SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 161 (Ting) - Solid waste: paper waste: proofs of purchase

Bill Summary:

AB 161 would allow a business to provide a paper receipt to a customer only upon the customer’s request and would prohibit the paper receipts from containing certain chemicals or nonessential items, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

The Department of Justice indicates annual ongoing costs of $717,000 for 2.0 Deputy Attorneys General (DAG) and 1.0 Legal Secretary for enforcement purposes related to this measure. Costs would be offset, to a very small degree, by fine revenue to the extent the department is successful in its enforcement actions against repeat violators (of three or more times) and is able to collect the civil penalties. (General Fund)

Background:

Existing law requires local governments divert at least 50 percent of solid waste from landfill disposal and establishes a statewide goal that 75 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020. (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 41780 & 41780.01.) According to the analysis of this measure by the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality:

For three decades, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has been tasked with reducing disposal of municipal solid waste and promoting recycling in California through the [Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA)]. Under IWMA, the state has established a statewide 75 percent source reduction, recycling, and composting goal by 2020 and over the years the Legislature has enacted various laws relating to increasing the amount of waste that is diverted from landfills …. According to CalRecycle’s State of Disposal and Recycling in California 2017 Update, 42.7 million tons of material were disposed into landfills in 2016.

…

Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is very thin, lightweight paper coated with a material that changes color when heated. Generally, this coating contains either Bisphenol A (BPA) or Bisphenol S (BPS). According to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), receipt paper used in California uses BPS almost exclusively. Because thermal paper is so thin, it generally contains no recycled content. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), exposure to BPA [and BPS] may occur during manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life (i.e., recycling, composting, landfilling, or incineration). In one 2010 study, BPA was detected at levels between 0.8 percent and 2.8 percent of the total weight of the receipts tested. Bisphenols are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks. While paper is 17% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. Estimates vary on the amount of receipt paper used in the US. According to the AFPA, the US annually uses approximately 180,000 tons of paper receipts. Grand View Research, which provides market information, estimates that 282,500 tons of thermal paper is used in the US each year for receipts. No California specific data is available.

Proposed Law:

This bill would:

• Require a business, as defined, that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions, subject to certain exceptions, to provide a proof of purchase to a consumer only at the consumer’s option.
• Prohibit a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
• Prohibit a paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business from containing BPA or BPS and from including items not essential to the transaction, including, but not limited to, coupons or advertisements.
• Specify that the first and second violations of any of those provisions would result in a notice of violation and any subsequent violation would be punishable by a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300.
• Allow the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce the provisions of this measure.
• Delay the operative date of AB 161 to January 1, 2022.

Related Legislation:

AB 1884 (Calderon, Ch. 576, Stats. 2018) prohibited a full-service restaurant from providing single use plastic straws to a consumer unless requested by the consumer and made a violation punishable as an infraction, as specified.

SB 270 (Padilla, Ch. 850, Stats. 2014) prohibited certain types of stores and retail establishments from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer, with specified exceptions.

Staff Comments:

The Department of Justice anticipates an increased workload resulting from AB 161. Specifically, it reports that the Consumer Law and Environment sections within the Public Rights Division would need 1.0 additional DAG each and the compliment of 1.0 Legal Secretary. Committee staff queries whether the workload associated with this measure would be sufficient to warrant two permanent full-time attorney positions for enforcement.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 161

SUBJECT: Solid waste: paper waste: proofs of purchase

DIGEST: Commencing January 1, 2022, prohibits businesses from providing paper receipts to consumers except upon request.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires that local governments divert at least 50% of solid waste from landfill disposal and establishes a statewide goal that 75% of solid waste be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020 (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§41780, 41780.01).
   
2. Requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste from businesses (PRC §§42649.2, 42649.3).
   
3. Requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste to arrange for recycling services for that material (PRC §42649.81).
   
4. Requires retailers that are required to collect use tax from purchasers (including lessees) must give a receipt to each purchaser for the amount of the tax collected. The receipt does not need to be “in any particular form,” but must include specified information including the name and place of business, the name and address of the purchaser, a description of the property sold or leased, and the date on which the property was sold or leased (Revenue and Taxation Code §§6001, et seq.).
   

This bill:

1. On and after January 1, 2022, requires a business that accepts payment through credit or debit transactions to only provide a proof of purchase (i.e., a receipt) to a customer at the customer’s option (i.e., upon request) unless a proof of purchase is otherwise required to be given to the customer by state or federal law.
   
2. On and after January 1, 2022, prohibits a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the customer opts to not receive the proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
   
3. A paper proof of purchase shall not:
   
   1. Contain bisphenol A or bisphenol S.
   2. Include printouts of items nonessential to the transaction if those nonessential items (such as coupons or advertisements) make the paper proof of purchase longer than necessary to provide the consumer with the essential items to the transaction.
      
4. Authorizes the Attorney General, district attorney or city attorney to enforce the provisions of the bill. Establishes that the first and second violation shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by $25 per day, not to exceed $300 annually.
   
5. Defines "business" as a person that accepts payment through cash, credit, or debit transactions. Specifies that "business" does not include any of the following:
   
   1. A healthcare provider;
   2. A small business, as specified; or
   3. An entity organized as a nonprofit that has an annual gross sales receipt of less than $2,000,000.

Background

1. Solid waste in California. For three decades, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has been tasked with reducing disposal of municipal solid waste and promoting recycling in California through the IWMA. Under IWMA, the state has established a statewide 75 percent source reduction, recycling, and composting goal by 2020 and over the years the Legislature has enacted various laws relating to increasing the amount of waste that is diverted from landfills (see Related/Prior legislation below). According to CalRecycle’s State of Disposal and Recycling in California 2017 Update, 42.7 million tons of material were disposed into landfills in 2016.
   
2. Market challenges. The US has not developed significant markets for recycled content materials, including plastic and mixed paper. Historically, China has been the largest importer of recycled materials. According to the International Solid Waste Association, China accepted 56% by weight of global recycled plastic exports. In California, approximately one-third of recycled material is exported; 85% of the state's recycled mixed paper has been exported to China in recent years.
   

In an effort to improve the quality of the materials it accepts and to combat the country's significant environmental challenges, China enacted Operation Green Fence in 2013, under which it increased inspections of imported bales of recyclables and returned bales that did not meet specified requirements at the exporters' expense. In 2017, China established Operation National Sword, which included additional inspections of imported recycled materials and a filing with the World Trade Organization indicating its intent to ban the import of 24 types of scrap, including mixed paper and paperboard, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polystyrene (PS) beginning January 1, 2018. In November 2017, China announced that imports of recycled materials that are not banned will be required to include no more than 0.5% contamination. Some market experts are hopeful that cleaner plastic materials, including those included in the ban, may be allowed in the future.

Following China’s actions, other Southeast Asian countries have enacted policies limiting or banning the importation of recycled materials, primarily plastic and mixed paper. Last year, Malaysia and Vietnam implemented import restrictions. In March India announced that it will ban scrap plastic imports. Thailand has announced a ban that will go into effect in 2021. These policies create serious challenges for recyclers. Recycling requires markets to create new products and close the loop. This challenge also provides an opportunity for California to improve its efforts to reduce the amount of waste it generates and expand its efforts to develop recycling manufacturing infrastructure, which has been shown to provide jobs, economic, and environmental benefits.

1. Receipts. Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is very thin, lightweight paper coated with a material that changes color when heated. Generally, this coating contains either Bisphenol A (BPA) or Bisphenol S (BPS). According to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), receipt paper used in California uses BPS almost exclusively. Because thermal paper is so thin, it generally contains no recycled content. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), exposure to BPA [and BPS] may occur during manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life (i.e., recycling, composting, landfilling, or incineration). In one 2010 study, BPA was detected at levels between 0.8 percent and 2.8 percent of the total weight of the receipts tested. Bisphenols are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks. While paper is 17% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. Estimates vary on the amount of receipt paper used in the US. According to the AFPA, the US annually uses approximately 180,000 tons of paper receipts. Grand View Research, which provides market information, estimates that 282,500 tons of thermal paper is used in the US each year for receipts. No California specific data is available.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “With the increasing adoption of e-receipts, paper receipts have become unnecessary and antiquated. Yet many businesses are still providing paper receipts, generating millions of pounds in waste every year and consuming valuable resources. Reducing the number of paper receipts that are printed through AB 161 will not only vastly cut down the amount of waste that we produce, it will also save thousands of trees and gallons of water each year.”
   
2. Available alternatives. Earlier versions of the bill required businesses to provide an electronic receipt from customers, which would be the most obvious alternative to paper receipts. However, those provisions were taken out due to privacy considerations.
   
3. But aren’t receipts recyclable or compostable? This bill is focused on source-reduction. California’s solid waste hierarchy places source reduction at the top of the hierarchy, followed by reuse and then recycling. Disposal should be the last resort. While recycling and composting are environmentally preferable to disposal, the volume of single-use materials generated in California far exceed our capacity to recycle or compost those materials.
   

Requiring consumers to request a paper receipt is intended to reduce the number of paper receipts generated, which will conserve the resources needed to make the receipts and reduce the generation of waste receipts.

According to the AFPA, receipts are recyclable. While this may be technically true, CalRecycle indicates that receipts are highly discouraged from entering the recycling stream due to BPA or BPS coatings that are contaminants in the recycling stream. They are viewed by the waste industry as contaminants in the paper recycling stream, but given their small size they are impossible to remove during the sorting process. Their small size and light weight also make them prone to becoming contaminants in the plastic recycling stream.

Similarly, they are technically compostable, in that they will break down in an industrial compost facility. However, the BPA and BPS coatings are also a contaminant in compost.

1. Exempt parties. AB 161 excludes health care providers, small businesses, and nonprofit entities with annual gross sales of $2,000,000 or less. To be considered a “small business” is a low threshold – that it has annual gross receipts less than $2,000,000, it is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation. This would exclude a large number of businesses in the state.
   

This exemption was likely to accommodate those businesses that do not have the financial means to switch to an electronic receipts point-of-sale system, however that portion has been struck from the bill. AB 161 has since been significantly scaled back to only permit businesses to provide consumers with a receipt upon request.

Some have argued that these exemptions are still needed due to the prohibition of the receipts containing bisphenol A or bisphenol S. Another argument is that some older point-of-sale systems automatically generate receipts. These considerations, it is argued, would require businesses to switch their point-of-sale systems, causing a disproportionate financial burden. It is unclear if requiring a different type of paper or having a system that does not automatically generate a receipt would require a new point-of-sale system to be purchased. Even still, should a small business be allowed to not comply with the law because it would cost them money? Given the new direction of the bill, does it make sense to still exclude these parties from compliance? Is this an example of the exception swallowing the rule?

1. Actual deterrence. As currently written, AB 161 imposes minimal penalties on a business that violates its provisions. Specifically, the first and second violations result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, not to exceed $300 annually.
   

