AB 978 amends Section 42704.6 of the Public Resources Code to make the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) recycled‑material allowances the floor for most local street and highway standard specifications. The change applies across three material categories (base/subbase, asphalt, and concrete inputs), preserves the ability for local agencies to exceed state limits, and excludes special districts and small cities and counties from the requirement.
The bill also creates a transparency mechanism: when a local agency declines to permit recycled materials at Caltrans’ levels on the basis of infeasibility, a bidder supplying those materials may request an explanation and the agency must respond by email to the bidder’s official contact. Separately, the bill removes an existing statutory requirement that Caltrans and eligible local agencies adopt advanced recycling technologies and techniques as a stated objective, and it contains the standard clause tying reimbursement for any mandated costs to the Commission on State Mandates process.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 978 requires most local agencies to adopt standard specifications that allow recycled materials at levels no lower than Caltrans’ current standards for recycled base/subbase, reclaimed asphalt and asphalt inputs, and recycled concrete materials. It permits local agencies to go beyond those levels and requires agencies to email an explanation to bidders when they claim recycled material use at those levels is 'not feasible.'
Who It Affects
Local public works departments and procurement officials in California cities and counties above the population thresholds, paving contractors and material suppliers (recyclers, asphalt plants, concrete producers), Caltrans specification writers, and firms that bid on public paving contracts.
Why It Matters
The bill standardizes recycled‑content expectations across much of the state, likely expanding demand for recycled paving inputs and shifting procurement practices. The bidder transparency rule creates a paper trail that suppliers and contractors can use to challenge local determinations, while the removal of the 'advanced technologies' mandate changes the statutory policy framing for innovation in pavement recycling.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 978 updates the law that governs how local agencies write specifications for street and highway projects. Instead of leaving local specifications potentially lower than state practice, the statute now makes Caltrans’ recycled‑material allowances the minimum that most local agencies must permit.
The statute lists three buckets of materials where parity is required: recycled base and subbase, reclaimed asphalt and asphalt‑based inputs, and recycled aggregates and alternative concrete inputs. Caltrans’ cited standard‑specification sections are incorporated by reference so the numerical percentages and material standards remain those in Caltrans’ technical specifications.
The bill creates a limited procedural remedy when a local agency refuses to allow recycled materials at the Caltrans levels on the ground that doing so is not feasible. A person bidding to supply affected materials can request the local agency’s reason, and the agency must respond by email to the bidder’s official point of contact.
The statute does not prescribe a timeframe for that response or required content beyond providing 'the reason,' but it creates a formal communication requirement that produces documentation of the agency’s decision.Not every public road authority is covered. The statute expressly excludes special districts and any city with a population of 25,000 or less and any county with a population of 100,000 or less, measured against the most recent census.
The law also preserves local flexibility to adopt stricter recycled‑content limits than Caltrans; local agencies may exceed Caltrans’ maximums if they choose. Finally, AB 978 strikes the prior statutory language that directed Caltrans and eligible local agencies to use advanced recycling technologies and material‑recycling techniques as an explicit policy objective, which narrows the statutory emphasis on technology adoption without otherwise changing Caltrans’ technical authority to update specifications.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute requires parity with Caltrans’ recycled‑material allowances for three categories: recycled base/subbase (Caltrans Sections 25‑1.02 and 26‑1.02), reclaimed asphalt and asphalt inputs (Section 39‑2.02B), and recycled concrete inputs including reclaimed aggregate and fly ash (Sections 90‑1.02, 90‑2.02, 90‑9).
Special districts, cities with populations ≤25,000, and counties with populations ≤100,000 (per the most recent census) are explicitly excluded from the requirement.
A bidder who supplies materials governed by the local specifications can request the local agency’s stated reason when the agency finds use of recycled materials at Caltrans’ levels 'not feasible,' and the agency must reply by email to the bidder’s official contact.
Local agencies retain authority to allow more recycled material than Caltrans permits; the bill does not cap higher local thresholds and explicitly allows exceeding Caltrans’ maximums.
AB 978 removes the existing statutory duty that required Caltrans and local agencies to 'to the extent feasible and cost effective, use advanced technologies and material recycling techniques' as a stated objective, narrowing the law’s technology‑adoption language.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Local agencies must apply specifications allowing recycled materials
Subdivision (a) directs covered local agencies to adopt standard specifications that allow the use of recycled materials 'to the extent feasible and cost effective.' Practically, this preserves a reasonableness and cost‑effectiveness threshold but places the onus on agencies to normalize recycled inputs in procurement documents rather than treat them as exceptions.
