California Senate Rejects Plastic Bag Ban

Bill had passed the California Assembly in June 2010.

The California State Senate has rejected Assembly Bill 1998, a bill that sought to eliminate the use of single-use plastic bags in grocery stores and pharmacies starting in 2012 and in liquor stores and convenience stores in 2013.

The bill had passed the California Assembly in June by a vote of 42-37 but was defeated in the California State Senate in late August by a vote of 21-14.
In a release sent by the American Chemistry Council following the defeat of the bill, Tim Shestek, senior director of sate affairs for the organization, states, "We congratulate Senate members for discarding a costly bill that provides no real solutions to California's litter problem and would have further jeopardized California's already strained economy."
He adds, "Plastic bag makers look forward to working with grocers, legislators and environmental groups to develop workable, effective legislation that enables consumer choice, promotes recycling education and encourages a healthy environment and economy.”
As written, AB 1998 would have, on and after Jan. 1, 2012, prohibited stores from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer. The bill would have, on and after July 1, 2013, prohibit convenience food stores, food marts and other specified stores from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer.
The bill also would have required a store, on and after July 1, 2013, to only provide re-usable bags, as defined, or to make available for sale recycled paper bags at a reasonable cost, but not less than 5 cents. The bill would have exempted the sale of certain specified bags from the above prohibition and restriction.
Further, the bill would have, beginning Jan. 1, 2013, required a re-usable bag manufacturer to obtain a biennial certification from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery by submitting a certification fee and a certification that its reusable bag meets specified requirements. The bill would have specified administrative civil penalties for a person who violates the above requirements.
October 2010
Explore the October 2010 Issue

Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.