The enforcement provisions provided for under this bill are identical to last year’s AB 1884 (Calderon, Chapter 576, Statutes of 2018) which prohibited sit down restaurants from providing a single-use plastic straw to a customer unless requested. The same enforcement considerations and concerns that were discussed in that bill are present in this bill. Since its enactment, some restaurants comply with AB 1884’s “only upon request” mandate, some do not. Those restaurants continue to give out single-use plastic straws automatically, knowing that (1) the odds of being caught are low and (2) if caught, the consequences are minimal. For many restaurants, the maximum $300 penalty is a drop in the bucket.

Before AB 1884, the state had enacted various other programs geared to changing consumer behavior and reducing the amount of plastic that is disposed of. SB 270’s plastic bag ban imposes civil liability on a person or entity in the amount of $1,000 per day for the first violation, $2,000 per day for the second violation, and $5,000 per day for the third and subsequent violations. In the case of plastic ring devices, the state imposes an infraction and a fine not to exceed $1,000 on any person who sells at wholesale or distributes to a retailer containers that are connected to each other by means of a plastic ring or similar plastic devise that is not degradable.

The enforcement mechanisms for the state programs relating to the management of plastic are varied and depend on each programs unique circumstances and potential violators involved. Although the purpose of AB 161 is to reduce the amount of paper our society consumes, and AB 1884’s focus was on plastic, the overarching intent is the same – to cut down on the amount of waste we use.

The businesses that are subject to the provision of AB 161 are the larger, more profitable businesses who are not only owned by larger corporations but also likely the biggest contributors of paper receipt generation. These businesses would likely not be deterred by such a minimal penalty. If this bill is to have a meaningful impact on the standard operations of businesses and discourage the default practice of providing paper receipts for each transaction, a penalty that would actually deter businesses from violations should be included. A $25 penalty would not even cover the cost of having government enforce this law.

1. Overall impact of the bill. While the elimination of BPA and BPS from receipts may help with the recyclability to a degree, the focus of the bill is supposed to be source reduction. And requiring a consumer to ask for a receipt may help address that issue, but exempting a large group of businesses from having to comply may be the exception that swallows the rule. Given the number of businesses that would be permanently exempt from the bill and the minimal penalties imposed on the larger companies that are still subject to the bill, will this bill have a substantial impact on the state’s waste reduction efforts?

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1884 (Calderon, Chapter 576, Statutes of 2018) only allows full service restaurants to provide a single-use plastic straw to a consumer upon request.

SB 270 (Padilla, Chapter 850, Statutes of 2014) prohibits stores from distributing single-use carryout plastic bags and established requirements for reusable bags.

DOUBLE REFERRAL

This measure was heard in Senate Judiciary Committee on June 25, 2019, and passed out of committee with a vote of 7-2.

SOURCE: Author

SUPPORT:

350 Silicon Valley

American Sustainable Business Council

Azul

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

Californians Against Waste

California Coastkeeper Alliance

City of Berkeley

Clean Water Action

Digital Receipt Coalition

Educate. Advocate.

Endangered Habitats League

Empower Family California

Environmental Working Group

Defenders of Wildlife

Green America

Green Business Network

Heal the Bay

Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force

Northern California Recycling Association

Ocean Conservancy

Older Women’s League

Plastic Pollution Coalition

RethinkWaste

Save Our Shores

Save the Redwoods League

Seventh Generation Advisors

Sierra Club California

SoCal 350

South Bay 350 Los Angeles

Surfrider Foundation

The Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education

The 5 Gyres Institute

The Story of Stuff*

UPSTREAM

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation

Zero Waste USA

OPPOSITION:

American Chemistry Council

American Forest & Paper Association

Appvion Holding Corp./Appvion Operations, Inc.

Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce

BizFed – Los Angeles County Business Federation

BP America

CalAsian Chamber of Commerce

California Attractions and Parks Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Food Producers

California Fuels and Convenience Alliance

California Grocers Association

California Landscape Contractors Association

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Pharmacists Association

California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association

California Travel Association

Camarillo Chamber of Commerce

Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce

Chico Chamber of Commerce

Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce

Costco Wholesale

Domtar

Downey Chamber of Commerce

Family Winemakers of California

Folsom Chamber of Commerce

Fontana Chamber of Commerce

Gateway Chambers Alliance

General Credit Forms Inc.

Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater Ontario Business Council

Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce

Hansol America, Inc.

Hesperia Chamber of Commerce

Iconex

Inland Empire Economic Partnership

International Franchise Association

Kanzaki Specialty Papers

Koehler Paper Group

Liberty Greenleaf

Long Beach Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles County Business Federation

Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce

National Federation of Independent Business

North Pacific Paper Company, LLC

Orange County Business Council

Oxnard Chamber of Commerce

Paperboard Packaging Council

Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce

Printing Industries of California

Printing Industry Midwest

Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce

Redlands Chamber of Commerce

Resolute Forest Products

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce

Santa Maria Chamber of Commerce

Small Business California

Specialty Roll Products, Inc.

Specialty Graphic Imaging Association

Southwest California Legislative Council

TST IMPRESO

Twin Rivers Paper Company

United Chamber Advocacy Network

Victor Valley Chamber of Commerce

West Coast Lumber & Building Material Association

Western Carwash Association

Western Wood Preservers Institute

Westside Council of Chambers of Commerce

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 161 (Author:Ting)

Version: May 17, 2019

Hearing Date: June 25, 2019

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Solid waste: paper waste: electronic proofs of purchase

DIGEST

This bill requires a business, on and after January 1, 2022, to offer a consumer the option of receiving, and prohibits a business from printing, a proof of purchase if the consumer opts to not receive one, with certain exceptions. The bill requires a business to offer a proof of purchase to consumers in electronic form at the consumer’s preference beginning on January 1, 2024. A violation of these provisions subjects a business to a civil penalty, as provided. The bill defines various terms for these purposes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Every year millions of paper receipts are printed by businesses. These receipts have a detrimental impact on the environment and pose health risks. Reports estimate that 93 percent of paper receipts are coated with bisphenol-A (BPA) or bisphenol-S (BPS), which are known endocrine-disruptors. Paper receipts also generate enormous amounts of waste and require the use of large quantities of water and trees to produce. This bill seeks to address these environmental and health concerns by requiring a business to provide a proof of purchase at a consumer’s option, and requiring a business to offer a consumer the option of receiving a proof of purchase in an electronic form. The bill authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce these provisions, and provides for a violation to be punished by a civil penalty of $25 per day, not to exceed $300 annually.

The bill is author-sponsored. The bill is supported by numerous environmental organizations and other advocacy groups, the cities of Berkley and West Hollywood, and the Digital Receipt Coalition. The bill is opposed by various businesses and business associations. Should this bill pass out of the Committee, it will be referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which grants consumers certain rights with regard to their personal information, including enhanced notice, access, and disclosure; the right to deletion; the right to restrict the sale of information; and protection from discrimination for exercising these rights. It places attendant obligations on businesses to respect those rights. (Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)
   1. Provides consumers the right to request that a business that sells the consumer’s personal information, or that discloses it for a business purpose, disclose to the consumer the following:
      1. the categories of personal information that the business collected about the consumer;
      2. the categories of personal information that the business sold about the consumer and the categories of third parties to whom the personal information was sold, by category or categories of personal information for each third party to whom the personal information was sold; and
      3. the categories of personal information that the business disclosed about the consumer for a business purpose. (Civ. Code § 1798.115.)
   2. Provides a consumer the right, at any time, to direct a business that sells personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell the consumer’s personal information. This right may be referred to as the right to opt out. (Civ. Code § 1798.120.)
   3. Provides that a business does not sell personal information when:
      1. A consumer uses or directs the business to intentionally disclose personal information or uses the business to intentionally interact with a third party, provided the third party does not also sell the personal information, unless that disclosure would be consistent with the provisions of this title.
      2. The business uses or shares an identifier for a consumer who has opted out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information for the purposes of alerting third parties that the consumer has opted out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information.
      3. The business uses or shares with a service provider personal information of a consumer that is necessary to perform a business purpose if both of the following conditions are met:
         1. The business has provided notice that information being used or shared in its terms and conditions consistent with Section 1798.135 of the Civil Code.
         2. The service provider does not further collect, sell, or use the personal information of the consumer except as necessary to perform the business purpose.
      4. The business transfers to a third party the personal information of a consumer as an asset that is part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other transaction in which the third party assumes control of all or part of the business, provided that information is used or shared consistently with Sections 1798.110 and 1798.115 of the Civil Code, as provided.
   4. Defines “sell,” “selling,” “sale,” or “sold,” to mean selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by the business to another business or a third party for monetary or other valuable consideration. (Civ. Code § 1798.140(t)(1).)
2. Prohibits, pursuant to the Song Beverly Credit Card Act, persons and entities that accept credit cards for the transaction of business from doing any of the following and subjects a person who violates these provisions to a civil penalty:
   1. Requesting or requiring the cardholder, as a condition of accepting the credit card as payment for goods or services, to write any personal identification information on the credit card transaction form or otherwise.
   2. Requesting or requiring the cardholder, as a condition of accepting the credit card as payment for goods or services, to provide personal identification information that the person or entity accepting the credit card writes, causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction form or otherwise.
   3. Utilizing, in any credit card transaction, a credit card form that contains preprinted spaces specifically designated for filling in any personal identification information of the cardholder. (Civ. Code § 1747.08(a).)
3. Requires that local governments divert at least 50 percent of solid waste from landfill disposal and establishes a statewide goal that 75 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 41780 & 41780.01.)
4. Requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste from businesses. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 42649 et. seq.)
5. Requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste to arrange for recycling services for that material. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 42649.8 et. seq.)

This bill:

1. Requires, on and after January 1, 2022, a proof of purchase to be provided to a consumer by a business only at the consumer’s option, unless a proof of purchase is otherwise required to be given to the consumer by state or federal law.
2. Requires, on and after January 1, 2022, a paper proof of purchase to not be printed if the consumer opts to not receive a proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
3. Requires, on and after January 1, 2024, a proof of purchase to be provided in electronic form or paper form at the consumer’s option if the consumer chooses to receive a proof of purchase, unless a prescribed form is otherwise required by state or federal law.
4. Provides that a business is not required to provide an electronic proof of purchase if, due to limited internet connectivity, a power outage, or other unexpected technical difficulties, the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase.
5. Provides that a first and second violation of these provisions results in a notice of violation and that any subsequent violation is to be punished by a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed $300 annually.
6. Authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney to enforce this section.
   1. Provides that these provisions are not to be construed to alter a consumer privacy protection required pursuant to the CCPA.
   2. Provides that these provisions are not intended to alter the consumer rights of individuals.
7. Defines various terms for these purposes as follows:
   1. “Business” means a company that accepts payment through credit or debit transactions.
   2. “Business” does not include any of the following:
      1. A business that provides proofs of purchase that does not contain BPA or BPS and the proof of purchase does not include printouts of items nonessential to the transaction.
      2. A health care provider, as defined in Section 123105 of the Health and Safety Code.
      3. A small business, as defined in Section 11342.610 of the Government Code.
   3. “Consumer” means a person who purchases, and does not offer for resale, food, alcohol, other tangible personal property, or services.
   4. “Electronic form” includes, but is not limited to, a form sent through email or text message.
   5. “Invoice” means an itemized list of goods or services provided before or after the point of sale through a contract stating the amount due.
   6. “Proof of purchase” means a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided at the point of sale, but does not include an invoice.
8. Exempts a person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation from the provisions of the Song Beverly Credit Card Act if they are requesting personal identification information that is necessary to provide the cardholder with a receipt in electronic form and does not use the personal identification information for marketing purposes.
9. Makes various findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the environmental impacts and health risks posed by paper receipts.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

The Ecology Center’s More than you Bargained For: BPS and BPA in Receipts^[1] found that 93 percent of paper receipts are coated with Bisphenol-A (BPA) or Bisphenol-S (BPS), chemicals which the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned from baby bottles because they are known to disrupt hormones, causing cancerous tumors, birth defects, and other developmental issues. These BPA- or BPS-coated receipts enter people’s bodies simply by touching them. This poses a major risk to retail workers, who have 30 percent more BPA or BPS found in their bodies than others who do not have regular contact with receipts, according to the Environmental Working Group and the Center for Disease Control.