Parity with Caltrans across three material categories
Subdivision (b) specifies that the standard‑specification floor is 'no less than' Caltrans’ levels for recycled base/subbase, reclaimed asphalt and asphalt materials, and recycled concrete inputs, and references the precise Caltrans specification sections. Because it ties local practice to Caltrans’ specifications 'as may be amended or updated,' parity will track future Caltrans technical updates without further legislative action.
Bidder right to request and agency duty to explain infeasibility
Subdivision (c) creates a formal, documentable avenue for a bidder to ask why a local agency declined to permit recycled materials at the Caltrans level. The agency must provide its reason via email to the bidder’s official point of contact. The provision establishes transparency but deliberately leaves response timing and the required depth of explanation unspecified, which limits immediate enforcement options.
Local agencies may exceed Caltrans’ maximum allowances
Subdivision (d) clarifies that the statute sets a floor rather than a ceiling: local agencies remain free to allow recycled‑material percentages higher than Caltrans’ limits. That preserves local innovation and market experiments but also means material standards could vary upward across jurisdictions.
Definitions, exclusions, and state‑mandated cost clause
Subdivision (e) defines 'Department' as Caltrans and excludes special districts and smaller cities/counties by census thresholds. Section 2 adds the standard reimbursement language: if the Commission on State Mandates finds this imposes state‑mandated costs, reimbursement follows the usual Government Code procedure. The package increases duties for many local agencies without including a funding mechanism in the statute itself.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Recycled material producers and processors — the parity rule expands guaranteed market access across covered local jurisdictions because local procurement must permit recycled inputs at Caltrans’ levels.
- Paving contractors already using recycled inputs — they stand to gain competitive advantage as local bids must accept recycled‑content proposals and agencies cannot refuse on the basis that Caltrans’ levels are 'too high' without documenting a reason.
- Caltrans and statewide specification consistency — having local floors tied to Caltrans’ standards reduces patchwork divergence and simplifies statewide market expectations for materials and testing.
- State climate and waste‑diversion goals advocates — broader minimum acceptance of recycled materials could increase recycling rates for asphalt, concrete, and other construction wastes, supporting emissions and landfill diversion objectives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local public works and procurement offices in covered jurisdictions — they must review and revise standard specifications, respond to bidder requests for infeasibility explanations, and potentially manage new QA/testing and compliance activities with no funding provided in the bill.
- Contractors and material suppliers that do not currently produce recycled‑content products at Caltrans’ levels — they may face retooling costs, need to qualify new materials, or be priced out of some markets.
- Testing laboratories and quality‑assurance providers — increased recycled content and more projects using those materials will drive demand for testing, certification, and mix design verification, creating new workload and potential capacity constraints.
- Local governments defending feasibility determinations — agencies that document 'not feasible' determinations may face bid protests, administrative challenges, or litigation, creating legal and administrative expense.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a trade‑off between statewide standardization of recycled‑material acceptance—intended to expand market access and support environmental goals—and preserving local discretion to judge feasibility and cost. Standardizing minimum allowances promotes scale and predictability for recyclers and bidders, but it risks imposing burdens on local agencies and contractors when local supply, testing capacity, or budget constraints make higher recycled content genuinely more expensive or technically challenging.
The statute ties local practice to Caltrans’ technical specifications but leaves key operational details ambiguous. 'Feasible and cost effective' remains the statutory yardstick for local adoption, but the bill does not define acceptable metrics for feasibility, who conducts cost analyses, or whether lifecycle benefits may be considered. That ambiguity opens the door to divergent applications: some agencies may perform rigorous cost‑benefit analyses, while others may issue short statements that are difficult to challenge in practice.
The bidder transparency provision creates documentation but lacks procedural teeth: the statute requires an emailed 'reason' but sets no deadline, content standard, or review path. That means the provision primarily generates evidence rather than a clear compliance remedy.
Separately, removing the statutory language that encouraged the use of advanced recycling technologies reduces the law’s affirmative push for technological adoption; although Caltrans still can update technical specs, the statutory priority for innovation is weakened. Finally, the exclusion of small cities, counties, and special districts segments the market and may concentrate demand and supply changes in larger jurisdictions, which could produce regional imbalances in recycled‑material availability and quality assurance capacity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.