Report to the Legislature Required by Senate Bill 2202 (due January 1, 2002) Board Briefing June 13,...
-
Upload
britney-booker -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Report to the Legislature Required by Senate Bill 2202 (due January 1, 2002) Board Briefing June 13,...
Report to the Legislature Required by Senate Bill 2202
(due January 1, 2002)
Board BriefingJune 13, 2001
Agenda Item 5Attachment 1
Report to the Legislature
• Board required to establish, at a minimum, a working group to evaluate the disposal reporting system (PRC Section 41821.5)
• Board required to submit a report with recommendations for changes and improvements by January 1, 2002
Evaluation of Measurement System
• December 2000— Board directed staff to evaluate the entire diversion rate measurement system
• Adjustment Method is one component of the diversion rate measurement system
Structure for Developing Report to the Legislature
• Two working groups focus on improvements to the existing systemo Disposal Reporting System – 28 memberso Adjustment Method – 17 members
• Alternatives working group focus on alternatives to the existing system – 23 members
• Synthesis group combine solutions from all groups to develop a workable, improved diversion rate measurement system – 18 members
Representation of Working Groups
• Cities and counties throughout CA—both urban and rural
• Haulers, disposal facility operators, recyclers
• Consultants
• Environmental and special interest groups
• Colleges and universities
Working Group Meetings
• Meetings held in March, April and May
• Identify issues and potential solutions
• Solutions include improvements to existing system with and without legislation
• Solutions to be forwarded to the synthesis group—early June
Report to Legislature
• Recommendations from working groups, Board staff will be included in a draft report in July 2001
• 30 day comment period on draft report• Revised report in August 2001• Final report October 2001 for Board
consideration• Final report due to Legislature January 2002
Adjustment Method
More People?More Jobs?More Sales?
More Waste Generated
Standard Diversion Rate CalculationADJUSTMENT METHOD
PRC 41781PRC 41780.1 & 41780.2
Base Year Generation
Estimated 1999 Generation
Estimating Non-Residential Change
1999
1990
+1999
1990
2
Economic Change Ratio
(Inflation Corrected)
Estimating Residential Change
1999
1990
+
2
Economic Change
Ratio
Demographic Change Ratio
Data Analysis and Presentations
Interactions Between The Adjustment Method, Base-Year Generation, & Report-Year Disposal
Possible Sources Of Estimate Error
Does Base-Year Age Matter?
• Most jurisdictions have 1990 Base-Years
Jurisdiction Base Years
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Base Year
Nu
mb
er o
f Ju
risd
icti
on
s
Does Base-Year Age Matter?
• Issue:– Original Adjustment Method Working Group
lacked data to analyze Adjustment Method accuracy when residential and non-residential sector growth exceeds 14%
• Error increases as the growth rate increases
Maximized Non-Residential Adjustment Factor
Base Year = 1990; Report Year = 1999
Non-Residential Adjustment Factor
Nu
mb
er
of
Juri
sdic
tion
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.790.86
0.931.00
1.071.14
1.211.28
1.351.42
1.491.56
1.631.70
1.771.84
1.911.98
2.052.12
Maximized Residential Adjustment Factor
Base Year = 1990; Report Year = 1999
Residential Adjustment Factor
Nu
mb
er
of
Juri
sdic
tion
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0.790.86
0.931.00
1.071.14
1.211.28
1.351.42
1.491.56
1.631.70
1.771.84
1.911.98
2.052.12
2.192.26
2.33
Does Jurisdiction Size Matter?
• Issue: Do the odds of Disposal Reporting System error increase as jurisdiction size decreases?
Does Jurisdiction Size Matter?
• The smaller the jurisdiction:– The greater the odds of Disposal Reporting
System error– The greater the range of default diversion rates?
Issue: What adjustment factor measurement level is best: county
or jurisdiction?
– Measurement level use has changed over time– County level is a more accurate level for
measuring the factor– Jurisdiction level data may be more
representative if the jurisdiction is different from the county as a whole
Adjustment Factor Balanced Change
• Issues:– If base-year to report-year % change in
adjustment factors is not balanced, has the nature of solid waste production significantly changed since the base-year?
Conclusions
1. Base-year age may be a factor in diversion rate estimate error
– Adjustment Method accuracy not demonstrated for growth over 14%
– Unbalanced change in adjustment factors may be more likely for jurisdictions with older base-years
– Changes in nature of solid waste production should be considered
Conclusions
2. Jurisdiction size may be a factor in
diversion rate estimate error– Disposal Reporting System data may have
significant error for smaller jurisdictions– Difference between maximized and
minimized diversion rates is greater for smaller jurisdictions
Conclusions
3. Unbalanced change in adjustment factors should be investigated– Unbalanced change could indicate:
• Significant change in the nature of the production of solid waste
• County level factors do not reflect the jurisdiction’s demographic and economic growth
Adjustment Method Factor Sources
• Uses readily available factor sources to keep
costs down and maintain consistency:
• Population –(CA Department of Finance)
• Employment –(CA Employment Development Department)
• Taxable Sales –(CA Board of Equalization) –Inflation Corrected using Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Adjustment Method Factor Choices
• A jurisdiction may use:– Default (standard) countywide or jurisdiction-
specific factors supplied by the Board– Alternative factors from independent third-party
sources
• Each factor must be from same published
source and use same method for both years
How Alternative Employment measures affect diversion rate?
• Currently AM uses EDD Labor Force as the default
• Examined whether other Employment factor use impact diversion rates
• Factors compared with EDD Labor Force:
-EDD Industry employment data
-Federal Industry employment data
EDD Labor Force vs. EDD Industry
DIV. RATE # of JURISDTIONS %
(no change) 131 31.5
+ 1% to +2% 250 60
+ 3% or more 35 8.5
416 100.0
EDD Labor Force vs. Federal Industry
DIV. RATE # of JURISDICTIONS %
(no change) 139 33.5
+ 1% to +2% 236 56.8
+ 3% or more 40 9.6
415 100.0
Do CIWMB estimates of fourth quarter taxable sales add error to AM estimates of waste generation (and the
diversion rate)?
DIV. RATE # of JURISDICTIONS %(no change) 277 70.3+ 1% to +2% 112 28.5+3% or more 5 1.3
394 100.0
Adjustment Method Working Group Recommendations
1. Allow more flexibility in data used for adjustment factors
2. Establish a list of circumstances that impact accuracy of adjustment method and diversion rates
3. Diversion rates are an indicator. Board needs to look at program implementation as well as diversion rates.
4. More detail on recommendations handout