Additionally, Skip the Slip: Environmental Costs & Human Health Risks of Paper Receipts with Proposed Solutions by Green America^[2] found that over 3 million trees and 9 billion gallons of water in the United States are used to create proof of purchase receipts. These receipts generate 302 million pounds of waste and 4 billion pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2), the equivalent of more than 425,000 cars on the road.

Data from Square shows that their sellers send over 10 million digital receipts each month, a free service they provide to their sellers in order to reduce the amount of paper receipts being printed. […]

Starting on January 1, 2024, this bill would require all businesses to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically unless the customer asks for a physical copy. The bill would allow for two warnings of violations and subsequent violations are subject to a $25 fine for each day the business is in violation, with a maximum of $300 per year.

1. Paper receipts
   1. Environmental impacts and health risks posed by paper receipts

Paper receipts are a ubiquitous part of our modern economy, with some estimates finding that “cashiers, waiters, banks, and many other employees handle as many as 30 receipts per hour.”^[3] Most receipts are printed on thermal paper and “because of the way the ink develops, BPA and BPS are added in their free form without being bound to the paper or polymerized[,]” which leads to the chemicals transferring easily to anything the thermal paper touches.^[4] In 2016, the European Union banned the use of BPA in thermal receipts to take effect in 2020 and classified BPA as a “substance that has toxic effects on our ability to reproduce.”^[5] In the United States, Connecticut became the first state to ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of thermal receipt paper or cash register receipt paper containing BPA.^[6]

According to a report from Green America:

Paper receipts are tiny items with unnecessary environmental impacts and health risks for workers and customers. Every year in the United States, receipts use over 3 million trees, 9 billion gallons of water and generate 302 million pounds of solid waste (from production & disposal) and 4 billion pounds of greenhouse gases. Extraction and use of these resources have impacts, a reminder that we need to continue replacing outdated, wasteful items with innovative solutions.

Receipts also pose considerable health risks to the people who regularly are in contact with them. An estimated 93 percent of paper receipts are coated with Bisphenol-A (BPA) or Bisphenol-S (BPS), known endocrine-disruptors, which serve as color-developers to make the text appear on receipts. When we touch receipts, the chemical coating is absorbed into our bodies through our hands in mere seconds. Researchers at the New York State Department of Health documented connections between BPA exposures and developmental and neurological problems. BPA impacts fetal development and is linked to reproductive impairment, type 2 diabetes, thyroid conditions, and other health concerns. Companies have sought out “non-BPA” paper, but the typical replacement is BPS, a similar chemical which research indicates has similarly detrimental effects as BPA. 

Retail employees are at the greatest risk, as studies show workers who have regular contact with receipts have over 30 percent more BPA or BPS found in their bodies, and many employees may exceed the European Union’s limit for safe amount of BPA to absorb in a day (which is 4 micrograms per kilogram of body weight). As of 2014, nearly 81 percent of Americans were shown to have detectable levels of BPS in their urine, and nearly 90% of human exposure to BPS comes from thermal paper receipts coated with the substance.^[7]

• 1. This bill’s proposed solution

In light of the negative impacts posed by paper receipts, the bill seeks to do three things. First, it would require a business, on and after January 1, 2022, to offer a consumer a proof of purchase only if the consumer chooses to receive one. Second, it prohibits a business from printing a proof of purchase if a consumer elects to not receive one. The bill provides that if a state or federal law requires a paper receipt to be provided, then the bill’s provisions would not apply to that transaction. The bill defines “proof of purchase” as a receipt for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property or for the provision of services that is provided at the point of sale and excludes an invoice from this definition. The bill defines “business” as a company that accepts payment through credit or debit transactions, and specifies that a business does not include a health care provider or small business, as defined. The bill also provides that a business does not include a business that provides a receipt that does not contain BPA or BPS and does not contain items nonessential to the transaction, including, but not limited to, coupons or advertisements.

Third, the bill requires, on and after January 1, 2024, a business to offer a consumer the option of receiving a receipt in either paper form or electronic form, which includes a form sent through email or text message. The bill specifies that a business is not required to provide an electronic proof of purchase if, due to limited internet connectivity, a power outage, or other unexpected technical difficulties, the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase. The bill provides nominal fines for the enforcement of its provisions. A first and second violation by a business results only in a notice of violation and any subsequent violations subject a business to a civil penalty of $25 for each day the business is in violation not to exceed $300 in a year. The Attorney General, a district attorney, and a city attorney are authorized to enforce these provisions.

1. Electronic receipts and privacy issues
   1. Privacy

Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Privacy is therefore not just a policy goal, it is a constitutional right of every Californian. Current technology has allowed many tasks that previously required the use of paper to be done digitally or electronically, which has the potential to provide waste reduction and other positive environmental impacts. However, this also impacts privacy rights of individuals. Finding the appropriate balance between protecting Californian’s privacy and other important policy goals, such as waste reduction, is not an easy task and will require careful consideration by the Legislature.

In order for a business to offer a receipt in an electronic form, a business must obtain personal information from a consumer, such as a consumer’s email address or phone number. The bill in print does allow a consumer to choose a paper receipt; however, it is likely that many consumers will opt to receive an electronic receipt. This collection of personal information by businesses raises serious issues of data protection and could place consumers at an increased risk of having their personal information stolen. There have been several examples of massive data breaches that have led to millions of consumer’s personal information being stolen by hackers, including Epsilon International in 2011 (millions affected)^[8], Equifax in 2017 (143 million affected)^[9], and Marriott International in 2018 (up to 500 million affected).^[10]

• 1. CCPA

Under the CCPA, email addresses and phone numbers fall within the definition of personal information. The CCPA provides consumers with numerous rights related to the collection and sale of their personal identifying information, including that consumers are entitled to certain disclosures, have the right to opt out of the sale of their personal identifying information, and the right to request that a business delete their personal identifying information. A violation of the CCPA could subject a business to civil liability of up to $2,500 per violation, or up to $7,500 per intentional violation, in an action brought by the Attorney General, as specified. (Civ. Code § 1798.155.) Many opponents of the bill point to compliance with the provisions of the CCPA and the burden this would place on businesses being required to offer electronic receipts as a major concern with the bill, especially since regulations have not been fully promulgated by the Attorney General’s office to implement the provisions of the CCPA.

1. Statements in support

Supporters of this bill include numerous environmental organizations and other advocacy groups, the Cities of Berkeley and West Hollywood, and the Digital Receipt Coalition.

The Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition, a coalition of environmental organizations in support of the bill, write:

AB 161 would require all businesses to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically unless the customer asks for a physical copy, starting on January 1, 2022. Reducing the number of paper receipts that are printed will not only vastly cut down the amount of waste that we produce, it will also save millions of trees and billions of gallons of water each year. For these reasons, we are supporting AB 161.

The American Sustainable Business Council, a support of the bill, writes:

Today there are many alternatives to paper receipts that retailers are already using. Data from a point-of-sale platform that offers digital receipts shows that their sellers send over 10 million digital receipts each month.

There are benefits to retailers of moving to e-receipts, including lower ongoing costs from purchasing paper to lowering fraudulent returns. A 2017 National Retail Federation study found that paper-based receipts were used more frequently in fraudulent returns than electronic receipts.

AB 161 requirement to phase in electronic receipts for customers take effect on January 1, 2022, giving businesses time to incorporate e-receipts into their point of sale systems. In addition, very small businesses are excluded from the requirement.

Reducing the number of paper receipts that are printed will not only vastly cut down the amount of waste that we produce, it will also save millions of trees and billions of gallons of water each year. For these reasons, we are supporting AB 161.

In support of this bill, the Digital Receipt Coalition writes:

On an annual basis, California and other American retailers spend an estimated $1.64 billion on thermal receipt paper, and they incur service fees to repair and maintain printers. They incur a one-time fee of approximately $500 per printer to purchase the device and have it installed in each checkout lane. They also need to be replaced every 8-10 years.

Digital Receipts are very low cost, and in most cases, cost retailers nothing. We have identified 3 methods of digital receipt delivery: email, SMS (text), and archival. There is no incremental cost involved in sending emails or archiving digital receipts for user download. Text messages can cost as little as $.005 or half a penny each.

1. Statements in opposition

The opponents of the bill consist of various businesses and business associations. The opponents raise numerous concerns regarding the bill, including the following:

• Receipts are necessary for businesses to detect theft and oversee loss prevention programs.
• The cost of compliance, such as purchasing BPA and BPS free paper and point of sale systems that can produce electronic receipts.
• Issues complying with the Song Beverly Credit Card Act.
• Inability to include advertisements or other nonessential information on the receipts.
• The interplay of the bill’s requirements with the requirements under the CCPA.
• Privacy issues implicated by the collection of personal information.

The California Retailer’s Association writes in opposition of this bill, citing several concerns, including potential constitutional issues relating to commercial speech:

Restricting what can and cannot be printed on a receipt is a limit of commercial speech. Retailers add information to receipts that cover a wide variety of products – not simply coupons or advertisements. Under this bill, a retailer would even be prohibited from encouraging customers to vote in an upcoming election or to support to [sic] a community event or charity.

Additionally, we believe that the provision cited above is anti-consumer. This bill expressly prohibits a business from providing coupons on paper or electronic receipts. This greatly limits California consumer’s ability to access coupon-based savings. Based on a sampling of our members, we know from only one CRA member that in 2018 alone over 2.4 million California consumers save at least $30 million by utilizing a receipt coupon. Banning this access to costs savings will harm those who use coupons to save money on essential grocery and other items.

Clean Energy, another opponent of the bill, writes:

The latest version of the bill requires businesses to provide both paper and electronic options to consumers on or after January 1, 2024. While card-lock systems provide consumers with the option to print out a paper receipt or not, requiring an electronic option would cause catastrophic upheaval for the many businesses which utilize these systems and would incur substantial expense to comply. This is compounded by the fact that many such businesses comply now with the spirit of the bill by not offering a paper receipt unless the consumer expressly makes the decision to enter in “yes” on the keypad.

