Bill Text: CA AB1714 | 2019-2020 | Regular Session | Amended
Bill Title: Emissions limitations: wine fermentation.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)
Status: (Engrossed - Dead) 2020-05-18 - From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on EQ. [AB1714 Detail]
Download: California-2019-AB1714-Amended.html
|
Amended
IN
Senate
May 18, 2020 |
|
Amended
IN
Senate
August 28, 2019 |
|
Amended
IN
Assembly
April 03, 2019 |
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—
2019–2020 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Bill
No. 1714
| Introduced by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry (Coauthor: Assembly Member Blanca Rubio) |
February 22, 2019 |
An act to add Article 8.5 (commencing with Section 41990) to Chapter 3 of Part 4 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to nonvehicular air pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1714, as amended, Aguiar-Curry.
Emissions limitations: wine fermentation.
(1) Existing law generally designates air pollution control and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. Existing law requires each air district to attain ambient air standards for specified air pollutants, including, among others, ozone.
This bill would require the State Air Resources Board to convene a working group with a specified membership for the purposes of reviewing the state of air pollution control technologies, operational or maintenance standards, and work practices that may be applied to wine fermentation tanks, and the costs and benefits of those technologies, standards, and practices. The bill also
would require the state board to review options for the reduction of emissions from wine fermentation tanks that, to the maximum extent feasible, preserve and protect the quality, taste, and other unique attributes associated with wine while complying with air quality standards and objectives and would require the state board to provide air districts a summary of all cost-effective options to achieve the emissions reductions from wine fermentation tanks in addition to those options’ respective abilities to preserve and protect the quality, taste, and other unique attributes associated with wine.
This bill would require air districts, as specified, when an air district adopts a rule or issues a permit requiring air pollution control technology to be installed on wine fermentation tanks, to include as part of that action specified findings. By adding to the duties of air districts when adopting a rule on wine fermentation tanks, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
This bill would require the state board to allocate $1,000,000, available upon appropriation, to the University of California Davis School Department of Viticulture and Enology for a study that makes recommendations on options to address air emissions from wine fermentation tanks in a manner that is in full compliance with state and federal air quality laws, as specified. The bill would require the study to be prepared and submitted to the Governor and the Legislature, as specified.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YESBill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
Article 8.5 (commencing with Section 41990) is added to Chapter 3 of Part 4 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:Article 8.5. Wine Fermentation
41990.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(1) The wine industry in California is an important and iconic part of the agricultural industry in the state.
(2) The wine industry employs 325,000 state residents, generates $57.6 billion in annual economic activity in the state, pays $7.6 billion in state taxes, attracts 23.6 million tourist visits annually, and generates $7.2 billion in annual tourism expenditures.
(3) Clean air is vital to our communities and to the state as a whole.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the purpose of this article is to ensure there is a full, open, thorough, and public process for emissions limitations on wine facilities that is are consistent with state and federal clean air laws while ensuring districts take into account considerations unique to the wine industry in the state.
41991.
The state board shall do all of the following:(a) Convene a working group, for the purposes of reviewing the state of air pollution control technologies, operational or maintenance standards, and work practices that may be applied to wine fermentation tanks, and the costs and benefits of those technologies, standards, and practices, with a membership that consists of all of the following:
(1) Members of the public.
(2) Experts from the wine industry.
(3) Public health and environmental experts.
(4) One or more districts in which wineries are located in the state.
(b) Review options for the reduction of emissions from wine fermentation tanks that, to the maximum extent feasible, preserve and protect the quality, taste, and other unique attributes associated with wine while complying with air quality standards and objectives.
(c) Provide districts a summary of all cost-effective options to achieve the emissions reductions from wine fermentation tanks in addition to those options’ respective abilities to preserve and protect the quality, taste, and other unique attributes associated with wine.
41992.
Consistent with federal law, when a district adopts a rule or issues a permit requiring air pollution control technology to be installed on wine fermentation tanks, the district shall include as part of that action all of the following:(a) Either of the following:
(1) A finding that the results of the study described in Section 41993 demonstrate that the air pollution control technology will not affect the quality, sanitation, style, or marketability of the wine expected to be fermented in the tank.
(2) A finding, if the study described in Section 41993 has not been
completed, that the air pollution control technology is not expected to affect the quality, sanitation, style, or marketability of the wine expected to be fermented in the tank based on the best judgment of the district in consultation with the working group established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 41991.
(b) A finding that disposal is readily available and cost effective for the sludges, condensates, discharges, or other wastes produced by the air pollution control technology.
(c) A finding that operational or maintenance standards or work practices will not achieve emission reductions equivalent to the net reductions expected from installation of the air pollution control technology.
(d) A finding that the
installation of the air pollution control technology is required by federal law.
41993.
(a) (1) The state board shall allocate one million dollars ($1,000,000), available upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the University of California Davis(2) No later
than January 1, 2021, 2022, a report shall be submitted to the Governor and Legislature describing the status of the study and future steps required, if any. The report shall be updated annually, no later than January 1 each year, until the study has concluded.
(b) The study shall be performed in consultation and cooperation with the state board, districts, and experts from the wine industry.
(c) The study shall review all of the
following:
(1) The effects of air pollution control technology on wine fermentation tanks that contain multiple vintages and multiple varietals, on aging, on consumer and market preference changes, and on varying tank designs.
(2) A representative sample of wine types, wine styles, and anticipated wine styles that may be driven by consumers.
(3) Tank size variability and impact.
(4) The potential contamination risks of ducted versus unducted air pollution control technology.
(5) Impacts, if any, on wine flavor, quality, and marketability.
(6) Potential alternatives to air pollution control technology that achieve the equivalent or greater in emissions reductions.
(7) Options for the disposal of captured ethanol.
(8) Effects of related laws, such as the federal FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Public Law 111-353).
(9) Effects on worker safety and associated wine equipment.
(d) The study shall be made available for public comment prior to being submitted to the Governor and Legislature pursuant to subdivision (a).
(e) A report to be submitted pursuant to this section shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the
Government Code.
