COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS Remote location using Microsoft® Teams Wednesday, December 6, 2023 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL, CHAIR COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON COUNCILMAN KENYATTA JOHNSON COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR.
Well, good morning, everyone. Before we begin the public hearing, I will make the following announcement: Due to the continuing threat of COVID-19, City Council Committees are currently meeting remotely. We are using Microsoft Teams to make these remote hearings possible. Instructions for how the public may view and offer public testimony at public hearings of City Council Committees are included in the public hearing notices that are published in the Daily News, (inaudible). I now note that the hour has come. Mr. Golden, will you please call the roll to take attendance. Members that are in attendance please indicate that you are present when your name is called (inaudible) --
Councilmember, I believe you froze. Can you repeat that last paragraph again for us?
Sure. Mr. Golden, will you please call the roll to take attendance. Members that are in attendance will please indicate that you are present when your name is (inaudible) -- COUNCIL TECH SUPPORT: Councilman, you might have to turn your video off if you continue to lag just so you can get through the initial start-up paragraphs.
Thank you. A quorum of the Committee is present and this hearing is now called to order. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Licenses & Inspections regarding Bill No. 230653, Bill No. 220364 and Bill No. 230900. Mr. Golden, will you please read the titles of the bills.
Bill No. 23 230653, amending various provisions of Subcode "P" of Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Plumbing Code," by making additional additions, deletions and amendments to the City's adoption of the 2018 addition of the International Plumbing Code as published by the International Code Council, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 220364, amending Chapter 9-4900 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Prohibition on Use of Certain Bags by Retail Establishments," to require establishments to charge a fee for the provision of a bag to customers for removal of purchased items, and further declining what bags are prohibited at check-out, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 230900, authorizing the Procurement Commissioner to enter into agreements to purchase electricity, natural gas and motor fuel for use by the City in City facilities and vehicles, including agreements that obligate payment for delivery of such energy supplies in future fiscal years, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Before we begin to hear testimony from the witnesses we have for today, everyone who has been invited to the meeting to testify should be aware that this public hearing is being recorded. Because the hearing is public, participants and viewers have no 15 reasonable expectation of privacy. By continuing to be in the meeting, you are consenting to being recorded. Additionally, prior to recognizing Members for their questions or comments they have for witnesses, I will note for the record that at this time we will use the chat feature available in Microsoft Teams to allow Members to signify that they wish to be recognized. In order to comply with the Sunshine Act, the chat feature must only be used for this purpose. Mr. Golden, will you please call the first panel we have to testify on Bill No. 230653.
The first panel on 230653 is Sarah Adamo, Legislative Affairs Manager and Zoning Administrator for the Department of Licenses & Inspections.
Good morning. Are you connected and ready to proceed, Sarah?
Okay. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairperson Driscoll and members of the Licenses & Inspections Committee. My name is Sarah Adamo and I am the Legislative Affairs Manager of the Department of Licenses & Inspections or L&I. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill No. 230653, which if enacted will amend various provisions of Subcode P of Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Plumbing Code," by making additions, deletions and amendments to the City's adoption of the 2018 edition of the International Plumbing Code as published by the International Code Council, all under certain terms and conditions. I am joined by Walt Kryzanowski, Chairperson of the Plumbing Advisory Board, who is able to provide feedback on technical aspects of the Plumbing Code. In 2019, the City undertook an effort to modernize its Plumbing Code to allow for the use of new materials and to standardize construction by providing requirements consistent with model codes in the PA Construction Code. The 2018 Philadelphia Plumbing Code was the result of a tireless effort of the Plumbing Advisory Board who spent countless hours carefully considering how best to balance the national standards of the International Plumbing Code with the longstanding provisions of the Philadelphia Plumbing Code addressing the unique conditions in our City. This level of change at the state or national level requires years of review by multiple committees, but the 2018 Plumbing Code was largely the product of the dedicated team of experts that comprises the Plumbing Advisory Board. Since the adoption of the 2018 Philadelphia Plumbing Code, the Plumbing Advisory Board, the Department of L&I, the Water Department and the Streets Department have identified the need to make updates to the Plumbing Code to include certain provisions of the prior Plumbing Code that were inadvertently admitted, to clarify provisions of the code and address technical errors. This proposal is in accordance with the recommendation of the Plumbing Advisory Board based on both careful review of the code language and their direct expertise, experience in applying the provisions of the 2018 Plumbing Code over the past several years. The department is supportive of this bill as it is proposed to be amended and is prepared to enforce its provision should it become law. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the department's testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Sarah. Are there any questions or comments from members of this Committee for Sarah? (No response.)
Hearing no questions from Members for this panel and there be no 10 other panels to testify, we will call witnesses on Bill No. 220364.
Mr. Chair, the script continues to the next page. And for all the members referenced to you, I was just given notice the updated amendments are being sent over to me now. And so, during comment on 220364, I will circulate those to all of you and your staff.
Please call the panel we have to testify this morning on Bill No. 2 220364.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first panel will be from the Administration, Télyse -- and I apologize for the mispronunciation -- Masaoay, Director of Racial equity, Policy and Practice in the Mayor's Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
Good morning. Are you connected and ready to proceed?
Sure. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony and thank you for being here.
My name is Télyse Masaoay. And good morning, Councilmember Driscoll, Chair of the Licenses & Inspections Committee, Committee Vice-Chair Councilmember Squilla and other members of the Committee on Licenses & Inspections. Again, my name is Télyse Masaoay and I'm the Director of Racial Equity, Policy and Practice in the Mayor's Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion or DEI. I'm here to testify in opposition of Bill No. 220364, which proposes amendments to Chapter 9-4900 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Prohibition on Use of Certain Bags by Retail Establishments," to require retail establishments to charge a fee for the provision of a bag to customers for removal of purchased items and further defining what bags are prohibited at check-out. The Office of DEI is committed to creating a more equitable Philadelphia where race, ethnicity, disability, gender, sexual orientation, income or neighborhood are not a determinant of success. Our commitment has resulted in nearly 300 City employees trained in racial equity, 32 Racial Equity Action Plans from City departments and agencies, millions of dollars invested in racial equity strategies, programs and staff and the launch of Philadelphia's first Racial Equity Community of Practice and Racial Equity Strategy Dashboard. The Office of DEI believes that all aspects of City government should center racial equity in decision-making. And unfortunately, Bill No. 220364 does not adequately address the potential inequitable impacts of a bag fee. With that in mind, the Office of DEI opposes Bill No. 23 220364 as introduced and even with its proposed technical amendments. We along with the rest of the Administration support the intent of the bill to further Philadelphia's commitment to environmental sustainability and reduce the use of single use bags at retail establishments which often contribute to litter. However, the Office of DEI believes that the bill raises several equity concerns and should be revised before moving forward. 15 to customers. The bill may disproportionately impact low-income Philadelphians, especially communities of color. 84 percent increase in the probability of being food insecure for low-income households. We know that food insecurity is also a racial equity issue in Philadelphia with Black and Hispanic Philadelphians experiencing food insecurity rates that are three to five times greater than White Philadelphians. Without protection for low-income residents such as Philadelphians who use SNAP or WIC benefits to pay for groceries, seniors and communities of color, this bill may unintentionally cause harm. Further, the bill as written does not protect customers against price gouging by businesses that may happen as a result of this new bag fee. Already many grocery stores and retailers in the City charge a fee for single use bags at check-out. This legislation may provide additional cover for retailers to inflate prices at a time where the cost of groceries in the region has surged percent since 2020. Additionally, the bill ask retailers to recoup the cost of single use bags through this bag fee, meaning that this bag fee is not being used to support Philadelphians directly. The Office of DEI suggests that City Council consider amending the bill 11 to earmark any fee revenue to be used for environmental justice efforts in Philadelphia's communities that are most impacted by environmental harm and climate change. Lastly, it's important to consider the potential unintended consequences that this bill may have on businesses, especially small businesses and mom-and-pop shops. 15 fee per bag may ultimately push Philadelphians to shop outside of City limits to avoid this added cost or push businesses outside of the City when they consider compliance with this requirement as one more hurdle to doing business in Philadelphia.