The Electronic Transaction Association writes in opposition of the bill:

This bill would require companies to ask for personal information such as emails or phone numbers in order to deliver electronic receipts. This requirement presents a number of challenges for merchants including data security components that come with additional collection and storing of personal information. Additionally, the requirement to ask for contact information in which to supply an electronic receipt may increase the timeframe at check out. The California Consumer Privacy Act requires that businesses make specific disclosures before collecting any personal identifying information, including information like email addresses. At high volume merchants, this added step at checkout would negatively affect the number of customers it could serve or negatively affect the seamless way consumers expect their relationship with merchants to be.

1. Proposed amendments
   1. Author’s amendments

In response to the concerns raised by the opponents regarding the requirement to provide an electronic receipt, the author has proposed to amend the bill as follows:

• Remove the requirement that a business provide a consumer with an electronic receipt and necessary corresponding changes.
• Remove the amendment to the Song Beverly Credit Card Act in Section 1747.08 of the Civil Code.
• Prohibit a receipt, on and after January 1, 2022, from containing BPA or BPS.
• Prohibit a receipt, on and after January 1, 2022, from including items nonessential to the transaction if those nonessential items make the receipt longer than necessary to provide the consumer with essential items to the transaction, and provides that “items nonessential to the transaction” include, but are not limited to, coupons or advertisements.
• Amend the definition of “business” to mean a person that accepts payment through credit or debit transactions, and provide that “person” includes any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.
• Additionally provide that a business does not include an entity organized as a nonprofit that has annual gross sales receipts of less than $2 million.

Staff note that a business would be allowed to offer an electronic receipt to a consumer, as many businesses do already, as long as that business is in compliance with all state and federal laws, including the CCPA and the Song Beverly Credit Card Act. The proposed amendments would remove language from the bill that clarified that the provisions did not alter consumer privacy protections under the CCPA or other consumer rights of individuals. This language was included as clarification to ensure that it was clear that the CCPA and all other consumer protections would continue to apply to the provision of electronic receipts and the collection of personal information. The removal of this language is not intended to imply that the CCPA or other consumer rights would no longer apply.

• 1. Commercial speech restrictions

The proposed amendments to the bill would expressly prohibit a business from placing any nonessential information on a receipt that makes the receipt longer than necessary to provide the consumer with essential items to the transaction, and provides that “items nonessential to the transaction” include, but are not limited to, coupons or advertisements. This prohibition does implicate commercial speech.

Generally speaking, the First Amendment, and Article I of the California Constitution, protect the freedom of expression of the citizens of California. Commercial speech, which is done on behalf of a company or individual for purpose of making a profit, has not been afforded full protection under the First Amendment by the United States Supreme Court. In order to be upheld as a valid restriction on commercial speech, the proposed law must meet the following four-part test: (1) the speech must be about a lawful activity and cannot be false or misleading; (2) the government must have a substantial interest; (3) the law must directly advance the governmental interest asserted; and (4) the law must be no more extensive than necessary.^[11]

A determination regarding the First Amendment is ultimately for the courts to decide; however, it seems that the proposed restriction would meet the above-described four part test. The state of California has a substantial interest in preventing waste and protecting the environment. By limiting receipts to essential items of the transaction the length of receipts will decrease, thus reducing waste and providing a positive impact on the environment. An article investigating the lengths of CVS receipts found that receipts from CVS that did not include coupons or surveys were much shorter than receipts that contained these items.^[12] For example, the article showed that a receipt from CVS that did not included nonessential information was 39 inches shorter, or 3.25 feet, than a receipt for the same item that contained various coupons.^[13] A business would still be free to print a coupon or advertisement on the back side of the receipt or offer a coupon to a customer separately.

• 1. Specific amendments proposed by the author

The specific amendments as proposed by the author are as follows:^[14]

Amendment 1

In the title, in line 1, strike out “to amend Section 1747.08 of the Civil Code, and”

Amendment 2

On page 3, strike out lines 21 to 23, inclusive, in line 24, strike out “(g)” and insert:

(f)

Amendment 3

On page 3, strike out lines 27 to 39, inclusive, strike out pages 4 and 5, on page 6, strike out lines 1 to 10, inclusive, in line 11, strike out “SEC. 3.” and insert:

SEC. 2.

Amendment 4

On page 6, in line 18, strike out “company” and insert:

Person

Amendment 5

On page 6, in line 19, strike out “credit” and insert:

cash, credit,

Amendment 6

On page 6, strike out lines 21 to 27, inclusive, in line 28, strike out “(B)” and insert:

(A)

Amendment 7

On page 6, in line 30, strike out “(C)” and insert:

(B)

Amendment 8

On page 6, between lines 31 and 32, insert:

(C) An entity organized as a nonprofit institution that has annual gross sale receipts of less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

Amendment 9

On page 6, strike out lines 35 and 36, in line 37, strike out “(d)” and insert:

(c)

Amendment 10

On page 6, below line 39, insert:

(d) “Person” includes any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.

Amendment 11

On page 7, in line 5, strike out “On and after January 1, 2022, a” and insert:

A

Amendment 12

On page 7, in line 9, strike out “On and after January 1, 2022, a” and insert:

A

Amendment 13

On page 7, in line 10, after “printed” insert:

by a business

Amendment 14

On page 7, strike out lines 12 to 21, inclusive, and insert:

(c) A paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business shall not contain bisphenol A or bisphenol S.

(d) (1) A paper proof of purchase provided to a consumer by a business shall not include printouts of items nonessential to the transaction if those nonessential items make the paper proof of purchase longer than necessary to provide the consumer with the essential items to the transaction.

(2) “Items nonessential to the transaction” include, but are not limited to, coupons or advertisements.

Amendment 15

On page 7, in line 22, strike out “(d)” and insert:

(e)

Amendment 16

On page 7, in line 24, strike out “subdivision (a), (b), or (c)” and insert:

this section

Amendment 17

On page 7, strike out lines 28 to 33, inclusive, and insert:

(f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2022.

SUPPORT

350 South Bay Los Angeles

American Sustainable Business Council

Azul
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

Californians Against Waste

Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education (COARE)

City of Berkeley

City of West Hollywood

Clean Water Action

Comcash, Inc.

Defenders of Wildlife
Digital Receipt Coalition

Educate. Advocate.
Empower Family California
Environmental Working Group
Green America

Green Business Network
Heal the Bay

Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management

Northern California Recycling Association

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Recology

Receetme, Ltd.
Save Our Shores

Seventh Generation Advisors

SoCal 350

South Bayside Waste Management Authority

Surfrider Foundation

The 5 Gyres Institute

The Story of Stuff Project

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation

UPSTREAM

Zero Waste USA

OPPOSITION

American Chemistry Council
American Forest & Paper Association
Appvion Holding Corp/Appvion Operations, Inc.
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce

BP America (Owner of AmPm Franchise)
BP America, Inc.
CalAsian Chamber of Commerce

California Attractions and Parks Association

California Chamber of Commerce
California Fuels and Convenience Alliance

California Grocers Association
California Landscape Contractors Association

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Pharmacists Association
California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association
California Travel Association

Camarillo Chamber of Commerce

Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce

Clean Energy

Clean Energy Fuels

Chico Chamber of Commerce

Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce

COSTCO Wholesale Corporation
Domtar

Downey Chamber of Commerce

Electronic Transactions Association
Family Winemakers of California

Folsom Chamber of Commerce

Fontana Chamber of Commerce

Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee

Gateway Chambers Alliance
General Credit Forms, Inc.

Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Ontario Business Council

Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce
Hansol America, Inc.
Hesperia Chamber of Commerce

Iconex
Inland Empire Economic Partnership

International Franchise Association
Kanzaki Specialty Papers
Koehler Paper Group

Liberty Greenleaf

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles County Business Federation 

Murieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce

National Federation of Independent Business
North Pacific Paper Company, LLC

Oxnard Chamber of Commerce

Orange County Business Council

Paperboard Packaging Council

Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce
Printing Industries of California
Printing Industry Midwest
Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce

Redlands Chamber of Commerce

Resolute Forest Products

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce

Santa Maria Chamber of Commerce

Small Business California

Specialty Graphic Imaging Association
Specialty Roll Products, Inc.
Twin Rivers Paper Company

TST IMPRESO

United Chamber Advocacy Network
West Coast Lumber & Building Material Association

Westside Council of Chambers of Commerce

Western Car Wash Association

Two individuals

United Chamber Advocacy Network

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known

Prior Legislation:

SB 1121 (Dodd, Ch. 735, Stats. 2018) ensured that a private right applied only to the CCPA’s section on data breach and not to any other section of the CCPA, as specified, corrected numerous drafting errors, made non-controversial clarifying amendments, and addressed several policy suggestions made by the Attorney General in a preliminary clean-up bill after the passage of AB 375 (Chau, Ch. 55, Stats. 2018).

AB 375 (Chau, Ch. 55, Stats. 2018) enacted the CCPA to provide consumers with numerous rights related to the collection and sale of their personal information by certain businesses, as provided.

AB 1884 (Calderon, Ch. 576 Stats. 2018) prohibited a full-service restaurant from providing single use plastic straws to a consumer unless requested by the consumer and made a violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction, as specified.

SB 270 (Padilla, Ch. 850, Stats. 2014) prohibited certain types of stores and retail establishments from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer, with specified exceptions.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 43, Noes 24)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 7)

Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 4)

Assembly Natural Resources Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 3)

**************

1. Ecology Center, More than you Bargained For: BPS and BPA in Receipts (Jan. 17, 2018), available at https://www.ecocenter.org/sites/default/files/healthy-stuff/Ecology%20Center%20Receipt%20Study%202018%20Report%20final_0.pdf (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

2. Green America, Skip the Slip: Environmental Costs & Human Health Risks of Paper Receipts with Proposed Solutions (updated Jan. 2019), available at https://www.greenamerica.org/report-STS (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

3. Fn. 2 supra at 14. ↑

4. Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, New report: 9 out of 10 receipts contain toxic BPA or BPS (Jan, 17, 2018), available at https://saferchemicals.org/2018/01/17/new-report-9-out-of-10-receipts-contain-toxic-bpa-or-bps/ (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

5. ECHA, Hot topics, Bisphenol A, available at https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/bisphenol-a (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

6. Senate Bill 210 (Meyer, 2011), C.G.S.A. § 21a-12e. ↑

7. Fn. 2 supra. ↑

8. Halliday, Josh, Epsilon email hack: millions of customers’ details stolen, The Guardian (Apr. 4, 2011), available at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/04/epsilon-email-hack (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

9. FTC, The Equifax Data Breach: What to Do (Sept. 8, 2017), available at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2017/09/equifax-data-breach-what-do (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

10. FTC, The Marriott data breach (Dec. 4, 2018), available at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2018/12/marriott-data-breach (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

11. Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission (1980) 447 U.S. 559. ↑

12. Sugar, Rachel, The long, long history of long, long CVS receipts, Vox (Oct. 10, 2018), available at https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/10/17956950/why-are-cvs-pharmacy-receipts-so-long (as of Jun. 16, 2019). ↑

13. Id. ↑

14. These amendments may include technical, nonsubstantive changes as determined by Legislative Counsel. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 161

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:May 17, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Beginning January 1, 2022, prohibits stores from providing paper receipts to consumers except upon request.

