantification by all players Relies on sharing of proprietary information Involves calculating and extrapolating for many activities such as source reduction Would need to do it for startup, midpoint & 2020

10. Past Survey Success? Only 238 (16%) out of 1510 facilities were willing to verify data about their activities for CalRecycle’s Facility Information Toolbox (FacIT) Only 44 (30%) out of 147 facilities responded to a survey for the Materials Recovery Facility Study conducted in 2004

11. MeasurementInspirations “A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with somefava beans and a nice chianti.” Hannibal Lecter - 1991

12. PossibleApproaches Census – burdensome, not simple, not practical Go back to using the old adjustment method Create new, ongoing reporting requirements for all who recycle, compost or source reduce Use current statewide diversion rate system Modify current measurement system

13. 2. Adjustment Method Method used from 1995 to 2006 Not timely due to data delays Complicated formula that may imply accuracy Replaced by a simpler & better method May let us calculate our way to 75% recycling without much effort

14. Calculate our way there?

15. MeasurementInspirations “If you torture the data longenough, it will confess.” Ronald Coase - undated

16. PossibleApproaches Census – burdensome, not simple, not practical Adjustment method – not ambitious, not simple Create new, ongoing reporting requirements for all who recycle, compost or source reduce Use current statewide diversion rate system Modify current measurement system

17. 3. Ongoing Reporting Some statutory authority: PRC Section 41821.5(b) Disposal Reporting System works well Burden on entities that recycle, compost or reduce Increased costs on reporters and compilers of data These activities are often not as centralized, regulated or quantified

18. Activities to Track& Who Reports? Recycling 600+ MRFs & other processors 160+ RCP manufacturers Composting 150+ composting 150+ mulch & other 2 anaerobic digestion Source Reduction 12.6 million occupied households 1.4 million businesses Disposal Related 129 landfills 3 transformation facilities 79 ADC/AIC Users 61 beneficial reusers 4 tire-derived fuel users

19. MeasurementInspirations “Everything is measurable if you try hard enough.” Pointy Haired Boss - March 8, 1998

20. PossibleApproaches Census – burdensome, not simple, not practical Adjustment method – not ambitious, not simple Ongoing reporting – burdensome, not practical Use current statewide diversion rate system Modify current measurement system

21. 4. Current Diversion Rate System Works well for jurisdictions & 50% mandate Reporting in-place & simple calculations Not ambitious enough - currently 65% diversion AB 341: not 75% diversion goal 75% Plan & Policy – some activities to foster & some to discourage

22. Statewide DiversionRates: Not much difference yet

23. Statewide Diversion

24. MeasurementInspirations “Facts are stubborn things, butstatistics are pliable.” Mark Twain - Undated

25. PossibleApproaches Census – burdensome, not simple, not practical Adjustment method – not ambitious, not simple Ongoing reporting – burdensome, not practical Diversion rate– not consistent, not ambitious Modify current measurement system

26. What modifications? The TERMS What COUNTS The BASE & TARGET

27. The TERMS AB 939AB 341 Jurisdictions ≠ Statewide50% Mandate ≠ 75% GoalDiversion ≠ RecyclingDisposal ≠ Disposal-RelatedBase Generation ≠ Base Generation (2003-2006) (1990-2010)

28. WHAT COUNTS *Biomass not included in the base – but future increases to biomass reduce disposal so it falls into Diversion and Recycling categories.

29. The BASE & TARGET = 100% Recycling + Disposal-Related Generation Generation BASE: The per-capita generation level we start with TARGET: At least 75% recycling & no more than 25% disposal-related.

30. The BASE: Single and multi-year options

31. The TARGET:

32. The BASE Average Per-Resident Generation from 1990 to 2010: 10.7 pounds of generation per resident per day (PPD) Allows for solid waste increase due to population growth Does not allow for solid waste increase due to inefficiency or increase in wastefulness related to economic growth

33. The TARGET Given 10.7 PPD Generation: At least 75% or 8.0 PPD must be Recycled Not more than 25% or 2.7 PPD to be Disposal-Related Activities

34. Measurement Goals Consistent with statute & policy direction Ambitious target requiring major reductions in disposal Simple & without calculation gymnastics Few, if any, additional reporting burdens on activities that should be encouraged Practical & without reliance on unavailable data

35. 2010Per Capita Status

36. 2020Per Capita Targets

37. Traditional Disposal

38. 2020Tonnages

39. 2020Compositionof potential disposal-related

40. Shameless Plug Need waste management & recycling data? Go to CalRecycle’s Data Central at www.calrecycle.ca.gov/datacentral/

41. ContactInformation John Sitts, Manager Knowledge Integration Section Policy Development & Analysis Office CalRecycle John.Sitts@calrecycle.ca.gov 916-341-6232

42. MeasurementInspirations “The government are very keen on amassing statistics. They collect them, add them, raise them to the nth power, take the cube root and prepare wonderful diagrams. But you must never forget that every one of these figures comes in the first instance from the village watchman, who just puts down what he damn pleases.” Sir Josiah Stamp - Undated

43. Thank You