Small businesses and nonchain stores are typically most impacted by these unintended consequences and in addition, the impact on disadvantaged, minority and women-owned business enterprises has not yet been evaluated. In review, the Office of DEI opposes this bill as written because the bill does not provide adequate protections for low-income residents, seniors or economically vulnerable communities of color, does not protect customers against price gouging by businesses, does not earmark the bag fee for environmental justice efforts and may harm businesses in Philadelphia. We encourage City Council to review and amend this bill to address these and other equity concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. This concludes my testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions from the Committee at this time.
Well, thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee?
Thank you. Télyse, thank you for your testimony. I'm not sure you're aware. When we first initially did the legislation and worked through the Administration, we wanted to use the fees for that purpose but the Administration had told us that it would be too complicated to be able to enforce the fees, collect the fees and then use the fees in that way. Are you familiar with that?
I was not part of the Administration at the time this was initially announced last year or part of those conversations at least. There may be other folks on this call who are familiar with that trajectory. But if that is the case, I think it would be great to move forward with conversations around that.
Yeah, only because when we wanted to collect the fees and use them to either help offset the cost of the collections or the fees or use them for social equity ideas, it just came back that the Administration didn't believe that they were capable of doing that. And so, it just seemed odd that that would be something that the Administration now would be supporting. And you talked about the equity issue, and that was brought up during the first pass of this legislation. Do you know what percentage of Philadelphians have access to supermarkets?
I do not know the exact statistic of the number of percen -- of Philadelphians that have access to supermarkets and specifically within a particular distance from their home.
Right, within walking distance that's proportionate to their homes. It's 87 percent. And the markets that are mostly what we call underserved communities, places like Save-A-Lot, Aldi and places like that already do not offer bags as part of their sale of groceries and goods. They would have to purchase bags currently at a lot of the markets that pertain to a lot of underserved areas. Are you aware of that?
I do know that there are several stores across the Philadelphia region that do not offer bags currently. I think our concern again with the institution of a bag fee is just the way the bill is currently written it may disproportionately impact low-income Philadelphians. If there's an opportunity to introduce amendments that may protect, for example, Philadelphians that use WIC or SNAP benefits from potentially increasing the cost of their groceries in that way, that that would definitely change the Administration's support of the bill as written.
Okay. Because during the conversations with the Administration -- the goal of the legislation is to bring your own bag, right, not to charge for bags because we don't want to charge for bags, we don't want single use bags. So that's the goal of the legislation. So it was to provide reusable bags to folks through other means. And we've seen through the studies that were enforced through the previous legislation that the access to reusable bags has been plenty as far as giveaways and people marketing and things like that for the underserved community and, therefore, you do not have to pay for the bags. So the goal of the legislation is not to have people pay for bags, but just to bring your own bag. Do you know there's a total of 149 supermarkets in the City of Philadelphia. And in the areas that we are looking at, especially in the underserved areas, more than 50 percent of them are in the underserved or Black and Brown communities. So the goal is to give them more access to have reusable bags and not pay for bags. So maybe that was a misunderstanding with the Administration on this process. But I'd be happy to work with you. I mean, we haven't worked with you in the past on this legislation. We always worked through the Mayor's Office and through their Chief of Staff and their policy people. We'd love to work with you in the future on these to see how we can enhance this bill in the future. So thank you for your testimony and you'll probably hear some additional testimony from others who by doing the research from the previous bill 23 showing that the use of paper bags has skyrocketed during our implementation. And again, the goal is to use reusable bags, not to charge for bags. So thank you so much.
Well, thank you, Vice-Chair Squilla. I also want to note that Councilmember Katherine Gilmore Richardson has joined us. Good morning, Councilwoman. Are there any other questions from members of this panel?
So if I understand the intent of this legislation, it is not designed to be a revenue generator for the City of Philadelphia; is that correct? And I guess this is more towards Member Squilla.
Yes, that is correct. This is not a revenue generator. The idea is they change in policy in bringing bags with you and reusing the reusable bags, not to make money. And the statistics show that when these policies are in effect that the single use bags are reduced and there are no fees being charged. Most people have changed their way of how they shop. As they move forward, there is hardly any revenue to be generated from something like this legislation.
So I remember Councilman DiCicco first brought this to this body and I'm thankful that you have picked up the flag and moving forward. My question would be -- I heard you say that there was an increase in paper bag usage. And how does that affect the environment?
Yes. I mean, any single use bag as far as environmental concerns is important. When we saw the increase in the usage, we saw that the idea of people reusing a bag is not as great. So it's just as environmentally harmful to get rid of all the paper bags and plus having to use the resources and materials to make the paper bags is environmentally challenging. So through our studies that we commissioned through the previous bill, it had shown that the high use of paper bags which was not the intent of the legislation was really the negative impact or the unintended consequence of not having a fee so people felt like they didn't have to bring their own bags, they could just switch their use from plastic to paper.
Are there any other questions from Members for this panel? (No response.)
Hearing no further questions from Members on this panel, Mr. Golden, will you please call the second panel we have to testify this morning on Bill No. 220364.
For the second panel, we have Maurice Sampson, II, Executive Eastern Pennsylvania Director, Clean Water Action; and Faran Savitz, Zero Waste Advocate at Penn Environment.