Major Provisions

1. Beginning January 1, 2022, prohibits a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the customer refuses to receive the proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
2. Beginning January 1, 2024, requires a business to provide a proof of purchase requested by a customer in electronic or paper form, at the customer's option, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
3. Specifies a business is not required to provide an electronic proof of purchase if the business is incapable of sending it due to limited internet connectivity or a power outage. Specifies that nothing in the bill is intended to narrow privacy protections in the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.
4. Authorizes the Attorney General, district attorney or city attorney to enforce the provisions of the bill. Establishes that the first and second violation shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by $25 per day, not to exceed $300 annually.
5. Defines "business" as a company that accepts payment through credit or debit transactions. Specifies that "business" does not include a businesses that are a healthcare provider or a small business, as specified, or that provides receipts that do not contain bisphenol A or bisphenol S and the receipts do not include printouts that are nonessential to the transaction,.

COMMENTS:

Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is very thin, lightweight paper coated with a material that changes color when heated. Generally, this coating contains either Bisphenol A (BPA) or Bisphenol S (BPS). According to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), receipt paper used in California uses BPS almost exclusively. Because thermal paper is so thin, it generally contains no recycled content.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), exposure to BPA and BPS may occur during manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life. In one 2010 study, BPA was detected at levels between 0.8 percent and 2.8 percent of the total weight of the receipts tested. Bisphenols are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks.

While paper is 17% of the state's disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. Estimates vary on the amount of receipt paper used in the US. According to the AFPA, the US annually uses approximately 180,000 tons of paper receipts. Grand View Research, which provides market information, estimates that 282,500 tons of thermal paper is used in the US each year for receipts.

This bill is focused on source-reduction. California's solid waste hierarchy places source reduction at the top of the hierarchy, followed by reuse and then recycling. Disposal should be the last resort. While recycling and composting are environmentally preferable to disposal, the volume of single-use materials generated in California far exceed our capacity to recycle or compost those materials. Requiring consumers to request a paper receipt is intended to reduce the number of paper receipts generated, which will conserve the resources needed to make the receipts and reduce the generation of waste receipts.

According to the AFPA, receipts are recyclable. While this may be technically true, CalRecycle indicates that they are highly discouraged from entering the recycling stream due to BPA or BPS coatings that are contaminants in the recycling stream. They are viewed by the waste industry as contaminants in the paper recycling stream, but given their small size they are impossible to remove during the sorting process. Their small size and light weight also make them prone to becoming contaminants in the plastic recycling stream. Similarly, they are technically compostable, in that they will break down in an industrial compost facility. However, the BPA and BPS coatings are also a contaminant in compost.

According to the Author:

With the increasing adoption of e-receipts, paper receipts have become unnecessary and antiquated. Yet many businesses are still providing paper receipts, generating millions of pounds of waste every year and consuming valuable resources.

Changes in the recycling market have caused recyclers to store the materials that they are normally able to ship to markets in China. This major shift in the recycling market should spur further policy shifts in waste reduction.

Reducing the number of paper receipts that are printed will not only vastly cut down the amount of waste that we produce, it will also save thousands of trees and gallons of water each year.

Arguments in Support:

Supporters of this bill state that reducing the number of paper receipts that are printed will not only vastly cut down the amount of waste that we produce, it will also save millions of trees and billions of gallons of water each year.

Additionally, studies show that both BPA and BPS levels in people rose significantly after handling thermal receipt paper. BPA is an endocrine-disrupting compound and a reproductive toxicant. It can disrupt the hormone system, particularly when exposures occur during prenatal development and infancy. BPA alternatives, such as BPS, have not been proven safe, as they, too, may cause endocrine disruption. Many studies have revealed the accumulating evidence linking BPA exposure to breast cancer, and other chronic diseases.

Arguments in Opposition:

Opponents of the bill state that paper receipts are made from a renewable resource: trees. "Switching to electronic proofs of purchase will not 'save trees'." Demand for paper products creates the incentive for forest landowners to keep forests as forests, rather than converting forest land to other uses. Receipts are routinely recycled at paper mills as part of mixed paper or sorted office paper bales. Paper receipts are safe for consumers and point-of-sale employees. U.S. manufacturers do not use BPA in receipt paper, and the major importers do not import papers that use BPA coatings.

Additionally, this bill creates operational challenges with customer purchases. In order for a customer and a business to execute and complete a transaction with an electronic receipt, a customer would have to provide some personally identifiable information.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

1. Increased annual Attorney General/Department of Justice enforcement costs of up to $700,000 per year (General Fund) offset to some extent by penalty revenue. This estimate is based on the previous version of the bill and may be lower due to the exclusion of some small businesses.
2. There are unknown indirect costs associated with this bill. For example, the state continues to make significant investments in alternative fuel pumps. If this bill is enacted, pump registers would have to be redesigned at a greater cost, and existing pumps registers would have to be retrofitted, or taken off-line, resulting in a wasted public investment.
3. Another concern is the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program. Current regulations require recipients to be treated as all others customers and given paper receipts for transactions. This bill may require new state regulations.
4. Further, it is unknown if the Franchise Tax Board is equipped to accept electronic receipts as evidence for the purposes of sales tax exemptions.
5. This bill may have more indirect or unintended fiscal consequences yet to be identified.

VOTES:

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 6-3-2

YES: Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Limón, McCarty, Muratsuchi, Mark Stone

NO: Flora, Mathis, Melendez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Chau, Eggman

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 7-4-0

YES: Chau, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Calderon, Gabriel, Irwin, Wicks

NO: Kiley, Gallagher, Obernolte, Smith

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-7-1

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Diep, Fong, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris

ABS, ABST OR NV: Eggman

UPDATED:

VERSION: May 17, 2019

CONSULTANT: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0000871

Date of Hearing: May 15, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 161

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:May 7, 2019

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires businesses to provide receipts to consumers only at the customer’s option, unless required by state or federal law. Specifically, this bill:

1. Beginning January 1, 2022, prohibits a business from printing a paper proof of purchase if the customer refuses to receive the proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
2. Beginning January 1, 2024, requires a business to provide a proof of purchase requested by a customer in electronic or paper form, at the customer’s option, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
3. Specifies a business is not required to provide an electronic proof of purchase if the business is incapable of sending it due to limited internet connectivity.
4. Specifies that nothing in the bill is intended to narrow privacy protections in the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.
5. Authorizes the Attorney General, district attorney or city attorney to enforce the provisions of the bill. Establishes that the first and second violation shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by $25 per day, not to exceed $300 annually.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Increased annual Attorney General/Department of Justice enforcement costs of up to $700,000 per year (General Fund) offset to some extent by penalty revenue. This estimate is based on the previous version of the bill and may be lower due to the exclusion of some small businesses.
2. There are unknown indirect costs associated with this bill. For example, the state continues to make significant investments in alternative fuel pumps. If this bill is enacted, pump registers would have to be redesigned at a greater cost, and existing pumps registers would have to be retrofitted, or taken off-line, resulting in a wasted public investment.

Another concern is the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program. Current regulations require recipients to be treated as all others customers and given paper receipts for transactions. This bill may require new state regulations.

Further, it is unknown if the Franchise Tax Board is equipped to accept electronic receipts as evidence for the purposes of sales tax exemptions.

This bill may have more indirect or unintended fiscal consequences yet to be identified.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill seeks to reduce paper waste in California by, among other things, requiring businesses to provide consumers with electronic receipts, unless the consumer requests a paper receipt.
2. Background. Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is very thin, lightweight paper coated with a material that changes color when heated. Generally, this coating contains either Bisphenol A (BPA) or Bisphenol S (BPS). According to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), receipt paper used in California uses BPS almost exclusively. Because thermal paper is so thin, it generally contains no recycled content.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), exposure to BPA and BPS may occur during manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life (i.e., recycling, composting, landfilling or incineration). In one 2010 study, BPA was detected at levels between 0.8% and 2.8% of the total weight of the receipts tested. Bisphenols are endocrine disrupters associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks.

While paper is 17% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a very small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. Estimates vary on the amount of receipt paper used in the US. According to the AFPA, the US annually uses approximately 180,000 tons of paper receipts.

1. Small Businesses Are Exempt. The most recent author’s amendments exempt small businesses from the provisions of this bill using existing Government Code Section 11342.610. Small business is defined as a business activity in agriculture, general construction, special trade construction, retail trade, wholesale trade, services, transportation and warehousing, manufacturing, generation and transmission of electric power, or a health care facility with specified annual gross receipts, depending upon the type of business and number of employees.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ed Chau, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 161 (

Author:Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 2, 2019

SUBJECT: Solid waste: paper waste: electronic proofs of purchase

SUMMARY: This bill would, among other things, on and after January 1, 2022, require businesses to provide consumers electronic receipts only unless the consumer requests a paper receipt, or a paper receipt is otherwise required by law. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Beginning January 1, 2022, require a business to provide point-of-sale proof of purchase in electronic form unless:
   • the consumer requests a paper receipt;
   • a paper receipt is required by state or federal law; or,
   • the consumer declines to provide the information necessary to provide an electronic receipt.
2. Provide that the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney may enforce the provisions of the bill. Establish that the first and second violation shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by $25 per day, not to exceed $300 annually.
3. Provide that nothing in the bill shall be construed to alter a consumer privacy protection required pursuant to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA).
4. Provide that nothing in the bill is intended to alter the consumer rights of individuals.
5. Exempt a business, as specified, that is requesting personal identification information that is necessary to provide the cardholder with a receipt in electronic form pursuant to this bill, from a prohibition on the collection of personal identification information as a condition to accepting a credit card payment in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
6. Define various terms for the purposes of the bill, including:
   • “Business” to mean a company that has more than $1 million in gross receipts annually and accepts credit or debit card transactions. Business would not include a health care provider, under specified law.
   • “Consumer” to mean a person who purchases, and does not offer for resale, food, alcohol, other tangible personal property, or services.
   • “Electronic form” to mean including, but not limited to, a form sent through email or text message.
7. Make various declarations and findings related to paper receipts, including:
   • Receipts generate 302,000,000 pounds of waste and 4,000,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of more than 425,000 cars on the road, and most paper receipts contain chemicals that would contaminate other recyclable paper materials.
   • Data from a company that provides mobile payment services shows that their sellers send over 10,000,000 digital receipts each month.
   • Prohibiting businesses from providing paper receipts except upon request would have significant positive environmental and public health effects.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, except in specified situations, that retailers making sales of tangible personal property, shall collect the tax from the purchaser and give the purchaser a receipt, as specified. (Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 6203.)
2. Establishes CCPA and provides various rights to consumers pursuant to the act. Subject to various general exemptions, a consumer has, among other things:
   • the right to know what PI a business collects about consumers, as specified, including the categories of third parties with whom the business shares PI, and the specific pieces of information collected about the consumer;
   • the right to know what PI a business sells about consumers, as specified, including the categories of PI that the business sold about the consumer and the categories of third parties to whom the PI was sold, by category or categories of PI for each third party to whom the PI was sold;
   • the right to access the specific pieces of information a business has collected about the consumer;
   • the right to delete information that a business has collected from the consumer; and
   • the right to opt-out of the sale of the consumer’s PI if over 16 years of age, and the right to opt-in, as specified, if the consumer is a minor; and,
   • the right to equal service and price, despite exercising any of these rights. (Civ. Code Sec. 1798.100 et seq.)
3. Defines various terms for the purpose of the CCPA, including defining “PI” to mean information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. PI includes specific types of information if it identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could be reasonably linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. These include, for example:
   • Identifiers such as a real name, alias, postal address, unique personal identifiers including telephone numbers, online identifier, Internet Protocol address, email address, account name, social security number, driver’s license number, passport number, or other similar identifiers.
   • Characteristics of protected classifications under California or federal law.
   • Commercial information, as specified.
   • Professional or employment-related information. (Civ. Code Sec. 1798.140(o) and (x).)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill: This bill seeks to reduce paper waste in California by, among other things, requiring businesses to provide consumers with electronic receipts, unless the consumer requests a paper receipt. This bill is author-sponsored.
2. Author’s statement: According to the author:

The Ecology Center’s More than you Bargained For: BPS and BPA in Receipts found that 93 percent of paper receipts are coated with Bisphenol-A (BPA) or Bisphenol-S (BPS), chemicals which the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned from baby bottles because they are known to disrupt hormones, causing cancerous tumors, birth defects, and other developmental issues.

