HB 2284
In CommitteeHouse
Litter reduction
Reducing litter.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a littering solutions task force to develop strategies for reducing litter in Washington, with a goal of collecting at least as much litter as is deposited each year. It also updates the state’s carryout bag law, including new fees and thickness requirements for reusable plastic bags starting in 2026 and 2028.
- Create a littering solutions task force led by the department of ecology, with members from state agencies, local governments, and industry groups, to develop recommendations for reducing litter.
- Task force must submit a final report with policy recommendations to the legislature by November 15, 2027, based on the 2022 litter study and cleanup cost analysis.
- Amend the state’s carryout bag law to require a 12-cent pass-through charge for reusable plastic bags and 8 cents for compliant paper bags starting January 1, 2026.
- Add a 4-cent penalty on reusable plastic bags less than four mils thick, effective January 1, 2028, unless the legislature amends the law first.
- Strengthen requirements for reusable plastic bags: must contain at least 40% postconsumer recycled content and be at least four mils thick starting in 2028.
- Require all compostable film bags to meet standards in chapter 70A.455 RCW, and ban noncompostable plastic bags for in-store bagging or delivery.
Who is affected
- Retail establishments — Retail stores (e.g., grocery stores, convenience stores) must follow new rules about bag types, fees, and recordkeeping, and may collect pass-through charges and penalties from customers.
- General public / shoppers — Consumers may see new fees for paper or reusable plastic bags at checkout, and stores must clearly show these charges on receipts.
- State and local government agencies — State agencies and local governments will help develop and implement strategies to reduce litter, including through the new task force and cleanup cost analysis.
- Industry associations and businesses — Businesses like beverage producers, tobacco manufacturers, hospitality, and tourism groups will help advise on litter-reduction strategies as members of the task force.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The littering solutions task force, with representation from environmental, transportation, and cleanup agencies, will develop evidence-based strategies to reduce litter—especially high-impact items like cigarette butts and construction debris—potentially improving public spaces, water quality, and wildlife habitats.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(3)(a)-(d)Mandating reusable plastic bags be at least four mils thick and contain 40% postconsumer recycled content (2028) will reduce bag breakage, increase reuse, and boost demand for recycled-content manufacturing—cutting plastic waste and microplastic pollution.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(iii), Sec. 2(6)(b)(iii)(C)Banning noncompostable plastic bags for in-store bagging and delivery and requiring compostable film bags to meet state standards will reduce contamination in compost streams and prevent persistent plastic pollution in landfills and waterways.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(a), Sec. 2(4)(b)The 12/8-cent pass-through charges and 4-cent penalty generate dedicated revenue for the waste reduction, recycling, and litter control account—funding cleanup, education, and infrastructure that benefit communities broadly.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii), Sec. 2(2)(c)Reducing litter—especially cigarette butts, food wrappers, and plastic fragments—lowers fire risks (e.g., in dry areas), road hazards, and contamination of waterways, improving public health and safety outcomes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii), Sec. 2(2)(c)
Potential Concerns (5)
A 12-cent pass-through charge for reusable plastic bags and 8 cents for paper bags will increase out-of-pocket costs for all shoppers at point of sale, disproportionately affecting low-income households and frequent users of single-use alternatives who may not have reusable bags on hand.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii)The 4-cent penalty on reusable plastic bags under four mils (effective 2028) adds an additional cost burden for consumers who purchase cheaper, thinner reusable bags—often lower-income shoppers who rely on discount retailers selling such items.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(iii)Retailers must invest in compliance (e.g., new bag inventory, receipt systems, staff training), and those costs may be passed on to consumers through higher prices or reduced services, especially affecting small retailers with thin margins.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1), Sec. 2(6)(b)(i)Small retailers and convenience stores may face operational disruption or inventory write-downs as they phase out noncompliant plastic bags and transition to certified compostable or thicker reusable bags, potentially increasing costs and limiting supplier options.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(a), Sec. 2(4)(b)The task force’s recommendations may lead to new local enforcement or cleanup mandates, potentially increasing costs for counties and municipalities without guaranteed state funding to offset them.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income shoppers will bear disproportionate out-of-pocket costs for bag fees, especially if they lack access to reusable alternatives or rely on discount retailers selling noncompliant thin bags. However, they benefit from improved public spaces and environmental quality.
Small retailers (e.g., corner stores, farmers markets) face compliance costs and inventory transitions but may retain pass-through revenue; those in urban areas with existing bag fees may adapt more easily than rural or high-turnover stores.
Large retail chains are better positioned to absorb compliance costs, absorb fee pass-throughs, and leverage economies of scale in sourcing compliant bags; may benefit from standardized rules across jurisdictions.
Local governments gain access to state-funded litter cleanup strategies and data but may face unfunded responsibilities if task force recommendations lead to local enforcement mandates.
Beverage and tobacco producers, as task force members, will help shape extended producer responsibility-style strategies, potentially avoiding future regulatory burdens but bearing upstream costs to redesign packaging.