Good morning, Mr. Sampson. Would you please proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. Yes. Good morning, Councilmember Driscoll, Councilmember Squilla and members of the Committee. My name is Maurice Sampson. I'm the Eastern Pennsylvania Director for Clean Water Action. I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. I'm speaking in favor of the Bill 220364. The bill offers amendments to the former Plastic Bag Act that was passed in 2019, which effectively would ban all plastic bags as of the 1st of April 2022. I want to offer a quick review of both legislation, which benefits and in particular its impact on underserved communities. While the plastic bag was successful, it dramatically reduced the use of plastic bags, a study released by the Administration in April of this year indicates that over half the bags still in use are paper and plastic, and the percentage of shoppers using paper bags has nearly tripled. Today's legislation amends the Plastic Bag Act of 2019 by striking out confusing language in that bill 10 regarding thickness. It also includes the so-called degradable bags, which are also not bad. 25 or more. 15 cent fee on all paper bags. While the paper is preferable over plastic, the goal of this bill is waste reduction, to reduce the use of all single use bag, paper and plastic, in favor of the uses of the bags. A minimum of a percent fee is key to reaching an 80 percent reduction of all carry-out bags. Now, paper bags that are distributed at no cost at check-out are not free. Retailers have traditionally covered the expense by increasing the cost of all groceries. Prior to the bill, that amounted to $20 million a year. Bags provide no incentive to reduce bags, and thus, increasing consumer costs. Fees serve as a disincentive to encourage customers to either skip the bag all together or to choose reusable bags (inaudible). A legislative minimum fee evens the playing field among chain stores who can gain an advantage over independent and unionized stores by spreading the cost over their chains nationally or regionally and then offering bags at no cost to customers. Now, retailers keep the fee for the purpose of covering the costs of the bag that are requested by a customer. Fees have a dramatic impact on consumer behavior. Fees raise the question, do I really need this bag. When the City of Chicago first passed its bill after having a plastic ban, they had a 50 percent decrease in the first month. These were people who asked that question and simply decided not to take a bag. San José, California saw an 89 percent reduction in storm drain bag litter after enacting a plastic bag fee on bags. The plastic bag ban does not benefit the poor unless there is a fee. Exempting them from the fee will make it worse and here's why: There are 29 discount supermarkets in Philadelphia that service the population in the City with an income of less than $35,000. Aldis, Lidls and Shopping Bags, these stores have been charging for their bags since 1989, which is when the bags first came out. The purpose is to keep the prices lower. A survey of 41 products from these stores and in comparison to the national chain such as Walmart were found to be to 12 percent less expensive than the 13 national chains. What that means 14 is if you provide exemptions for 15 SNAP, you are actually going to increase the cost on groceries for everyone. Now, what about the corner stores, the bodegas or the papi stores, the groceries and convenient stores. There are about 1800 small scale stores, many of which are in -- 1800 of them, in fact, are in and serve the low-income communities. They are mostly locally-owned and they're a valuable and major business sector in Philadelphia's Black and Brown communities. They are also much more costly. However, they are convenient and sometimes the only option to people within walking distance. An exemption would cause significant burden to those stores.
When they did the study, they didn't consider the corner stores. Many, if most, right now are still using the plastic bags. The plastic bag ban would compel those vendors to purchase paper bags that are four to five times the cost of plastic bags. When you exempt the fees from them, the customers have no incentive to seek or use reusable bags. Exemptions essentially reduce the quality of lives. Now, without enforcement plastic bag litter is going to continue. If you have compliance, it's going to increase the cost of groceries. And if you do the enforcement to say who's doing it and who's not, you're basically going to offer more victimization of an already victimized community. Fees on paper bags promote equity. Fees level the playing field for all retailers. Fees reveal the true cost of paper bags. Fees allow retailers to maintain or reduce the cost of groceries. Fees allow all retailers to treat bags like any other product. If you want a bag, you have to buy it. If you don't want to buy one, bring one. Higher fees raise the question why take the bag. And it makes a decision for the customer that changes their behavior. Once the behavior is changed they're not going back. Fees give customers a choice. You can either reduce your cost with reusable bags or you can buy a bag. Now, fees remind shoppers to bring reusable bags. Yes, some are going to say I forgot my bags and got to pay this time, but it is that very fact that helps you remember to bring your reusable bag. Fees bring less litter, and that means an improved quality of life. 15 a bag too much to pay to improve the quality of life in our very oppressed neighborhoods when it comes to trash and garbage dumping, well, that's a question that I think others can answer. The one other question I didn't answer from the previous presenter was about price gouging. The whole intent is to get people to use reusable bags. If the bags are more expensive, there's less a chance that you're going to buy it so it is counterintuitive. The point of the bag is not to make a lot of money selling the bags. And think about it, if you go in the store and a paper bag costs a dollar, if you didn't remember to bring the reusable bag this time, I guarantee you the next time you're going to do it. With that, let me end my comments and see if you have any questions.
Thank you, Maurice. I think we'll hold questions until -- I think we have one other panelist that may want to testify. Faran Savitz.
Yes. Hopefully you can hear me okay. Thank you all for having me and holding this hearing on Bill No. 21 220364. My name's Faran Savitz. I'm the Zero Waste Advocate with Penn Environment. Penn Environment is a statewide citizen-based environmental nonprofit. We are dedicated to ensuring that all Pennsylvanians have clean air, clean water and safe and livable climate. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill 220364. I'll explain the problem we're addressing and then go into what the bill does and why it's important. The core of the problem is that in Philadelphia like the rest of Pennsylvania and around the country, we have a stuff problem. We're encouraged to make, use and toss items at the greatest possible speed. Americans create about 12 percent of the world's waste, but we're only responsible of the world's population. And so much in what we use and discard are single use items, items we use once for a couple of minutes and then we throw them away. But the reality is there is no away. Whether a waste goes to an incinerator, whether it goes to a landfill, whether it ends up litter directly in our environment, it poses a harm for wildlife and for our health. Plastic bags are sort of the poster child for this kind of waste. They're used for less than minutes on average. They can't 9 be recycled easily in Philadelphia. 10 They're made from fossil fuels. 11 They never truly go away. And 12 there's easy sustainable 13 alternatives like a reusable bag. 14 And Philadelphia has in the past 15 been a leader in tackling this form of waste. City Council passed the ban on plastic ban in 2019. It was just the third local ban in Pennsylvania tackling plastic pollution. The City was also part of a legal challenge that helped end the state's preemption law, the ban on local bans in 2021 (inaudible) paving the way for other municipalities to take action. But despite success in certain areas, the law passed in 2019 is following short in several key aspects, the bill being discussed today would fix these issues and make Philadelphia a leader of tackling plastic pollution in other waste again. It has two main purposes to clarify and strengthen definitions so that retailers and shoppers know what bags can and cannot be used. And adding the small fee for bags provided by retailers to expand the impact of the law to all waste, not just plastic bags. Both of these changes are based best practices we've seen around the country and Pennsylvania in laws like these and would make Philadelphia consistent with some of the strongest ordinances passed in the state. Starting with fee, I think it's important to note that these laws that have been mentioned are not just about tackling plastic waste. They're about tackling waste from all bags and in other areas too. Plastic bags are the worst option for our environment. Their single use bags like paper ones have material cost, they have a waste footprint and energy cost. And so, the best option from an environmental and public health standpoint is to use a bag that you bring with you to a store over and over and over again essentially not creating waste every time you use it and not wanting to create a new bag every time you go shopping. A small per-bag fee serves as sort of an important psychological reminder to us to remember that usable option or to use fewer bags when we shop. 15 for a paper bag, you're less likely to use five paper bags. You're more likely to use three, two or no bags at all. And you can have ripple effects outward too. If you're consistently remembering reusable bags spurred on by this fee, you might be more likely to make changes in other parts of your life, using a reusable bottle, to use reusable straws and utensils instead of single use ones. It goes on and on and on. The fee can help flip the switch in our brains to move away from a throw-away mindset to a reusable one and we know these fees are effective. C.