These BPA- or BPS-coated receipts enter people’s bodies simply by touching them. This poses a major risk to retail workers, who have 30 percent more BPA or BPS found in their bodies than others who do not have regular contact with receipts, according to the Environmental Working Group and the Center for Disease Control.

Additionally, Skip the Slip: Environmental Costs & Human Health Risks of Paper Receipts with Proposed Solutions by Green America found that over 3 million trees and 9 billion gallons of water in the United States are used to create proof of purchase receipts. These receipts generate 302 million pounds of waste and 4 billion pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2), the equivalent of more than 425,000 cars on the road.

Data from Square shows that their sellers send over 10 million digital receipts each month, a free service they provide to their sellers in order to reduce the amount of paper receipts being printed. […]

Starting on January 1, 2022, this bill would require all businesses to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically unless the customer asks for a physical copy. The bill would allow for two warnings of violations and subsequent violations are subject to a $25 fine for each day the business is in violation, with a maximum of $300 per year.

1. California is a leader in environmental protection: California has long been a leader in environmental protection. Ten years after the passage of AB 32 (Nunez, Ch. 488, Stats. 2006), which required a sharp reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, California extended and strengthened the limit on greenhouse gas emissions with the passage of SB 32 (Pavley, Ch. 249, Stats. 2016).

This Legislature has also passed a number of measures aimed at reducing waste in the state. An estimated 35 million tons of waste are disposed of in California’s landfills annually, and the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery is tasked with diverting at least 75% of solid waste from landfills statewide by 2020. Local governments have been required to divert 50% of the waste generated within the jurisdiction from landfill disposal since 2000. AB 341 (Chesbro, Ch. 476, Stats. 2011) required commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services for the material they generate and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste generated by businesses out of the landfill. A follow up bill, AB 1826 (Chesbro, Ch. 727, Stats. 2014) required generators of organic waste (i.e., food waste and yard waste) to arrange for recycling services for that material to keep it out of the landfill.

More recently, the Legislature has passed bans on single use plastic bags and single use plastic straws. (See, SB 270 (Padilla, Ch. 850, Stats. 2014) and AB 1884 (Calderon, Ch. 576 Stats. 2018).) Related specifically to paper waste, Green America published research last year detailing the environmental costs and human health risks associated with paper receipts:

Paper receipts are tiny items with significant environmental impacts and health risks for workers and customers. Every year in the United States, receipt use consumes 10 million trees, 21 billion gallons of water, and generates 686 million pounds of waste and 12 billion pounds of CO2. Extraction and use of these resources takes a toll on the climate, a reminder that we need to continue replacing outdated, wasteful items with innovative solutions.

Receipts also pose considerable health risks to the people who regularly are in contact with them. An estimated 93 percent of paper receipts are coated with Bisphenol-A (BPA) or Bisphenol-S (BPS), known endocrine-disruptors which serve as color-developers to make the text appear on receipts. When we touch receipts, the chemical coating is absorbed into our bodies through our hands in mere seconds. Researchers at the New York State Department of Health documented connections between BPA exposures and developmental and neurological problems. BPA impacts fetal development and is linked to reproductive impairment, type 2 diabetes, thyroid conditions, and other health concerns. Companies have sought out “non-BPA” paper, but the typical replacement is BPS, a similar chemical which research indicates has similarly detrimental effects as BPA. (Porter and Temsamani, Skip the Slip Environmental Costs & Human Health Risks of Paper Receipts with Proposed Solutions, Green America (May 10, 2018).) (Citations omitted.)

To combat the reported negative effects of paper receipts, this bill would, beginning January 1, 2022, require a business to provide a receipt in electronic form unless a consumer requests a paper receipt, a paper receipt is required by another law, or the consumer fails to provide the necessary PI in order for the receipt to be sent electronically. The bill would authorize public attorneys, such as the Attorney General, district attorneys, and city attorneys to bring actions for violations of the bills provisions. Seventh Generation Advisors, in support, write:

Today there are many alternatives to paper receipts that retailers are already using. Data from a point-of-sale platform that offers digital receipts shows that their sellers send over 10 million digital receipts each month.

AB 161 would require all businesses to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically unless the customer asks for a physical copy, starting on January 1, 2022. Reducing the number of paper receipts that are printed will protect the health of vulnerable populations, vastly cut down the amount of waste that we produce, and will also save millions of trees and billions of gallons of water each year. For these reasons, we are supporting AB 161.

1. Privacy is a fundamental right: Californians have enshrined the right to privacy in the state Constitution and California has consistently sought to set an example to other states through its prioritization of its residents’ right to privacy. Specifically, since the right to privacy was expressly provided in the state constitution in 1972, the Legislature has continued to enact privacy protective laws, demonstrating how this fundamental right is protected. The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act limits the disclosure of patients’ medical information absent their consent. The Computer Spyware Act prohibits an unauthorized person from knowingly installing or providing software on another’s computer, as specified. (Civ. Code Sec. 56 et seq. and Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 22947 et seq.) California also has specific privacy protections for victims of domestic violence, elder and dependent adult abuse, stalking, and human trafficking, and similarly provides address confidentiality for elected and public officials despite the public’s interest in transparency. (Gov. Code Sec. 6205 et seq. and Gov. Code Sec. 6254.21.) The CCPA, enacted in 2018 to protect the privacy of consumers’ PI when in the possession of businesses, represents the most recent example of a long and pioneering history of placing privacy above all but the most serious concerns.

Defining the appropriate balance between privacy interests and competing public policies (such as California’s commitment to reducing waste, as discussed in Comment 3, above), can be difficult. In trying to strike an appropriate balance, the author recently amended this bill to ensure that businesses who collect email addresses or telephone numbers for the purpose of sharing a receipt are not in violation of the Song-Beverly Act, which prohibits the collection of any personal identification information (PII) as a condition of completing a purchase. PII, in this case, means information concerning the cardholder, other than information set forth on the credit card, and including, but not limited to, the cardholder’s address and telephone number.

While this amendment largely addressed an issue raised by retailers who expressed concern that compliance with this bill would likely ensure noncompliance with Song Beverly (and vice versa), the amendment did not similarly address privacy concerns which are implicated by the practice of requiring businesses to collect consumers’ PI. As noted by the California Bankers Association, who oppose this bill unless amended to exempt ATM transactions from its requirements, “[t]his measure places an undo burden on banks that provide ATM services at their brank and non-branch locations. This is particularly true for out-of-network ATMs, also known as foreign ATMs, where a bank may not have any relationship with the consumer. In these instances, where a consumer may only utilize a bank’s ATM once, when they do not have access to their own bank’s ATM, the foreign bank will have no record of the consumer and certainly no email address where a proof of purchase can be sent.” In other words, this bill would require businesses to update their hardware and software to allow for consumers to input PI, even if the consumer only visits the business location once.

Arguably, this scenario raised by the Bankers Association would be present for any business that does not have a pre-existing relationship with a consumer, making this concern more far-reaching than just financial institutions. Regarding the collection of PI specifically to send a consumer an electronic receipt, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opposes this bill unless amended to limit the use of email addresses and telephone numbers to that specific purpose. EFF writes:

Compelling businesses to collect personally identifiable information from their customers

is a problem, particularly without additional assurances that this information will be

protected. This collection will create new troves of sensitive personal information that

will be gold mines for data brokers, debt collectors, and plain old spammers. While the

CCPA gives consumers the rights to opt out of having their data sold and to delete their

information, defaults matter. Many people will not be informed or determined enough to

contact each brick-and-mortar business they visit in order to exercise their rights. […]

We request that the bill require any personally-identifiable information collected in order

to deliver an e-receipt be deleted as soon as it is used for that purpose. If data cannot be

deleted immediately after a transaction, then the bill should be amended to require that

consumers be asked explicitly to opt-in to any purpose a company may use their

information for apart from sending a receipt.

The following amendment would further protect consumers by requiring that PI collected in order to comply with the provisions of this bill, may not be used for marketing purposes. Therefore, businesses that would like to use a consumer’s email or phone number for a mrketing purpose, would need to obtain it in a different way. Staff additionally notes that limiting how businesses may use this PI should also arguably encourage the deletion of the PI within a reasonable time to protect against liability from data breach and other privacy laws, discussed more in Comment 5, below.

Author’s amendment:

Page 4, lines 14-18 are amended to read: “(D) The person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation is a business, as defined in Section 42359 of the Public Resources Code, and is requesting personal identification information that is necessary to provide the cardholder with a receipt in electronic form pursuant to Section 42359.1 of the Public Resources Code and does not use the personal information for marketing purposes.

In support, Azul writes:

Azul is an environmental and environmental equity organization working to bring Latinxs perspectives and participation to ocean conservation and protection of coastal resources and marine life. As the only ocean conservation organization in the country that focuses specifically on working with Latinxs, we understand that the environment is a key concern for Latinx communities, that preserving the coasts and oceans is a key element of a healthy environment, and that we still need to make sure beach access is a reality for all Californians. To achieve this, Azul works with communities, regulators and decision makers to promote these ideals whenever possible.

We appreciate the simple step AB 161 takes in reducing receipt waste by requiring businesses to provide a proof of purchase electronically, unless otherwise requested by a customer. We believe that this is an easy and effective way to minimize the amount of paper receipts produced and distributed, which will help prevent them from littering our state’s parks, beaches, and oceans.

