BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 190
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Das Williams, Chair
AB
190 (Harper) - As Amended March 11, 2015
SUBJECT: Solid waste: single-use carryout bags.
SUMMARY: Repeals California's plastic bag law, which is currently
inoperative pending the outcome of a referendum on the November
2016 ballot.
EXISTING LAW: Pursuant to SB 270 (Padilla), Chapter 850,
Statutes of 2014 (SB 270), establishes various requirements
relating to the distribution of carryout bags, but is currently
inoperative pending the outcome of the referendum to repeal the
state's ban on single-use plastic bags.
1)Establishes various definitions relating to carryout bags,
including:
a) "Recycled paper bag" as a paper carryout bag provided by
a store to a customer at the point of sale and contains a
minimum of 40% postconsumer recycled materials. For a bag
with the capacity to hold eight pounds or less, the bag
must contain at least 20% postconsumer recycled materials.
AB 190
Page 2
A recycled paper bag must be accepted for recycling in a
majority of households in curbside recycling programs in
the state, as well as have specified information printed on
the bag.
b) "Reusable grocery bag" as a bag that can be used a
minimum of 125 times, as specified; can be cleaned; has
specified information visible on the bag; cannot contain
lead, cadmium, or any other toxic material that may pose a
threat to public health; and, must be consistent with
federal regulations related to recyclable claims if the bag
producer claims the bag is recyclable
c) "Single-use carryout bag" as a bag made of plastic,
paper, or other material that is provided by a store to a
customer at the point of sale. Exempts from this
definition specified bags, including a bag provided by a
pharmacy for a prescription purchase, a non-handled bag
used to protect an item from damaging or contaminating
other items when placed in a recycled paper bag or reusable
grocery bag, and a dry-cleaning or garment bag.
d) "Store" as a full-line self-service retail store with
gross annual sales of at least $2 million and sells a line
of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some
perishables (a typical grocery store); has at least 10,000
square feet of retail space and a pharmacy; or, a
convenience food store or foodmart. Includes in the
definition of store any other retail establishment that
voluntarily agrees to comply with the requirements of this
bill.
2)Prohibits stores from making single-use carryout bags
available at the point of sale on the following timeline:
a) On and after January 1, 2015, at either a grocery store
AB 190
Page 3
or retailer with at least 10,000 square feet of retail
space and a pharmacy.
b) On and after July 1, 2016, at a convenience food store
and foodmart.
3)Authorizes a store to make available a reusable grocery bag or
recycled paper bag at the point of sale. Requires that these
bags may not be sold to a consumer for less than $0.10.
4)Requires that all monies collected by stores pursuant to this
law be retained at the store and be used for costs associated
with complying with the law; actual costs of providing
recycled paper bags and reusable grocery bags; and costs
associated with a store's educational materials or educational
campaign encouraging the use of reusable bags.
5)Requires a store to provide a reusable bag or recycled paper
bag at no charge to any customer using California Special
Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children
benefits, CalFresh benefits (federally known as Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] benefits), California Food
Assistance Program benefits, or cash aid benefits.
6)Preempts local ordinances adopted on or after September 1,
2014, relating to reusable grocery bags, single-use carryout
bags, or recycled paper bags.
THIS BILL:
1)Repeals the provisions of SB 270.
AB 190
Page 4
2)Includes an urgency clause, which states that this bill is
necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,
health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the
Constitution in order to prevent the negative effects of SB
270 on consumers and businesses and to avoid costly
preparations for an unnecessary election.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)This bill. According to the author, "there is no proof that
the ban will be effective, but what is certain is that it will
result in an undue hardship for California's consumers? [AB]
190 is needed to repeal SB 270's unnecessary grip and fees
upon Californians and the excessive retailer windfall caused
by the fee."
2)Background on plastic. Plastic bags and plastic film together
represent just over 2% of the waste stream, and every year
California taxpayers spend $25 million disposing of the 14
billion plastic bags used annually. Although plastic
represents a relatively small fraction of the overall waste
stream in California by weight, plastic waste is the
predominate form of marine debris. Plastics are estimated to
comprise 60-80% of all marine debris and 90% of all floating
debris. According to the California Coastal Commission, the
primary source of marine debris is urban runoff, of which
lightweight plastic bags and plastic film are particularly
susceptible. Unlike most forms of plastic, lightweight
single-use bags pose a litter threat even when properly
disposed of by consumers; they are prone to blowing off the
working surface of landfills and off of trucks during
transport.