pairing a fee with a ban significantly reduces litter and waste and significantly increases reusable bag use and the evidence suggests the policy is needed in Philadelphia. The study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh and Swarthmore College on behalf of the City has been mentioned before. But just to put a finer point on it, it showed that the law passed in 2019 was effective at tackling plastic waste. Research estimated that plastic bag use by Philadelphians decreased by some 93 percent since the law took effect. However, as that plastic bag use decreased, paper bags filled the void. The reusable bag use did increase, but the rise was more (inaudible) by that increase in paper bag use, so increasing the waste from these other single use alternatives. If we're serious about tackling waste, we have to encourage more reusable benefits and we do that with a fee. And it's also important to mention that the vast majority of plastic bag laws in Pennsylvania include these bag fees. There are currently 4 local plastic ordinances in the 5 Commonwealth. 21 of them have 6 passed since Philadelphia's, most 7 of them in the collar counties 8 surrounding us. 9 Three-quarters include fees 10 on paper bags or other bags 11 provided by a retailer. Our second 12 largest city, Pittsburgh, has a ban 13 that's hybrid as do many of the 14 townships and boroughs in the 15 collar counties. Notably among 16 them, Upper Merion Township which 17 contains the King of Prussia, one 18 of the largest retail hubs not just 19 in the region but the country. 20 They passed a ban on single use 21 plastic bags this year with a fee 22 on paper bags or other bags given 23 out by a retailer. Philadelphia is 24 being left behind by its neighbors on this issue and it's time we took the lead again. Before I close, I just want to briefly touch on the importance of strengthening the definitions in the law. As the City's plastic bag law currently stands, some of the language around what constitutes the plastic bag or reusable bag to be confusing or misinterpreted and has led to loopholes being exploited that could have negative impacts for environment. The proposal being discussed will clear up inconsistencies for the definitions of plastic bags, including a definition for plastic and for reusable bags. A study done by Penn Environment after the City's bag ban went into effect found that many of the chain retailers in Philadelphia had switched to thin plastic bags to thicker plastic bags they were claiming were reusable. We've seen this done before in cities around the country where thick plastic bags are passed off as a more sustainable alternative. The problem is they're still plastic. We still use them just once. They can't be recycled. They're not durable or washable like true reusable and they use more plastic than thinner plastic bags creating even more of an environmental impact. The new definitions would help close this loophole and ensure that the ban applies to any bag regardless of its thickness. It also clarified that any bags made from bioplastics, degradable plastics, all these plastics that seem like they may be good for the environment, they're single use, they pose harms to our environment and when it comes down to it, they create waste. And so, the new definitions make it clear that these are all plastic bags so they'll be covered by the ban. If this bill is passed, they make Philadelphia consistent with some of the strongest plastic bag laws on the books in Pennsylvania. From my experience working with townships and boroughs not just around Philadelphia but around the state, they look to the City often as the model and a guide. The issues in the current bag law, the City is not setting a good example. With this bill, Philly can be a leader in reducing waste again. The best option to use, and I can't stress this enough, when shopping is the one you bring and use over and over and over again.
Nothing we use for just a few minutes should be allowed to (inaudible) our environment and harm our health and health of our wildlife for years to come. Thank you for allowing me to testify today and for holding this hearing on this issue. I'll conclude my testimony and see if there are any questions you have.
Thank you, Mr. Savitz. And thank you, Mr. Sampson. Are there any questions or comments from members of this Committee for this panel? (No response.)
Mr. Sampson, I know when you talked about the equity and the issue, wasn't it that they did research about who complies the quickest when it comes to these type of changes, behavioral changes and as we see with a lot of the businesses that already are currently underserved in Black and Brown communities?
Yes. In fact, when the study was done, and the study that Philadelphia has done has been done in Chicago and numerous other cities, a pretty standard study, they did a comparison of what the uses were both in the suburbs and in the city and they looked at the kind of bags and what they found was that before and after (inaudible) it was the low-income community that used the most reusable bags. It was also the low-income community that adjusted the quickest to the bag and used less than their suburban counterparts. So the real information that we're getting here is that people who are poor are poor doesn't mean that they are uninformed or that they're unintelligent when it comes to these things. They make the adjustment first and if you ride buses as I do and you look on the streets and shop, you will notice how many people are bringing their reusable bags. Reusable bags travel better. You can carry more bags even than the small plastic thick ones or the paper bags and they don't break. And worst-case scenario, you can imagine working with a paper bag in the rain. It just doesn't work. So, yes, people who have low income are more inclined to use reusable bags than anyone else. Left unchanged, basically the bill would have the least benefit to low-income people.
Are there any other questions or comments from the members of this Committee?
I'd like to thank everybody so far who testified and appreciate their input on this. And obviously, I don't know if this will be the last go-round as we do additional studies and see how these bills impact. I'm sure there will be additional changes. Also, if there is something that they believe we as a City should do to make sure there is additional equity involved, I am happy to also work on that. So thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Squilla, on this important legislation. Hearing no further questions from members for this panel, Mr. Golden, will you please call the third panel we have to testify this morning on Bill No. 21 220364.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next panel is Teea Tynes, Sandra Calhoun and Nick Saunders.
