Didn’t California already ban plastic bags?

California voters previously approved a statewide referendum upholding a ban on single-use carryout plastic bags in November 2016. Under Senate Bill 270, grocery stores had to start charging at least 10 cents for reusable grocery bags or recycled paper bags, according to the California Department of Justice.

By only banning single-use, lightweight plastic bags, the law left open a loophole for businesses to distribute thicker plastic bags under the guise that they could be reused up to 125 times by consumers, CalRecycle said. The initial ban ultimately resulted in “an increased amount of plastic and plastic waste” because Californians rarely used the same bag twice, according to Senate Bill 1053.

What to know about California’s new plastic bag ban

The new bill — co-authored by state Sn. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda — restricts the type of carry out bags that can be given to customers at many California stores.

Beginning Thursday, Jan. 1, these types of shops will no longer be allowed to pass out plastic bags:

• Grocery stores
• Retail stores with a pharmacy
• Convenience stores
• Food marts
• Liquor stores

Stores will only be able to provide 10-cent recycled paper bags to customers at checkout counters, self-checkout kiosks and in-store pickup purchases starting Jan. 1.

The law will also apply to curbside and home deliveries, according to CalRecycle.

In two years’ time — beginning Jan. 1, 2028 — only recycled paper bags composed of at least 50% post-consumer recycled materials will be legal to distribute at stores.

How will grocery stores be affected by plastic bag ban?

The shopping experience will remain relatively the same for Californians once the bag ban goes into effect, according to the California Grocers Association, a group representing more than 6,000 food stores across the state.

“While paper bags cost grocers more than reusable plastic bags and the supply chain can be finicky, the grocery community supported Sen. Blakespear’s effort to bring California closer to what has always been the goal: incentivizing customers to reuse their bags and reduce waste,” Nate Rose, the association’s vice president of communications and public affairs, told The Sacramento Bee in an email.

He said that customers and grocers should expect few, if any, hiccups once plastic bags are no longer available.

“The grocery shopping experience will be mostly unchanged because reusable paper bags will still be available for purchase and customers are encouraged to bring reusable bags from home, as always,” he said.

The post California bans plastic bags at grocery stores. Here’s what to know about new law appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

But now, President Trump is preparing a new plan to open the West Coast to offshore drilling, putting our pristine shores and surf at risk. If he’s successful, this would be a massive gift to big polluters and a major threat to the future of our state’s economy, environment and coastal communities. In our coastal cities, like Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Seal Beach and Long Beach, people understand exactly how much we have to lose.

Beaches up and down California could have new oil rigs and plants visible from our coastal communities. The long stretches of open horizon that we see from our piers and boardwalks could be overshadowed by drilling operations right offshore — it wouldn’t be the same coastline we’ve worked so hard to protect.

President Trump is threatening decades of progress and billions of dollars in coastal economic activity. Tourism, fishing and shipping industries depend on clean, thriving waters. And beach recreation and surfing are part of our Southern California culture.

An oil spill could shut down entire regions and devastate small businesses. And oil drilling can devastate marine wildlife and ecosystems for decades. The risks are enormous, and the benefits go only to large corporations and a handful of wealthy oil executives.

The president has spent this entire year canceling clean energy projects, like offshore wind developments and investments in renewables, and attacking environmental protections. It’s clear he’s doubling down on a backward energy agenda that puts fossil fuels first and the American people last.

New federal leases for oil and gas drilling off our coast in California haven’t been granted for decades. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have agreed on the importance of protecting our coast from the harmful pollution and environmental consequences that come from drilling. That’s a big part of why the waters off our beaches, whether in Huntington, Newport or Laguna, have stayed clean and accessible for so long.

We’re fighting for more than natural beauty; we’re fighting for jobs and businesses in our coastal cities. The ocean economy contributes $44 billion to California’s economy every year, creating jobs across our state. A clean, healthy ocean and coasts support tourism, recreation, fishing and other crucial industries.

Californians have consistently opposed expanding offshore oil drilling for good reason. Citizens have fought for environmental protection for over 50 years. And for decades, Orange County has been part of that fight — speaking out, showing up and defending our coastline.

President Trump tried to expand drilling in his first term, but Californians from across the political spectrum came together to oppose him, and won. We know that together, we can fight for our environment and a clean economy.

We cannot let this administration destroy our coastal economy with dangerous offshore drilling. That’s why I’m working with my colleagues in Congress to pass legislation to permanently end offshore drilling here on the West Coast and in the Arctic, protecting wildlife and our communities from future harm and holding polluters accountable for the damage and catastrophes they cause.

I’m also co-sponsoring legislation, like the California Clean Coast Act, to make sure we say no to oil spills and big polluters. Because we need to take action to protect our shores before it’s too late.

California’s coast is worth protecting. It represents our identity, our economy and our future. I will keep fighting in Congress to defend our shores, stop offshore drilling and build a cleaner, safer, more sustainable future for all who call the coast home.

U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) represents California’s 42nd district in Congress and is the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The post Commentary: ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ is dead wrong for California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The bill, AB 839, was initially introduced in February. Following its passage in the Assembly, the bill was transferred to the California Senate, where it is currently under review by the Committee on Environmental Quality and the Committee on Judiciary. 

If signed into law, the legislation would provide for expedited California Environmental Quality Act review for up to three SAF projects that do not use fossil fuels in the production process and meet specified environmental and labor requirements. 

CEQA, signed into law in 1970, established statewide regulations for the environmental review of discretionary projects and a process for mitigating or avoiding potential environmental impacts. The review process aims to inform the public, local agencies and decision makers about the potential environmental impacts associated with certain planning approvals. 

Separate bills signed into law in 2021 and 2023 allow the California Governors Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to certify eligible infrastructure projects to benefit from expedited judicial review of lawsuits challenging the projects under CEQA. According to the office, the certification can reduce lawsuit-related delays from 3-5 years to approximately 270 days. Certified projects may also have improved access to financing and be more competitive for federal funding. AB 839 would allow up to three SAF projects to qualify for this expedited judicial review as “infrastructure projects.” 

The bill defines SAF projects to include projects to manufacture, process, store, distribute or transport SAF or feedstock used for the production of SAF. If the project involves the conversion or replacement of an existing major source of air pollution, such as a refinery, the project must reduce emissions of air pollutants compared to the baseline environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project. Projects that do not involve the conversion or replacement of an existing major source of air pollution must not cause a significant effect on the environment attributable to any air pollutant. 

A full copy of the bill is available on the California State Assembly website.

The post California bill aims to expedite development of up to 3 SAF projects appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.