Due to the interplay of ocean currents, marine debris
preferentially accumulates in certain areas throughout the
AB 190
Page 5
ocean. According to Eriksen et al. (2014), 24 expeditions
from 2007-2013 estimated that there is approximately 96,400
metric tons of floating plastic in the Northern Pacific Ocean.
The North Pacific Central Gyre is the ultimate destination for
much of the marine debris originating from the California
coast. A study by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation
found an average of more than 300,000 plastic pieces per
square mile of the Gyre and that the mass of plastic was six
times greater than zooplankton floating on the water's
surface.
Most plastic marine debris exists as small plastic particles
due to excessive UV radiation exposure and subsequent
photo-degradation. These plastic pieces are confused with
small fish, plankton, or krill and ingested by aquatic
organisms. Plastic bags can be mistaken for jellyfish,
especially by sea turtles. Over 600 marine animal species
have been negatively affected by ingesting plastic worldwide.
Last month, scientists at the ARC Centre of Excellence for
Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University found that corals
are also ingesting small plastic particles, which remain in
their small stomach cavities and impede their ability to
consume and digest normal food.
In addition to the physical impacts of plastic pollution,
hydrophobic chemicals present in the ocean in trace amounts
(e.g., from contaminated runoff and oil and chemical spills)
have an affinity for, and can bind to, plastic particles where
they enter and accumulate in the food chain.
In 2007, the OPC adopted a resolution on "reducing and
preventing marine debris." A year later, OPC released the
Implementation Strategy for the [OPC] Resolution to Reduce and
Prevent Ocean Litter, which established four broad objectives
to reduce marine debris: 1) Reduce single-use packaging and
promote sustainable alternatives; 2) Prevent and control
AB 190
Page 6
litter and plastic debris; 3) Cleanup and remove ocean litter;
and, 4) Coordinate with other jurisdictions in the pacific
region.
3)Local action. Over 100 cities and counties throughout
California have adopted ordinances banning plastic bags,
including Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, San Jose,
Long Beach, Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, and
Alameda County. Many of these local governments also require
stores to charge a fee for a paper carryout bag, and a few
have banned both single-use plastic and paper carryout bags.
While current law preempts local ordinances adopted after
September 1, 2014, many local governments are considering
adopting a ban while the law is inoperative pending the
outcome of the referendum. If AB 190 is chaptered, the
preemption would be repealed.
Huntington Beach, located within the author's district, adopted
a ban in 2013. In January of this year, the city council
voted to "take the necessary steps" to repeal the ban,
beginning with an Environmental Impact Report, which is
expected to be completed by the end of April.
4)Let the voters decide? The Referendum to Overturn Ban on
Single-Use Plastic Bags was certified by the California
Secretary of State on February 24, 2015 after receiving a
total of 809,810 signatures, 598,684 of which were projected
to be valid. The measure will be on the November 8, 2016
ballot. The American Progressive Bag Alliance is the main
proponent for the repeal; other supporters include the City of
Laguna Niguel, 7 other organizations, and 11 businesses. The
campaign to support SB 270 and oppose the referendum is led by
California vs. Big Plastic, and includes 7 State officials, 21
municipalities, over 60 organizations, and 6 businesses. As
of February 2, 2015, referendum proponents have raised over
$6.6 million, nearly all of that from the plastic industry.
SB 270 supporters have raised just under $100,000 from
environmental organizations and reusable bag manufacturers.
A poll conducted by the University of Southern California and
AB 190
Page 7
the Los Angeles Times in November 2014 found that 59% of
California voters would vote in support of the ban; 34%
indicated that they would vote for repeal.
5)Previous legislation. A significant number of bills related
to single-use bags have been introduced.
a) AB 2058 (Levine) of 2007 would have prohibited the free
dispensing of carryout plastic bags by a store to its
customers, unless the store can demonstrate to the former
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), now
CalRecycle, that 70% of the plastic bags it dispensed had
been diverted from the waste stream. AB 2058 was held in
Senate Appropriations Committee.
b) SB 531 (DeSaulnier) of 2009 would have required
manufacturers of plastic carryout bags to consult with
various entities, including the CIWMB, when developing
specified educational materials to encourage the reduced
use or recycling of those bags, and authorized the CIWMB to
modify those materials. SB 531 was held in Assembly
Natural Resources Committee without further action.