Good morning all. Thank you for having me today. Once again good morning. Have you ever seen a video where an octopus or jellyfish wraps itself around a person's face? Never experienced that, but I have had a plastic bag blown into mine and had to peel it away. Speaking of peel, have you ever slipped on a banana peel or wet leaves? I've done both and also I've slipped on a plastic bag or three. V. I've never seen tumbleweed tumbling across a lonely road, but I've seen the urban version of that, plastic bags flowing across the streets of our fair city. My name is Teea Tynes and I live in the Fairhill section of North Philadelphia. I'm a member of HACE Team NAS, a Neighborhood Advisory Subcommunity, of neighbors, a community group of active and concerned citizens and Trash Academy, which educates through participatory research, teachings and workshops and uses games and public art as a disarming point of entry to build campaigns that drive proactive transformation of the waste stream to reduce its impact on people and specific highly-impacted neighborhoods here in Philadelphia and the planet at large. I belong to these groups to improve the environment in my neighborhood and beyond. Fairhill is Black and Brown and considered poor and marginalized. Dumping and litter unfortunately is a part of life. Folks like me, older and female, are often left to clean up the mess which is physically and mentally tasking. Which trash am I going to find on my sidewalk today often enter my thoughts. More likely than not, part of the trash is a plastic bag. Having participated in many block and neighborhood clean-ups, single use plastic bags make up quite a bit of the content. Seeing less of them has been good but not seeing them at all would be great. Not only are the bags unsightly, they also harbor dirt, debris, (inaudible) and as mentioned before are a safety hazard. In my opinion, the plastic bag ban has been a very environmentally sound decision. However, after two years we can see where the bag can be tweaked and be better defined and implemented. Implementing a bag fee would largely be a put-off to many consumers and would encourage more use of reusable bags. 15 is not of lot of money, but you're less likely to carelessly discard that bag if you had to outright pay for it if you decided to purchase it at all. 25 increase has made a consumer's purchase at Dollar Tree more deliberate and thoughtful. I personally keep at least one reusable bag in my backpack in case of making a casual or unexpected purchase. I have found that their use frees up precious cabinet space that would otherwise be used to house single use plastic bags and frees my mind on how to recycle an item, which is highly unrecyclable. Keep your head up is something I'm sure everyone has heard and been told. I find it difficult to do so. One, along with other things in life, seeing illegal dumping and litter indefinitely puts a damper on my spirit. Two, I have to look down to mind where I step. The argument that the single use plastic ban and a bag fee are burdensome to communities like mine is extremely insulting and obscures the real -- excuse me, excuse the real burden. My community has been forced to adjust to so much and some of those things are quite unpleasant and unfair such as illegal dumping from outsiders. However, I don't see that in the bag ban and bag fee. It's the one adjustment we should be proud to get behind. It's not just good for us but the planet at large. Do you know what trash abatement is? It's the act of repeatedly cleaning up illegal dumping and litter. That is the real burden. The burden is a subsequent health, mental health and cleaning from living in conditions that simply would not be accepted in other neighborhoods in Philadelphia. I've given you a tiny glimpse of how single use plastic bags affects my community, but understand that globally it is far worse than I have time to express to you at this time. Thank you so much for listening.
Thank you, Ms. Tynes. Is Sandra available? (No response.)
Good morning to you and respectfully good morning to you all. My name is Aminata Sandra Calhoun. I live in the Belmont section of Philadelphia in the residential community neighborhood. I'm speaking profoundly in support of Bill 5 220364. I am a long-term member of the Trash Academy for systemic change. Trash Academy, we engage in grassroots organizing. With frontline communities, we collectively address environmental injustice of litter dumping and the impacts of consumption and (inaudible) waste stream so we can take action together for solutions at the system level. I'm also the Director of Sanitation and Environmental Programming for Centennial Parkside CDC, Block Captain of the 1000 block of Belmont Avenue and an environmental advocate. Upon returning to West Philadelphia in 2016, I with a grave visual observance saw a barrage of plastic bags daily and consistently smothering vacant lots, index curbsides to streets, dangling from treetops on my neighborhood block. Until this present day in time, the sight of plastic bags amasses this community that I live in and has become extremely intense and overwhelming to the degree of obnoxious. It is so obnoxious I have acquired an illness of EDD, environmental distraught distress. Due to being subjected to ongoing plastic bags on the streets everywhere, alleys, illegal dumping tires in lots, exterior of corner stores and businesses, I surmise the burden of these plastic bags lie to a large degree with the papi stores that saturate and define economic-challenged communities. In one neighborhood radius there is one poppy store on each and every corner and the said mentioned stores are open seven days a week for a minimum of hours a day. Immediate neighborhood, there are 12 papi stores each providing two-meal plastic bags to each and every customer served. The enormity of the plastic bags present a critical human health safety hazard to all well-beings along with implementing plastic pollution into the environment. As discussed in some circles, the plastic bag fee would be an economic challenge for low-income communities, but let me tell you that statement is a fallacy. A fee placed on plastic bags and/or paper bags was served to change people's behavior awakening them to environmental unconsciousness, increasing the ingested plastic-leaching pollutants in the water that we drink and bathe our bodies with. I want to in closing express that as the Director of Sanitation and Environmental Cleaning in West Philadelphia I am cleaning streets five days a week, and the percentage of the plastic bags that I gather by the end of the week, 75 percent is the total of the trash and litter that is accumulated from cleaning the streets here in West Philadelphia. That is a sin and a disgrace to the City of Philadelphia. It is so embarrassing for me to even let friends and associates come into the area which where I live. I am really not pleased. I'm unhappy just looking at these plastic bags all over the place, not just in West Philadelphia, in Center City and other places that I visit, but a lack to zero when I go to East Falls, Mount Airy, Chestnut Hill, I see zero to one, if any. And here in the immediate defined low-income communities, I found 1,000 percent each and every day of plastic bags. Wake up. We need to really rid ourselves of this situation. We are contributing to the demise of the climate and the environment. Thank you very much. And I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to speak.
Good morning, Councilmembers and other guests here. I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of this amendment to the plastic ban bill. My name is Nicholas Saunders, Nick Saunders. I live in the Fairmount section of Philadelphia in a large condominium with over 1,000 residents. Our condo has an active Green Task Force consisting of staff and resident members with experience and expertise in environmental topics from recycling, composting and other waste disposal policy and practices to energy conservation and use of reusable. We keep one another informed about the news in these various areas. For several years -- oh, yes, I want to mention this. Furthermore, it's a group of mostly older citizens. We have grandchildren and even great-grandchildren whose future environments need to be protected and, therefore, we've joined together in nonpartisan fashion where there are issues involving environmental legislation. For several years I have participated in the task force to support Philadelphia's ban on plastic bags in order to significantly reduce litter and problems those plastic bags have caused in recycling. In December of 2019, we came to City Hall to demonstrate our support for the plastic bag ban bill, including placing a fee on any check-out bags that would be alternatives when the City ban the plastic ones. We knew then that the ban would be much more successful if vendors also charged a fee to support the provision or their provision of substitute nonplastic check-out bags. That support would encourage vendors to purchase nonplastic check-out bags which are more expensive than the throw-away plastic ones. It makes sense also to have a legislation that sets a minimum fee in order that there be a level-playing field for vendors, and so that customers would realize that the bags are not free in the true sense of the word. We believe also that a fee would motivate customers to use their own reusable bags in order to save money. That would reduce litter and will generally reduce polluting waste disposal caused by incineration and landfills. In the meantime we have seen some reduction in vendors' provision of plastic bags and some increase in customers use of reusable bags, but it's been minor in our view. And some of us believe it may be even slipping. So we are happy to testify for this amended bill with its $0.15 minimum fee. We're also happy that this amended version of the plastic bag bill makes it quite clear what type of bags are banned. When I talked with an owner of a local store, he was under the impression that the heavier-duty plastic bags in his store provided a response to the ban and that they did meet the requirements of the ban. That was because the original ban had two definitions of the banned bag, only one of which would eliminate the disposal problem of the plastic bag. The store's owner was sold the incorrect one by his supplier. The store's owner thought that he was complying with the plastic bag ban. To conclude, those of us in the Green Task Force in my condo believe that this amendment with its minimum fee and for the nonplastic bags and the clarification of what is considered a banned plastic bag will result in a much-improved more effective plastic bag ban. We believe it will help level the playing field for vendors and encourage less litter and other problems that are caused by the plastic check-out bags. As consumers choose the reusable option and have a more environmentally conscious mindset, we see this amendment as a small but important step into a sustainable future for our grandchildren and others. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Saunders, and thank you panelists for your testimony. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee for this panel? (No response.)
