Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC Public Comment Re: Information Item 3 - Organic Recycling Program From: Jonathan Levy < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 10:19 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Cc: Olmos, Tony <[email protected]>; Gauthier, Thanos <[email protected]>; Silva, Gabriel <[email protected]>
Subject: MSC Public Comment Re: Information Item 3 - Organic Recycling Program CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Dear Vice Mayor Wilson, Councilmembers and Staff,
I am writing to express my support of the steps Public Works has taken to comply with Senate Bill 1383, which regulates short-lived climate pollutants. When placed in landfills, food and other organic waste breaks down anaerobically, causing the emission of methane gas. Unlike carbon dioxide, which hangs in the atmosphere for a long time, methane is "short lived," but potent, emitting at least 20 times more greenhouse gases than C02.
And, despite our best efforts, gas capture at landfills captures only a fraction of gases generated.
It is important to recognize Public Works as a leader in the implementation of SB 1383, as they have gone above and beyond the steps taken by many jurisdictions both large and small in the Los Angeles Basin and throughout California. Most jurisdictions have in place an Organic Recycling Ordinance, but few have a comprehensive residential collection program for food waste like Pasadena. These are, however, only two of the many steps which must be taken to comply with the onerous requirements of SB 1383.
Enforcement action is not required until January 1 of 2024, however, CalRecycle can retroactively impose fines on the City to January 1 of 2022, when the city-wide organic recycling program went into effect.
Public Works has done a great job to prepare city-serviced customers for SB 1383, but they will need the support of the MSC and City Council to expand organic recycling collection to the 3500+ commercial customers who are serviced by private haulers.
Although franchise haulers are required to comply with all applicable state and local laws, it is difficult for private businesses to impose new requirements on other private businesses, without the full support of the City Council.
I would like to urge the MS C to look into any and all options that can be taken to enroll impacted commercial businesses and multi-family customers into organic recycling programs now to mitigate the risk of retroactive penalties assessed on the City in 2024.
I recognize that 2024 might seem like a long way away, but it will be here before we know it.
Sincerely,
1 Jonathan Levy
District 7 Resident
Member, Environmental Advisory Commission
Solid Waste and Recycling Consultant
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC Meeting August 23 Comments on items 2 & 3 From: cheryl auger < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 1:35 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Subject: MSC Meeting August 23 Comments on items 2 & 3
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Hello MSC Members and Staff,
Just a few months ago Edison International (El), the parent company of 8CE, said that California will not make their 2030 climate goals.
httDS://www.edison.com/home/our-pei-spective/niind-the-gap.html I wasn't surprised given how little has been done to reduce carbon emissions, but I was baffled by why El and SCE knew this and were still trying to purposefully kill rooftop solar by increasing grid connection fees and reducing kWh payouts. Similar rate stmctures in other states were shown to reduce solar sales by over 90% while improving the lOU's bottom line. But not without a cost to the environment and species habitats as the greenfield projects destroyed these with their build outs of transmission lines and distant green energy. I heard Assemblymember Holdenjust say that the lOUs will build these transmission lines out, and build new generation to sell power to other states. But I digress as do they from their core mission.
I hope the City of Pasadena will fairly incentivize as much rooftop solar as possible and provide grants for low and middle income families to assist with purchasing solar or even renting their rooftops and not change the rate structure and negatively impact the solar adoption rate. I think having a MW goal for adoption of rooftop solar to offset the lOUs failings by 2030 would be laudable.
And on the topic of implementation of SB 1383,1 appreciate the outline of the plan but I think we have the wrong measures in place. It should not be based on dollars but based on the GHGE contributions. Composting programs should be prioritized by residential, community, institutional, then industrial or regional. Pasadena has an opportunity to expand on both local composting at the homeowner level and the institutional level. There is also an external cost of losing food waste to anaerobic digestion compared to soil production. That soil can help salvage our stressed trees and the trees we hope to plant. This will allow more carbon to be sequestered from the atmosphere. Here are my comments by plan.
1. Backyard Compost Bin. Why wouldn't we give people the same type of compost bin (tumblers) we will be using in the parks in each district? For anyone who has used the bins provided by the City they know these bins are susceptible to rats, and people freak out when they see rats and no longer want to compost. Their neighbors hate them for composting with these compost systems since the rats have now found a new hood. The tumblers are enclosed and off the ground and therefore mitigate the rat issue. I 1 would also hope we would subsidize these. The current bin type provided by the City is great for lawn and tree waste.
2. Community Compost hubs. I applaud the City for trying to get here. This is really what we need to do to reduce GHGEs. I appreciate that every district has one composting HUB but more populated and dense areas need more HUBs. The crazy thing about organic waste from food is that in any month a family might generate five gallons of waste and in three months that waste will be just a few ounces. There is little incentive to drive it anywhere when you realize it will significantly shrink verses the cost to roll the truck and the associated GHGEs. We should increase the community drop off hubs.
3. Commercial and MultiFamily - I assume this will be sent to the anaerobic digester which again is a bad use of energy and creates GHGEs. We should create more community hubs and utilize the composting facility at the Rose Bowl to manage this or even the public works space. It doesn't make sense to haul compost which has such a high water percentage. Also, every new construction project should have to install a mechanical composter. Even existing multifamily units would save GHGEs by installing mechanical composters. This is a much better option.
4. Residential Curbside Organics Recycling - everything about this is misleading. It is not recycling. It is anaerobic digestion. It is not just 5 miles to the aiiaerobic digester, it is 5 miles to the transfer station and then additional miles to the anaerobic digester, and the food recovery model should promote composting to improve soil health over turning food into energy which uses energy in transit and creates GHGEs so probably results in an increased carbon footprint. Food is what is renewable, not the methane produced by the AD process.
Hopefully any decisions made today will result in more rooftop solar, more local composting and less GHGEs and hauling and meaningful strides on our climate goals.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Auger
My Zero Waste Store
2