Correa Mattress Bill Compared to Hancock's

 

Comparison Between

Senator Lou Correa’s Industry-Supported Mattress Recycling Bill (SB 245) and

Senator Loni Hancock’s Legislation (SB 254)

 

Feature	Correa Bill (SB 245)	Hancock Bill (SB 254)
Who runs the recycling program?	Requires a single non-profit organization to plan and operate one unified statewide recycling program, achieving better efficiency and economies of scale (Sec. 48803)	Would inefficiently require potentially hundreds of different mattress manufacturers to organize and operate multiple recycling programs – a recipe for chaos (Sec. 42987(a))
How would recycling program be funded?	Funded through consumer sales transaction – Will create a sustainable, fair, efficient and transparent funding source (Sec. 48810)	Manufacturers made wholly responsible for funding the program, which will threaten jobs, raise consumer prices and create enforcement and compliance difficulties (Sec. 42987(b))
How are recycling goals set?	Organization would set realistic goals based on practical experience that will create continuous improvement consistent with real world constraints, allowing recycling volumes to grow in a sustainable manner (Sec. 48806.5)	Unrealistic and arbitrary goals rigidly set in statute without regard to economic and practical realities, which will expose businesses to excessive fines and threaten jobs (Sec. 42987(c))
How is illegal dumping addressed?	Creates incentives to curtail illegal dumping that makes recycling discarded mattresses and cleaning up mattress dumps financially attractive (Sec. 48804(c))	Makes manufacturers wholly responsible for already illegal actions by Californians – an Impractical, costly and ill-defined solution that won’t work (Sec. 42987(b)(4))
How much is government involved in the program?	Minimizes government control – Organization will design and implement the program with appropriate government oversight, reducing costs	Substantial government involvement – Would add costs and inefficiency, create bureaucratic delays
Impact on California jobs?	Low cost, efficient management and sustainable funding method will not disrupt manufacturing/retail sectors or existing collection practices, and practical recycling goals will create new recycling jobs		Inefficiency, high costs and commercial uncertainty will threaten jobs at existing mattress manufacturers and retailers; impractical recycling goals will make future recycling jobs unsustainable, while simultaneously raising consumer costs

Overall benefits of Correa Bill (SB 245) –

·         Increases volume of mattresses recycled;

·         Creates recycling jobs, without hurting manufacturing and retail jobs

·         Provides private sector solution that places least financial burden on government and industry;

·         Uses market incentives to address blight caused by illegally dumped mattresses;

·         Distributes financial responsibility uniformly and efficiently;

·         Bill is patterned on successful recycling legislation for other consumer products enacted in
        California and elsewhere.