Hearing no further questions from members of this panel, Mr. Golden, will you please call the fourth panel we have to testify this morning on Bill No. 220364.
Panelists for the fourth panel include Hillary Baum from Philadelphia Neighborhood Works and Weavers Way Co-op; Adam Nagel from Penn Future; Lindsay Christinee from Sierra Club Southeastern Pennsylvania Group, and Alisa -- pardon me for the mispronunciation again -- Shargorodsky from ECHO Systems.
Okay. Good morning, Councilmembers. I am Hillary Baum, a resident of Northwest Philadelphia. I'm here representing two local groups, the Environment Action Committee of Philadelphia Neighborhood Networks and the Plastic Reduction Task Force, a volunteer committee of Weavers Way Food Co-op. We are familiar -- while we provide free resources through our newsletter, the Philly Talks Trash Quarterly, and we focus on single use plastics food waste, litter and dumping, we are familiar with shortcomings of the current plastic bag ban and have examined it with members from the broader environmental community and fully support Bill No. 220364, the proposed amendment to the current ban on single use plastic shopping bags, we believe that the litter generated by the ubiquity of plastic shopping bags is detrimental to the well-being of all Philadelphia neighborhoods and must be significantly reduced by efforts such as this Committee. The utilization of reusable bags must become the goal. No 23 plastic or paper shopping bags should be free of charge. I'd like to make three more points: One, this amendment legislates a fee, which does not have to raise prices. Not having a separate fee for shopping bags increases the price of groceries and other goods for consumers and increases the cost of doing business for the retailer. A $0.15 fee at check-out which would go directly to the retailer as proposed would encourage retailers to keep the cost of paper shopping bags and other acceptable alternatives separate from the price of their goods without necessitating related rise in their prices. A legislated fee would also level the playing field for groceries in almost all other retail establishments and act as a natural reinforcer as all stores that have to charge for bags at check-out. The existence of a fee would encourage shoppers to bring their own reusable bags, reduce the amount of plastic bags on our streets and in our waterways and help improve the quality of life for everyone, the end goal of this amendment. My second point, this amendment clarifies the language helping assure its effectiveness. While some plastic bag usage has been reduced, the current bill 11 allows for loopholes which dampen its effectiveness. For example, under the current bill's language which only bans bags under 2.5 mils thick, thicker plastic bags often under the guise of reusable have replaced thin ones and continue to litter neighborhoods and pollute our environment. The amendment removes this thickness stipulation which will assure the ban applies to all plastic shopping bags. Additional important updated definitions include plastic, compostable and reusable bags. Number three, this amendment encourages reusable bags over single use plastic bags and other single use bags. Switching from plastic to paper shopping bags is a step in the right direction being recyclable and compostable but not as environmental sound as utilizing a sturdy reusable or using no bag at all. Any single use bag is one too many. To have a sustainable future, we all need to choose bags which we can reuse. Single use disposal bags and other items end up in the landfills releasing climate, harming (inaudible) and in our neighborhoods despoiling communities and in our waterways damaging ecosystems or burned in incinerators polluting the air of the communities around them. You've heard the expression think outside the box. We think it's time to think outside the single use bag. Please vote to support Bill No. 220364 what we like to call the bring your own bag bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Driscoll. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Adam Nagel and I serve as Director of Government Affairs with Penn Future and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony regarding Bill 17 No. 220364. Penn Future is a statewide environmental advocacy nonprofit and the main focus of our work is to improve and protect water resources and water quality across Pennsylvania with particular emphasis on the Delaware River Basin and Philadelphia through public outreach, education, advocacy and litigation. Penn Future strongly supports Bill No. 220364 as we believe that it is a critical next step in the City's efforts to significantly reduce our reliance on single use plastics and build on the foundation laid by the City's original ban on these items in 2019. Prior to Philadelphia's original ban, estimates show that the City used well over 1 billion plastic bags a year, which litter our streets and clog our waterways. Plastic litter in our water is a massive problem and plastic bags remain a significant challenge to this day. In one year 44 tons of trash were removed by the Philadelphia Water Department from a 32-mile stretch of the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers. 66 percent of that trash was plastic litter. The Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers are precious resources and serve as the lifeblood of the Philadelphia region. Quite simply, the status quo is nonsustainable. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protections 2022 Integrated Water Quality Report, Philadelphia has a higher percentage of polluted creeks and streams than any other county in Pennsylvania. Nearly 97 percent of Philadelphia streams are considered impaired. This is due in large part of the impact of stormwater runoff which is generated from rain and snow melt that flows over land or impervious surfaces such as (inaudible) parking lots and building rooftops and does not soak into the ground. Often stormwater runoff can pick up and deposit harmful pollutants like single use plastic bags. This can cause numerous problems for our water and for residents. As the Water Department's website states, single use plastics can clog storm drains, increasing problems like flooding and pollution. Luckily, the City has started to make strides in reducing the harmful impacts of single use plastics on our water. The ban passed in 2019 is helping to reduce plastic pollution in our rivers, creeks and streams. However, more must be done to effectively reduce litter that clog storm drains, exacerbate flooding and pollutes our water. Bill No. 220364 provides us with an opportunity to do just that. Penn Future greatly appreciates Councilman Squilla's tireless commitment to this issue and we would ask for an affirmative vote on Bill No. 220364. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today.
Thank you, Adam. Appreciate your testimony. Our third testifier would be Lindsay. Are you available?