1. Telephone numbers and email addresses are protected as “personal information” under law: The CCPA, enacted last year provides consumers with numerous rights related to the collection and sale of their PI by certain businesses. Relevant to this bill, email addresses and phone numbers are covered under the CCPA’s definition of “PI,” meaning that consumers are entitled to certain disclosures, have the right to opt-out of the sale of their PI, and may request that the business delete their PI. On this point, the California Retailers Association (CRA), opposing the bill unless amended, writes:

AB 161 raises makes compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) more challenging for many businesses. [The] CCPA requires that businesses make specific disclosures before collecting any personal identifying information, including email addresses. That means before providing an electronic receipt upon purchase, a retailer would have to provide the disclosures first to the consumer. Educating retail clerks on how to communicate or explain legal privacy disclosures and having customers willing to stand there and read them or listen and sign consent would create impossible situations in some retail environments like express lanes, self service areas and gas stations.

Staff notes that businesses found to be in violation of the CCPA may be liable for up to $2,500 per violation, or up to $7,500 per intentional violation, in an action brought by the Attorney General, as specified. Under this bill, businesses would receive a warning for the first and second violations, and be liable for $25 each day thereafter that the business is in violation, but not to exceed $300 annually. As evidenced by language in the bill which provides that the bill shall not be construed to alter a consumer privacy protection required pursuant to the CCPA, the author does arguably not intend to put businesses in a position where they have to skirt their obligations under the CCPA in order to comply with the provisions of this bill. That being said, as a practical matter, businesses may be put in a position, should this bill be enacted, where they must choose compliance with one law over the other. As a matter of public policy, the author may wish to consider whether the goals of this bill or the CCPA are adequately met if Californian businesses cannot reasonably comply with both.

In addition, a coalition of companies, including the California Restaurant Association, Family Winemakers of California, CalChamber, and the National Federation of Independent Business (coalition) argue that AB 161 “also creates a new layer of liability regarding data security. While some large employers may have legal departments and in-house experts to protect against lawsuits, small businesses, especially minority-owned small businesses with language barriers, would be disproportionately impacted by potential lawsuits stemming from new data security threats under AB 161.” Similarly, Iconex, a provider of paper receipt and differentiated label solutions, argues in opposition that “AB 161 is based largely upon a May 2018 report issued by an advocacy organization called Green America. […] The Green America report cites data from Epsilon International regarding the number of retailers which offer digital receipts. Epsilon itself suffered a massive data breach in 2011 from which the names and addresses of millions of users were stolen. By fostering the unnecessary collection of new email and cell phone data, AB 161 places retailers and customers at increased risk of being part of a data breach event.” On this point, staff notes that relevant to this bill, under California’s Data Breach Notification law, “PI” encompasses an email address in combination a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account. (See Civ. Code Sec. 1798.81.5.)

Finally, as noted by the CRA, “retailers who send digital receipts by text message rather than email may run afoul of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Under this federal statute, a company sending text messages to consumers via automated means, to market their goods and services, must be able to demonstrate the recipients expressly consented in writing to receive those messages. Violators can be sued for $500-$1,500 per violation, making them a ripe target for class action lawsuits. AB 161, as written, would arguably allow businesses to send e-receipts via text message. Retailers would have to receive customer consent every time a customer opted to receive an e-receipt.”

Inherent to all of these laws is the notion that widespread collection, aggregation, dissemination, and sale of consumers’ PI is not only likely a violation of one’s privacy, but is associated with an elevated risk of identity theft. Accordingly, these laws were enacted not only to create standards for how businesses should handle PI, but also to discourage the collection of consumer PI when not absolutely necessary. On this point, CRA offers an illustration of how this bill may unintentionally compromise the privacy of an individual living in the same household as her family. “AB 161 could have the unintended consequence of releasing what our customers might like to keep private. For example, if a teenager purchases a sensitive item, like a pregnancy test or a book about sexuality, the electronic receipt could be visible to other family members under the same account.”

In an effort to harmonize the waste reduction goals of this bill with the privacy rights of Californians, the following amendments would allow consumers to opt-out of receiving a receipt, be it paper or electronic. This should be particularly useful for small items that the consumer will not seek to return (e.g., a cup of coffee), and is a model already used by some businesses, such as self-service gas stations. In the event that the consumer does want a receipt, by the year 2024, the business must offer an electronic or paper receipt. In the event that the consumer declines a receipt, the amendments would prohibit a business from printing one. In addition, the amendments would specify that electronic receipts need not be provided in the event of limited internet connectivity that renders sending a receipt impossible.

Author’s amendment:

Page 7, line 19 strike “for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other”

Page 7, strike lines 20-28.

Page 7, line 29, strike “electronic form” and insert: “shall be provided to a consumer by a business at the consumer’s option, unless a proof of purchase is otherwise required to be given to the consumer by state or federal law.

1. A paper receipt shall not be printed if the consumer refuses to receive the proof of purchase, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.
2. On and after January 1, 2024, proofs of purchase requested by a consumer pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be provided in electronic form or paper form, at the consumer’s option, unless a prescribed form is otherwise required by state or federal law. For the purposes of this subdivision, a business is not required to provide an electronic proof of purchase if, due to limited internet connectivity, the business is incapable of sending an electronic proof of purchase.

In support, Green America writes, “[t]he Skip the Slip Bill is a commonsense measure to enhance sustainability and customer choice. Currently, many retailers provide customers with a paper receipt, whether the customer wants it or not. Skip the Slip puts the power in the hands of consumers to determine if they want a paper receipt or just an electronic receipt. Smart businesses are already moving in this direction and are finding that it meets customer needs and reduces business costs over time. This bill will place California in a leadership issue on this important issue.”

1. Applies broadly to businesses in California: This bill would apply to any business defined as a company that has more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts annually and accepts payment through credit or debit transactions, however a business would not include a health care provider, as defined in the Health and Safety Code. By way of comparison, the CCPA defines a business as a for-profit legal entity, as specified, that has annual gross revenues in excess of $25,000,000, or a business that buys or sells the PI of 50,000 or more consumers each year, or a business that makes over 50% of its annual revenues from selling consumers PI. (Civ. Code Sec. 1798.140(c).) California law, for the purposes of construction-related accessibility claims, distinguishes small businesses as businesses that employ 25 or fewer employees and have annual gross receipts of less than $3,500,000, as specified. (Civ. Code 55.56(g)(2)(B).) These comparisons are provided as a demonstration of how this bill requires all but the smallest of businesses to offer electronic receipts. The Digital Receipt Coalition writes in support:

On an annual basis, California and other American retailers spend an estimated $1.64 billion on thermal receipt paper, and they incur service fees to repair and maintain printers. They incur a one-time fee of approximately $500 per printer to purchase the device and have it installed in each checkout lane. They also need to be replaced every 8-10 years.

Digital Receipts are very low cost, and in most cases, cost retailers nothing. We have identified 3 methods of digital receipt delivery: email, SMS (text), and archival. There is no incremental cost involved in sending emails or archiving digital receipts for user download. Text messages can cost as little as $.005 or half a penny each. […]

The ability to provide digital receipts is one of the most requested features for POS systems providers because consumers demand them. In fact, 77% of Americans have smartphones, and with constant connectivity, today’s US consumers expect digital information in real time. Digital Receipts are easy to search and locate whether in your text feed or email list. Some retailers will even provide an online portal through their website for consumers to access their digital receipts. In these instances, they can select No Receipt but still have a record of the sale in case of a return.

That being said, businesses of all sizes have raised concerns about their ability to comply with the requirements of this bill. Businesses have also noted that in some rural locations, internet access can be spotty or limited, making it difficult to consistently send electronic receipts. The coalition writes in opposition, “[b]usinesses, small and large, throughout the state use “point of sale” (POS) systems to manage a wide variety of financial information and document transactions by generating traditional receipts. Many of these POS systems are not currently equipped to generate electronic receipts. In order to comply with the requirements in AB 161, many businesses would have to replace their POS systems, disproportionately impacting smaller businesses and, depending on the number of registers, could impose massive costs on these businesses.”

The California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, also in opposition, writes, “[m]any gas stations and convenience stores provide the only available grocery options in California’s abundant food deserts. CFCA members proudly operate in underserved communities, including rural communities across the state where high-speed internet and smartphones aren’t everyday privileges for the residents. Customers are also very sensitive to sharing information like emails and phone numbers because of immigration status and privacy concerns. The introduction of a mandate on businesses to adopt new POS technologies for e-receipts does not have the best interest of these Californians at heart. It raises the cost of doing business in communities where it’s important to keep prices low.”

The Berkeley City Council writes in support that:

Receipt paper is wasteful to produce and dispose of. The solid waste of old receipts produces 12 billion pounds of carbon dioxide every year in American alone. When receipts are pprinted on thermal paper, the bisphenol A or bisphenol S can cause significant health defects. […]

AB 161 would require all businesses to offer electronic receipts as a default, providing paper receipts only upon specific request. Businesses that do not comply would be issued nominal fines according to the California Retail Food Code. These small fines would lead to significant decreases in paper receipts, which will benefit human and environmental health across California.

Environmental Working Group, also in support, writes, “[t]oday there are many alternatives to paper receipts that retailers are already using. Data from a point-of-sale platform that offers digital receipts shows that their sellers send over 10 million digital receipts each month. Starting in 2022, AB 161 would require all businesses to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically unless the customer asks for a physical copy. Reducing the number of paper receipts will cut down the amount of waste that we produce, save millions of trees and billions of gallons of water each year, and reduce exposure to toxic chemicals.

1. Additional concerns in opposition: The California Grocers Association (CGA) opposes this bill and seeks and amendment to exempt their industry from its provisions. CGA writes:

The grocery industry has been a leader in statewide policy meant to reduce waste from the environment, most notably through supporting and working to pass the state’s ban on single use plastic bags. But as it was with that landmark legislation, the key to enacting such a sweeping law is preemptively addressing unintended consequences. We believe that our industry faces one of these unintended consequences, ironically, because of the ban on single use bags at grocery stores.

Because many of our member companies have accustomed their patrons to bringing in their own bags or carrying their merchandise out without any bag, receipts are the only way for store employees to determine whether or not items have been paid for. Remember that for the most part, general merchandise retailers provide bags to their customers, which quickly allows for identification of people who have paid for merchandise. Grocers do not have that convenience.

While it may be simple to suggest that customers can show their receipts electronically, this may not be feasible. Aside from situations where internet or cellular connectivity may prevent someone from getting their electronic receipt or situations where a person may simply not have an electronic device, it is worth noting that a store employee cannot force a person to unlock their phone to show a receipt. With the increasing levels of shoplifting our member companies are experiencing, we fear that this measure will only exacerbate the problem.

Similarly, the California Pharmacists Association requests an exemption from the bill for pharmacies. The Electronic Transactions Association (ETA), a trade association for the payments industry, opposes this bill, arguing that it would have a negative impact on businesses and consumers alike. ETA notes that this bill would make many California merchants buy or lease new point of sale equipment or software, that collecting PI at the point of sale will likely increase checkout time and the number of customers merchants can serve, and that this PI collection will have data security implications. ETA also argues that the bill would require existing contracts to be altered. Specifically, ETA writes, “[t]o understand the significant challenges posed by this legislation it is useful to understand that merchant processing service agreements are typically negotiated between a merchant, acquiring bank, and acquirer processor. In most instances, the agreements are negotiated on an individual merchant basis and the terms are based on characteristics unique to that merchant. Merchant characteristics taken into consideration include goods and services offered, anticipated volume of debit and credit card transactions, and the complexity of the merchant’s business model. In many cases this legislation could require these contracts to be altered to provide new services and to purchase or lease new point of sale equipment at the costs of the merchant.”

