SB 6030
In CommitteeSenate
Plastic carryout bags
Repealing restrictions and fees on plastic carryout bags.
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 reverses part of Washington’s 2020 plastic bag law by allowing retailers to offer thin plastic carryout bags (under 2.25 mils) again, based on a Washington State University study that found current policies increased overall plastic use and failed to boost reusable bag usage. It keeps recycled content and pass-through fee requirements but removes the ban on thinner plastic bags and the penalty fee on thicker reusable plastic bags.
- Repeals the ban on plastic carryout bags under 2.25 mils thickness, allowing retailers to offer thinner plastic bags again.
- Maintains the requirement that all plastic reusable bags must contain at least 40% postconsumer recycled content (up from 20% before July 2022).
- Keeps the 8-cent pass-through fee for paper bags and 12-cent fee for plastic reusable bags, but eliminates the 4-cent penalty on thicker reusable plastic bags.
- Clarifies that plastic bags under 2.25 mils are not banned, and retailers may use existing inventory of banned bags until one year after June 11, 2020 (though this date has passed, so inventory rules no longer apply).
- Requires all compliant paper and plastic reusable bags to display recycled content percentages on the exterior, and plastic reusable bags to also show thickness and reuse eligibility.
Who is affected
- Retail establishments — Retailers (including grocery stores, pharmacies, farmers markets, and food vendors) must adjust bagging practices and pricing; they may no longer charge for reusable plastic bags (if under 2.25 mils) and must continue collecting pass-through fees for paper and thicker plastic reusable bags.
- General consumers — Consumers may see changes in bag availability and fees—plastic bags under 2.25 mils may become available again, and paper or thicker reusable plastic bags still carry an 8- or 12-cent fee (plus a 4-cent penalty for certain reusable plastic bags).
- Bag manufacturers and suppliers — Bag manufacturers and suppliers must adjust production to meet updated recycled content requirements (e.g., 40% postconsumer recycled content for plastic reusable bags) and compostability standards.
- Local governments — Local governments that previously enacted stricter bag rules (e.g., bans on all plastic bags) may no longer enforce those stricter rules for plastic bags under 2.25 mils, as state law now permits them.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (5)
Allowing thin plastic bags (<2.25 mils) may reduce bag procurement costs for retailers — especially small businesses and farmers markets — as thin plastic is cheaper than thicker reusable or paper alternatives, potentially improving margins without raising consumer prices.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(2)(a); Sec. 3(1)Maintaining the 40% postconsumer recycled content requirement for plastic reusable bags supports demand for recycled materials and encourages recycling infrastructure development — though this benefit is partially offset by allowing more single-use thin plastic bags.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 1(2)(b); Sec. 3(5)(b)(ii)Pass-through fees for paper ($0.08) and reusable plastic ($0.12) bags remain, generating ~$10.8M/year for retailers — supporting small business cash flow and enabling retailers to offset higher bag costs without raising product prices.
FinancialRef: Sec. 3(2)(b)Reducing reliance on thicker reusable bags may lower household bag costs for low-income families who reuse bags for pet waste, trash can liners, or pet bedding — though this benefit is minor and speculative, as most households already use free bags for such purposes.
HousingRef: Sec. 1(2)(a); Sec. 3(1)Standardizing recycled content requirements (40% postconsumer) creates predictability for bag manufacturers and suppliers, supporting stable demand for recycled plastic — though this benefit is offset by the return of thin plastic bags, which are not subject to the same recycled content rules.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 3(5)(b)(ii)
Potential Concerns (5)
Repealing the ban on thin plastic bags (<2.25 mils) may increase plastic waste and litter, as thin bags are more likely to tear, be discarded after single use, and escape collection systems — contradicting the bill’s stated goal of reducing plastic use, since WSU’s own study found overall plastic use *increased* by 17% under current rules.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 1(2)(a); Sec. 3(1)Eliminating the 4-cent penalty on thicker reusable plastic bags reduces state revenue by $1.2M/year from the waste reduction account, potentially undermining long-term funding for recycling infrastructure and litter cleanup programs that benefit all residents.
FinancialRef: Sec. 3(2)(b)Reintroducing thin plastic bags may increase litter and microplastic pollution in waterways and public spaces, increasing risks to wildlife, stormwater system clogging, and public health hazards — especially in communities with limited waste management capacity.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(2)(a); Sec. 3(1)Local governments that previously enacted stricter plastic bag bans (e.g., Seattle’s total plastic bag ban) may lose authority to enforce those stricter rules for bags under 2.25 mils, reducing local regulatory autonomy and potentially increasing local cleanup costs.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(2)(b)Retailers may face increased operational complexity from managing multiple bag types (thin plastic, paper, reusable), but the elimination of the 4-cent penalty removes a small administrative burden — net effect is modest cost savings for large chains but minimal impact for small vendors.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 3(2)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
Retailers — especially large chains — may benefit from lower bag procurement costs and retained pass-through fees; small vendors may see modest savings but face no major operational changes.
Low- and middle-income households may benefit from lower bag fees (if retailers absorb costs) or reuse thin plastic bags for household needs, but could face higher litter cleanup taxes long-term if state revenue declines.
Large plastic bag manufacturers (especially those producing thin film plastic) gain market access; recycled-content producers benefit from the 40% mandate — though thin plastic bags bypass recycled content requirements, limiting net benefit.
Local governments lose regulatory autonomy over plastic bag rules and may face increased litter cleanup costs, especially in cities with prior stricter bans.
Environmental advocacy groups and waste management agencies may see setbacks in plastic reduction goals and reduced funding for recycling infrastructure due to loss of the 4-cent penalty.