c) AB 68 (Brownley) of 2009 and AB 87 (Davis) of 2009 both
would have required a 25 cent fee on the distribution of
single-use carryout bags. Both bills were held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
d) AB 2138 (Chesbro) of 2010 would have established
recycling and composting requirements for take-out food
packaging, including bags. AB 2138 was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
e) AB 1998 (Brownley) of 2010 would have repealed the
AB 190
Page 8
at-store recycling program and instead prohibited stores
from providing a single-use plastic carryout bag to a
customer and required stores to provide reusable bags for
purchase or recycled paper bags for a fee. AB 1998 was
held on the Senate Floor.
f) AB 298 (Brownley) of 2011would have prohibited a
reusable bag manufacturer from selling or distributing a
reusable bag in the state unless it meets specified
requirements. AB 298 was held in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
g) SB 915 (Calderon) of 2011 would have established plastic
bag reduction and recycled content goals. A hearing in the
Senate Environmental Quality Committee was canceled at the
request of the author.
h) AB 1834 (Brownley) of 2012 would have defined reusable
bags. This bill was held on the Senate Floor.
i) SB 1106 (Strickland) of 2012 would have prohibited the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of reusable bags
without a warning label that both specifies the need for
reusable bags to be cleaned and disinfected between uses
and outlines the health risks associated with not cleaning
or disinfecting reusable bags between uses. SB 1106 was
held in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
j) SB 1219 (Wolk), Chapter 384, Statutes of 2012, extended
the sunset of the At-Store Recycling Program requirements
from January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2020 and repealed the
provisions preempting local regulatory action related to
AB 190
Page 9
the at-store recycling program requirements.
aa) AB 158 (Levine) of 2013 would have prohibited grocery
stores from providing single-use plastic bags to customers
and required stores to make reusable bags available for
purchase by customers. This bill was moved to the Assembly
inactive file by the author.
bb) SB 405 (Padilla) of 2013 would have prohibited grocery
stores from providing single-use plastic bags to consumers
and required stores to make reusable bags available for
purchase by customers. This bill was moved to the Senate
inactive file by the author.
cc) SB 700 (Wolk) of 2013 would have required retail
establishments, as defined, to collect a fee of five cents
for every single-use carryout bag provided to a customer.
The bill required that the fees be available for grants to
cities and counties for local parks and local programs that
reduce and clean up litter. This bill was held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
dd) AB 1337 (Allen) of 2013 would have pre-empted any local
government from enacting or enforcing any rule prohibiting
the distribution of plastic single-use carryout bags or
imposing a fee on the distribution of non-plastic
single-use carryout bags (i.e., paper). This bill was held
in Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
ee) SB 270 (Padilla), Chapter 850, Statutes of 2014
prohibits stores, as defined, from distributing
lightweight, single-use plastic bags after specified dates.
AB 190
Page 10
Establishes requirements for reusable bags and prohibits
stores from distributing reusable bags for less than 10
cents per bag. The statutes established by this bill are
currently inoperative, pending the outcome of the plastic
bag referendum.
6)Related legislation.
a) AB 191 (Harper) repeals the 10 cent charge for reusable
bags and recycled paper bags. This bill has also been
referred to this committee and is set to be heard on April
13th.
b) AB 1136 (Steinorth) expands the category of people
exempt from paying the 10 cent charge for reusable bags or
recycled paper bags to include seniors and students. This
bill has been double referred to the Assembly Aging and
Long-Term Care Committee and Natural Resources Committee.
7)Urgency. This bill is an urgency measure and, if chaptered,
will take effect immediately.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Advance Polybag, Inc.
American Progressive Bag Alliance
California Manufacturing & Technology Association
Crown Poly
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
AB 190
Page 11
Novolex
Orange County Board of Supervisors
SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association
Opposition
1 Bag at a Time
5 Gyres Institute
7th Generation Advisors
California League of Conservation Voters
California Retailers Association
Californians Against Waste
Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, & Education
City of Los Angeles Councilmember Paul Koretz
City of Palo Alto
ChicoEco, Inc.
Clean Water Action
Cleanups for Change
Command Packaging
Community Environmental Council
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Green Sangha
Heal the Bay
Hidden Resources
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
I.Marketing Group
Marin County Board of Supervisors
AB 190
Page 12
Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers
Authority
Napa Valley CanDo
Natural Resources Defense Council
Plastic Pollution Coalition
San Francisco Department of the Environment
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
Wildcoast
World Society for the Protection of Animals
Zero Waste Humboldt
Analysis Prepared
by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092