Good morning. Thank you, Councilmembers, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank the City of Philadelphia for having me here today to discuss the topic of a fee for the plastic bag ban. My name is Lindsay Christinee. I'm here to testify in support of Bill 20 No. 220364 as a delegate for the grassroots environmental organization, the Sierra Club. As a Philadelphian and a mother of a child in the public school system, I'm also here as a community member concerned about the environmental and health impacts of single use plastic. In 2019, I was one of the Philadelphians excited and thankful to hear that our City had taken the first step towards reducing single use plastic waste. However, I am concerned about the current language of the bill and the lack of a fee that are not yielding the positive impact that I believe a city like ours can achieve. Though progress has been made to reduce litter from the plastic bag ban, some stores are still using single use plastic bags and the use of paper bags has increased. By changing the language of the bill to be more specific and in stating a fee, retailers will have a clearer understanding of what is a reusable bag. Customers of all economic background will have a stronger incentive to carry reusable bags. I've done my own calculations as a single-income household. Based on my current personal shopping habits, I see close to $100 in grocery shopping alone when I bring a reusable bag. But reducing single use plastic bags is more than simply saving money. Reducing the plastic pollution crisis is imperative for our City's infrastructure and the health of our communities. Prior to the ban, Philadelphians were estimated to use about 1 billion plastic bags yearly. And the recent efficacy study of the plastic ban, an estimated 200 million plastic bags were prevented within the first year, while there was a 60 percent increase in use of paper bags. That means there are roughly 800 million plastic bags still in circulation clogging our sewers, drains, polluting our streets, water mains and they are having detrimental impacts on lower-income neighborhoods, are plastic accumulates and is incinerated. Today Philadelphia incinerates an estimated 50 percent of its recycling. Reducing those 800 million single use plastic bags will help protect our most vulnerable communities. Not only a landfill and incineration use cost this City with rates that have steadily risen over the last 15 years, they are also negatively 16 impacting the health of our lowest 17 income and environmental justice 18 communities. 19 In October of this year, 20 City Council heard testimony from Chester County residents urging Philadelphia to stop sending our trash to their incinerator for its citizen and to cut down on our trash. Incinerators as we know emit lead, particulate matter and mercury among other pollutants. But even if you don't live near an incinerator doesn't mean that your health isn't impacted. S. It's estimated to be about 200,000 pounds of plastic waste into our oceans, but parts of that waste stay behind. Microplastic, tiny pieces of plastic, 5 mm in length, break off from larger plastic items and are found in the Delaware River. These toxic particles contaminate our water, soil and our bodies. Nearly 17 million people get their drinking water from the Delaware River Basin. Columbia University published a study in 2012 showing that children exposed to chemicals and plastic have an elevated risk of asthma. S. has asthma. This rate has more than tripled for Philadelphia children with an asthma prevalence rate of 8 percent. In fact, Black and 9 Hispanic children in Philadelphia 10 have four times more asthma-related 11 hospitalizations in Philadelphia 12 compared to non-Hispanic White 13 children. Although I am not a 14 child, I'm a Black woman who lives 15 in Philadelphia and have been 16 hospitalized with asthma within the 17 last year. 18 As you heard earlier, the 19 current bill has loopholes.
Over 20 the last year I've seen this. I 21 have seen retailers, both large and small, that have and have not charged me a fee. 25. That shows me that some retailers are ready for this change and some are transparent with their customers of what they are paying for. I've also seen grocers and retailers, again large and small, continue to pass out plastic bags. Again as you've heard earlier, changing the language will give retailers a clear understanding over what plastic bags are and are not and what reusable bags are. This will strengthen the ban to make it truly effective in reducing plastic waste and helping us eliminate the 800 million single use plastic bags that are still in circulation, ensuring that the plastic ban is a truly effective step as the City of Philadelphia work towards its ambitious goal of becoming a zero waste and litter-free city with no 23 waste entering landfills and conventional incinerators by 2035. The Sierra Club, we strongly support Bill 220364. Thank you for your time and hearing my testimony today.
Well, thank you. So that concludes the three panelists, and thank all three of you for your testimony. Are there questions or comments from members of the Committee for this panel?
Mr. Chair, we have one more person on this panel. Alisa is up next.
Okay. Awesome. Good morning to the members of this Council and members of the Committee on Licenses & Inspections. My name is Alisa Shargorodsky. I'm the Founder and Director of ECHO Systems. For almost a decade, our organization has been committed to growing the local reuse and waste reduction movement in food service in Philadelphia and the surrounding areas. We build end-to-end systems and we have circulated tens of thousands of containers keeping them out of the waste stream. I'm also a member of PR-3, which is building a national reuse standards with ANSI. And I also sit on the Waste Reduction Plastic Reduction Task Force of Weavers Way. I'm here to testify in support of Bill No. 220364, which proposes amendments to Chapter 20 9-4900 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Prohibition of Use of Certain Bags by Retail Establishments." If done properly and with special safeguards for low-income sectors of our community, a judicious $0.15 charge for nonplastic bags will, in fact, safeguard establishments from pushing these fees onto their customers by inflating the prices of everyday necessities. This $0.15 fee can both buffer the cost of nonplastic bags and also in part be allocated towards securing an ecological restorative infrastructure within our City. San Francisco with its visionary plastic bag ban witnesses a remarkable 72 percent reduction of plastic bag litter on its streets within one year. The economic implications of such a reduction is profound, within the City saving an estimated 11 million annually in clean-up costs. Seattle hosted a 50 percent decrease in plastic bag litter in its city drains, preventing an astonishing 480 million plastic bags from entering the waste stream each year. This translated into substantial financial savings of approximately 3.6 million annual in clean-up expenditures. I imagine our city would benefit from these savings and these funds could be funneled towards economically- disadvantaged communities who face increasing mountain climate threats which will only worsen as we move into the future. I would like to also mention within a national context, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon has sponsored a series of hearings where experts laid bare the environmental and health impacts of plastic pollution. This is not just about eyesores on our streets. It's about the invisible threat that seeps into our air, water and food affecting us at all. Plastic pollution is a health crisis that demands our immediate attention. We simply cannot and should not pump the brakes but instead make our City as inhospitable as possible to single use plastic in general. This will only help -- this will only be made possible if we consider the needs of low-income businesses in making just transitions. The fee is important in encouraging reduction as our City has already proven. Also to add, a more robust public education campaign must reach every corner of Philadelphia, something that I do not believe is currently happening. It is not a luxury but a necessity. We need to bring this information to our schools, workplaces and community centers, ensuring that every citizen is aware of the consequences of plastic consumption and (inaudible) critical step towards overall source reduction. Only with true awareness of the threat can our community make informed commitments. Let us unite in the demand for comprehensive public education initiative and that will empower the urgency of reducing waste. That's what we're talking about here. This is an urgent necessity to move forward. The reduction of waste (inaudible) our health and ensures a cleaner, healthier future for future generations for all Philadelphians. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. This concludes my testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Well, thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions or comments from the Members for any of the panelists, the four that just spoke? (No response.)
Hearing no further questions from Members for this panel, are there any other panels to testify? We will call witnesses on Bill No. 4 230900.
