California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB353

Introduced
2/4/19  
Introduced
2/4/19  
Refer
3/18/19  
Report Pass
3/19/19  
Report Pass
3/19/19  
Refer
3/20/19  
Refer
3/20/19  
Report Pass
4/30/19  
Engrossed
5/6/19  
Engrossed
5/6/19  
Refer
5/6/19  
Refer
5/6/19  
Refer
5/16/19  
Report Pass
5/26/20  
Report Pass
5/26/20  
Refer
5/26/20  

Caption

Once-through cooling policy: extension.

Impact

The introduction of AB 353 is expected to fortify the state's commitment to environmental protection, particularly regarding marine ecosystems affected by industrial activity. By prohibiting additional time for compliance based on specific geographic and environmental criteria, the bill emphasizes the urgency of addressing climate-related risks within regulated industries. Furthermore, it aligns with the Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act by restricting food service facilities under state contracts from using non-compliant packaging, thereby enhancing sustainability practices across state-owned properties.

Summary

Assembly Bill 353, introduced by Assembly Member Muratsuchi, seeks to amend certain sections relating to solid waste management and water quality in California. The bill primarily focuses on two significant areas: the once-through cooling policy for powerplants and food service packaging requirements at state facilities. Under this legislation, powerplant operators are restricted from receiving extensions on compliance with once-through cooling policies if their facilities are located on sites containing coastal wetlands. This is an effort to protect marine life and coastal environments by ensuring that powerplants minimize their ecological impact.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 353 appears largely supportive among environmental advocacy groups who view the legislation as a crucial step toward protecting vulnerable marine habitats. Proponents argue that the quick enactment of stringent measures is essential in the fight against ecological degradation. However, there may be industry stakeholders who worry about the implications of tighter regulations, arguing that such restrictions could hinder operational flexibility for powerplants and food service facilities, possibly leading to increased costs and operational challenges.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding AB 353 could arise from discussions about the impact on existing powerplant operations and the economic implications for food service vendors. Critics might argue that the immediate implementation of stricter compliance measures may not allow adequate time for powerplants to make necessary adjustments, especially if such facilities have invested in infrastructure based on previous regulations. Additionally, food service vendors under state contracts may face logistical challenges in transitioning to approved packaging methods, raising concerns about cost and availability.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2633

Protection of parklands: American River Parkway: County of Sacramento: removal of persons engaged in the act of unpermitted camping and clearing of unpermitted campsites.

CA AB2071

Once-through cooling policy: extension.

CA AB2725

California Conservation Corps: job training: construction and related fields.

CA SB178

Parklands: Centerville Park.

CA SB53

CalCompute: foundation models: whistleblowers.

CA AB1668

California Conservation Corps: Education and Employment Reentry Program.

CA AB3172

Park property: City of Modesto: Beard Brook Park.

CA AB315

Pharmacy benefit management.