1. Prior legislation: AB 375 (Chau, Ch. 55, Stats. 2018) See Comments 4, 5, and 6.

SB 1121 (Dodd, Ch. 735, Stats. 2018) ensured that a private right applied only to the CCPA’s section on data breach and not to any other section of the CCPA, as specified, corrected numerous drafting errors, made non-controversial clarifying amendments, and addressed several policy suggestions made by the AG in a preliminary clean-up bill after the passage of AB 375.

SB 270 (Padilla, Ch. 850, Stats. 2014) See Comment 3.

AB 1884 (Calderon, Ch. 576 Stats. 2018) See Comment 3.

1. Double referral: This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources where it was heard on March 25, 2019, and passed on a 6 – 3 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

350 South Bay Los Angeles

American Sustainable Business Council

Azul
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

Californians Against Waste

City of Berkeley

Comcash
Defenders Of Wildlife
Educate. Advocate.
Empower Family California
Environmental Working Group
Green America
Receetme
Seventh Generation Advisors

South Bayside Waste Management Authority

Oppose

American Chemistry Council
American Forest & Paper Association
Appvion Holding Corp/Appvion Operations, Inc.
BP America (Owner of AmPm Franchise)
BP America, Inc.
California Attractions And Parks Association

California Bankers Association (unless amended)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Fuels And Convenience Alliance

California Grocers Association (unless amended)
California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition

California Pharmacists Association
California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association (unless amended)
California Travel Association

Camarillo Chamber of Commerce

Cerritos Chamber of Commerce
Domtar

Downey Chamber of Commerce

Electronic Frontier Foundation (unless amended)

Electronic Transactions Association
Family Winemakers Of California

Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee

Gateway Chambers Alliance
General Credit Forms, Inc.

Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce
Hansol America
Iconex
International Franchise Association
Kanzaki Specialty Papers
Koehler Paper Group

Los Angeles County Business Federation 

National Federation of Independent Business
National Federation of Independent Business - California
North Pacific Paper Company, LLC

Oxnard Chamber of Commerce

Paperboard Packaging Council

Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce
Printing Industries of California
Printing Industry Midwest
Resolute Forest Products

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

Specialty Graphic Imaging Association
Specialty Roll Products, Inc.
Twin Rivers Paper Company
West Coast Lumber & Building Material Association

Western Car Wash Association

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Rapier / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

Date of Hearing: March 25, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Laura Friedman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 161 (

Author:Ting) – As Introduced Ver:January 7, 2019

SUBJECT: Solid waste: paper waste: electronic proofs of purchase

SUMMARY: Beginning January 1, 2022, prohibits stores from providing paper receipts to consumers except upon request.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires that local governments divert at least 50% of solid waste from landfill disposal and establishes a statewide goal that 75% of solid waste be diverted from landfill disposal by 2020.
2. Requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste from businesses.
3. Requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste to arrange for recycling services for that material.
   
4. Prohibits persons, firms, partnerships, associations, and corporations that accept credit cards from requesting or requiring specified personal information.
   
5. Requires retailers that are required to collect use tax from purchasers (including lessees) must give a receipt to each purchaser for the amount of the tax collected. The receipt does not need to be “in any particular form,” but must include specified information including the name and place of business, the name and address of the purchaser, a description of the property sold or leased, and the date on which the property was sold or leased.
6. Requires sales tax to be shown on the sales check or other proof of sale unless the retailer posts a notice that the tax is included in the sale price, as specified.
7. Various laws regarding the collection of fees, including recycling fees on tires and certain electronic devices require that the fee is itemized on the invoice at the point of sale.

THIS BILL:

1. Beginning January 1, 2022, requires a business to provide point-of-sale proof of purchase (i.e., a receipt) in electronic form unless:
   1. A consumer requests a paper receipt;
   2. If a paper receipt is required by state or federal law; or,
   3. The consumer declines to provide the information necessary to provide an electronic receipt.
2. Specifies that nothing in the bill is intended to narrow privacy protections in the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.
3. Authorizes the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney to enforce the provisions of the bill. Establishes that the first and second violation shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by $25 per day, not to exceed $300 annually.
4. Specifies that nothing in the bill narrows the consumer rights of individuals.
5. Specifies that a person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation that is requesting personal information pursuant to the requirements of this bill is not violating the provision of law prohibiting such businesses from requesting personal information.
6. Defines terms used in the bill, including:
   1. “Business” as a company that has more than $1 million in gross receipts annually and accepts credit or debit card transactions;
   2. “Consumer” as a person who purchases, and does not offer for resale, food, alcohol, other tangible personal property, or services; and,
   3. “Electronic form” as including, but not limited to, a form sent through email or text message.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Waste management in California. An estimated 35 million tons of waste are disposed of in California’s landfills annually, of which 32% is compostable organic materials, 29% is construction and demolition debris, and 17% is paper. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is tasked with diverting at least 75% of solid waste from landfills statewide by 2020. Local governments have been required to divert 50% of the waste generated within the jurisdiction from landfill disposal since 2000. AB 341 (Chesbro), Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011, requires commercial waste generators, including multi-family dwellings, to arrange for recycling services for the material they generate and requires local governments to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs designed to divert solid waste generated by businesses out of the landfill. A follow up bill, AB 1826 (Chesbro), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, requires generators of organic waste (i.e., food waste and yard waste) to arrange for recycling services for that material to keep it out of the landfill.

SB 1383 (Lara), Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016, requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to approve and implement a comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve, from 2013 levels, a 40% reduction in methane, a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases, and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, by 2030. In order to accomplish these goals, the bill specified that the methane emission reduction goals include targets to reduce the landfill disposal of organic waste 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 from the 2014 level.

1. Receipts. Point-of-sale receipts in California are generally printed on white thermal paper, which is very thin, lightweight paper coated with a material that changes color when heated. Generally, this coating contains either Bisphenol A (BPA) or Bisphenol S (BPS). According to the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), receipt paper used in California uses BPS almost exclusively. Because thermal paper is so thin, it generally contains no recycled content.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), exposure to BPA [and BPS] may occur during manufacture and use of thermal paper and at its end-of-life (i.e., recycling, composting, landfilling, or incineration). In one 2010 study, BPA was detected at levels between 0.8 percent and 2.8 percent of the total weight of the receipts tested. Bisphenols are endocrine disrupters that are associated with possible cancer and reproductive risks.

While paper is 17% of the state’s disposed waste stream, receipts make up a small percentage of the total paper disposed in California. Estimates vary on the amount of receipt paper used in the US. According to the AFPA, the US annually uses approximately 180,000 tons of paper receipts. Grand View Research, which provides market information, estimates that 282,500 tons of thermal paper is used in the US each year for receipts. No California-specific data is available.

1. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. This bill is focused on source-reduction. California’s solid waste hierarchy places source reduction at the top of the hierarchy, followed by reuse and then recycling. Disposal should be the last resort. While recycling and composting are environmentally preferable to disposal, the volume of single-use materials generated in California far exceed our capacity to recycle or compost those materials.
   
   Requiring consumers to request a paper receipt is intended to reduce the number of paper receipts generated, which will conserve the resources needed to make the receipts and reduce the generation of waste receipts.
   
   According to the AFPA, receipts are recyclable. While this may be technically true, CalRecycle indicates that they are highly discouraged from entering the recycling stream due to BPA or BPS coatings that are contaminants in the recycling stream. They are viewed by the waste industry as contaminants in the paper recycling stream, but given their small size they are impossible to remove during the sorting process. Their small size and light weight also make them prone to becoming contaminants in the plastic recycling stream.

Similarly, they are technically compostable, in that they will break down in an industrial compost facility. However, the BPA and BPS coatings are also a contaminant in compost.

1. Market challenges. The US has not developed significant markets for recycled content materials, including plastic and mixed paper. Historically, China has been the largest importer of recycled materials. According to the International Solid Waste Association, China accepted 56% by weight of global recycled plastic exports. In California, approximately one-third of recycled material is exported; 85% of the state's recycled mixed paper has been exported to China in recent years.
   
   In an effort to improve the quality of the materials it accepts and to combat the country's significant environmental challenges, China enacted Operation Green Fence in 2013, under which it increased inspections of imported bales of recyclables and returned bales that did not meet specified requirements at the exporters' expense. In 2017, China established Operation National Sword, which included additional inspections of imported recycled materials and a filing with the World Trade Organization indicating its intent to ban the import of 24 types of scrap, including mixed paper and paperboard, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polystyrene (PS) beginning January 1, 2018. In November 2017, China announced that imports of recycled materials that are not banned will be required to include no more than 0.5% contamination. Some market experts are hopeful that cleaner plastic materials, including those included in the ban, may be allowed in the future.
   
   Following China’s actions, other Southeast Asian countries have enacted policies limiting or banning the importation of recycled materials, primarily plastic and mixed paper. Last year, Malaysia and Vietnam implemented import restrictions. Earlier this month, India announced that it will ban scrap plastic imports. Thailand has announced a ban that will go into effect in 2021. These policies create serious challenges for recyclers. Recycling requires markets to create new products and close the loop. This challenge also provides an opportunity for California to improve its efforts to reduce the amount of waste it generates and expand its efforts to develop recycling manufacturing infrastructure, which has been shown to provide jobs, economic, and environmental benefits.
   
   CalRecycle had indicated that it intends to continue to build and support recycling markets and infrastructure within California to reduce the state's need to export recycled material. CalRecycle’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant and Loan Program, funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, provides financial incentives for capital investments in infrastructure for composting, anaerobic digestion, and recycling and manufacturing facilities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Recycling Market Development Zone Program provides loans, technical assistance, and product marketing for new businesses, expanding existing businesses, creating jobs, and diverting waste from landfills. Additionally, CalRecycle continues to pursue options to reduce waste and increase the recyclability of packaging through its packaging reform process and to reduce the contamination levels in all recycling streams. This bill requires CalRecycle to make recommendations to the Legislature to address these challenges by recycling more beverage containers in-state.
2. Suggested amendment. The committee may wish to amend the bill to clarify that an invoice is not a receipt.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Azul
Californians Against Waste
Comcash
Defenders Of Wildlife

Educate.Advocate

Empower Family California
Environmental Working Group
Green America
ReceetMe

Oppose

American Chemistry Council
American Forest & Paper Association
Appvion Holding Corp/Appvion Operations, Inc.
BP America, Inc.
California Attractions And Parks Association
California Chamber Of Commerce
California Fuels And Convenience Alliance

California Grocers Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Travel Association
Domtar

Family Winemakers of California
General Credit Forms, Inc.
Hansol America
Iconex

International Franchise Association
Kanzaki Specialty Papers
Koehler Paper Group
National Federation Of Independent Business - CA
North Pacific Paper Company, LLC
Paperboard Packaging Council
Resolute Forest Products
Specialty Roll Products, Inc.
Twin Rivers Paper Company
West Coast Lumber & Building Material Association

Analysis Prepared by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. /