For the Administration, we have Madeline Schuh, the City Energy Manager at the Office of Sustainability.
Hello. Good morning, Chair Driscoll and members of the Committee. My name is Madeline Schuh and I serve as the City Energy Manager for the City of Philadelphia and the Office of Sustainability's Municipal Energy Office. I'm here in support of Bill No. 230900 sponsored by Councilmember Johnson, which authorizes the purchase of electricity, natural gas and vehicle fuel for the City for its facilities to be delivered through Fiscal Year '27. In 2010, Council authorized the City to make electricity purchases for Fiscal '11 through Fiscal '14. In 2012, Council extended that authorization to Fiscal Year 2015 and has continued granting additional authorizations in subsequent years. Mayor Nutter issued Executive Order 610, creating an Electricity Supply Advisory Committee, the City Council Committee Chairs for Transportation and Utilities, Public Works and the Environment or their representatives serve on the Committee. The Electricity Supply Advisory Committee reviewed the electricity purchasing strategy and has been kept abreast of purchases. The City's Municipality Energy Office serves as the primary manager of the procurement of electricity, natural gas and vehicle fuel for the General, Aviation and Water Funds. The Office's energy procurement work is guided by the City's Municipality Energy Master Plan and through conversations with the City's Finance Department, Water Department and the Philadelphia International Airport. The Municipal Energy Office strives for the City's energy procurement to be low cost, to provide budgets of certainty and to have transparent pricing and to do so by increasingly using clean and renewable energy. The City government's electricity costs are significant and costs are all City funds, General, Aviation and Water Funds average to approximately 55 million over the previous three fiscal years. The cost of the General Fund including street lighting and signals for Fiscal '23 was approximately 36 million. In Fiscal Year '23 costs were higher due to energy market disruptions because of the war in Ukraine. The electricity supply of the total bill is about two-thirds of the total electricity costs. The City has successfully managed supply costs by purchasing in the wholesale electricity market and staggering purchases to limit the risk of paying a premium for electricity. The proposed ordinance 12 would authorize the City to make agreements for delivery of electricity in Fiscal '27 through a state-regulated license service provider. The City's license service provider was selected through a competitive process and acts as the City's agent making purchases in the regional electricity marketplace. In addition to electricity purchases, the City purchases natural gas and vehicle fuel from the competitive market for its largest buildings and accounts. The City's interruptible natural gas accounts are those that can switch from natural gas to an alternative fuel whenever Philadelphia Gas Works announces a temporary curtailment of gas service. The largest City buildings have accounts that qualify for access to the competitive market for natural gas supply. PGW is impartial of the City's approach to procurement as it is primarily compensated for delivery and distribution services of natural gas, not for its supply. 9 million in Fiscal '23. 9 million. 6 million in Fiscal Year '23. 5 million. For vehicle fuel, the City makes staggered purchases in the wholesale vehicle fuel market providing the City with budget stability. The proposed ordinance 16 would also authorize the City to make agreements for delivery of natural gas and vehicle fuel through Fiscal Year '27 with state- and federally-licensed providers. The current providers were selected through a competitive process and act as the City's agents in making purchases in the energy markets.
Building on a strong and growing relationship with the Philadelphia Energy Authority, the ordinance includes a provision that requires the Administration to inform a designated representative of PEA of the City's intent to make the purchases and consider the timely advice provided by the PEA on purchases. In closing, I anticipate that this procurement approach will continue to lower the City's electricity, natural gas and vehicle fuel bills, all while protecting the City from potential escalation in the energy prices over the next several years. It will contribute to competitive prices and budget certainty for the City's utility. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Madeline, for your testimony. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee for Madeline? (No response.)
Okay. So hearing no further questions from Members, we will take a brief break to connect members of the public that wish to testify on the resolution before the Committee today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we are all set to go to proceed to the next page with calling members of the public.
Okay. Please call the public commenter we have to testify this morning on the bill before the Committee today.
Today to testify on Bill 230653 we have Michael McGraw. MR. McGRAW: PHCC, this is Mike. Hello?
Mr. McGraw, we can hear you. Please proceed with your testimony and state your name for the record. (No response.)
Yes. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. MR. McGRAW: Thank you. Hello, Chairman Driscoll, members of the Council and representatives of Licenses & Inspections. My name is Michael McGraw. I'm the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Plumbing heating Cooling Contractors Association. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments on Bill No. 230653 today. And I'll be brief. After reading this bill and viewing its content with some of my members, we all agree that this bill makes sense with the proposed additions and deletions for a few reasons: Number one, the language changes clearly defines the inclusion of all persons regardless of how they identify themselves. The plumbing changes and definitions uphold the safety of the citizens and businesses in the City of Philadelphia. The plumbing motto across the country for over 140 years has been the plumber protects the health of the nation. Until 2018 there's been only a few changes to the City of Philadelphia's Plumbing Code. These new changes prove that the City of Philadelphia is committed to keeping their Plumbing Code current with proposed changes as-needed. Lastly, the bill definitely adds clarity to the existing code and for these reasons on behalf of the Pennsylvania PHCC, we support Bill No. 230653 as written. And I thank you for allowing me to provide these comments today.
Mr. Chair, there are no other members of the public wishing to testify on any bills before the Committee today. (No response.)
Mr. Chair, can you please proceed to the next session and go into the public meeting. (No response.) COUNCIL TECH SUPPORT: It looks like the Councilmember might have been disconnected.
Okay. So this concludes the public hearing of the Committee. We will now go into a public meeting to consider the action to be taken on the bills before this Committee today. We will now convene the public meeting. Mr. Golden, will you please call the roll to take attendance. Members that are in attendance will please indicate that you are present when your name is called. Also, please say a few brief words when responding so that your image will be displayed on screen when you speak.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, colleagues. I am present.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, viewing public, I am present.
Present. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Gilmore Richardson for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 230653.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 230653. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the Committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 5 230653 be approved.
The Chair notes that Councilmember Jones seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 12 230653 be approved. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries and the amendment to Bill No. 22 230653 has been approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Gilmore Richardson for a motion on Bill No. 230653 as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 5 230653 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at our next session of Council.
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Jones seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 19 230653 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Gilmore Richardson for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 220364.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 220364. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to members of the Committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 21 220364 be approved.
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Jones seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 220364 be approved. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries, and the amendment to Bill 14 No. 220364 has been approved. Chair recognizes Councilmember Gilmore Richardson for a motion on Bill No. 220364 as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 220364 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at our next session of Council.
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Jones seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 12 220364 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Chair recognizes Councilmember Gilmore Richardson for a motion on Bill No. 230900 as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 230900 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at our next session of Council.
Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Jones seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 24 230900 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. This concludes the business before the Committee on Licenses & Inspection today. Mr. Golden, is there any other --
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Committee on Licenses and Inspections concluded at 11:39 a.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL