SB 14 prohibits California state agencies from entering into new or renewed contracts to purchase single‑use plastic beverage bottles (under 24 fl oz) that are made of less than 90% recycled plastic. The measure also directs agencies to replace single‑use bottles in food service facilities with reusable or recyclable alternatives and encourages installing water bottle refill stations for public access.
The bill includes time‑lines and reporting — it applies to contracts dated on or after January 1, 2026 and requires agencies to certify compliance to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by January 1, 2027. Narrow exceptions let agencies buy lower‑recycled bottles for emergency response and give specific buying authority to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for prison canteens and court‑mandated bottled water obligations.
The Department of General Services must revise procurement rules to implement the policy.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bans state agencies from contracting for single‑use plastic bottles under 24 fl oz unless the bottles are composed of at least 90% recycled plastic, and requires replacing bottled offerings in state food service facilities with reusable or nonplastic recyclable alternatives. It tasks the Department of General Services (DGS) with updating contracting procedures to enforce the rule.
Who It Affects
State agencies (excluding California State University), food service vendors operating on state property, beverage suppliers, manufacturers of high‑recycled‑content plastics, and DGS officials responsible for procurement rulemaking. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) receives limited carve‑outs for canteen sales and legally required bottled water.
Why It Matters
This creates one of the most stringent recycled‑content procurement standards for public purchasers in the U.S., shifting demand toward high‑rPET or nonplastic alternatives and requiring near‑term operational changes at cafeterias, vending, and procurement offices. The 90% threshold and the emergency and corrections exceptions are likely to define compliance disputes and supply‑chain adjustments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 14 takes a procurement‑first approach to cutting single‑use plastic consumption on state property. It prohibits state agencies from entering into, modifying, amending, or renewing contracts to buy single‑use plastic bottles under 24 fluid ounces unless those bottles are made of at least 90% recycled plastic.
In parallel, the bill pushes agencies to eliminate single‑use bottles in food service settings by switching to glass, aluminum, refill stations, or other reusable options.
The bill phases in through contract dates: it applies only to agreements entered into, modified, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026. Agencies must report compliance to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by January 1, 2027, following standard report formatting under the Government Code.
The measure explicitly leaves intact collective bargaining obligations that predate January 1, 2026, and excludes the California State University from the definition of state agency.DGS has a central implementation role: it must ensure that food service contracts tied to DGS comply with the new standard and revise procurement rules and procedures to do so. Emergency procurement is the primary statutory escape hatch — agencies may buy conventional single‑use bottles when ‘‘reasonably necessary’’ to protect health, safety, and welfare in emergency response and preparedness.
CDCR gets narrowly defined permissions to purchase conventional bottles for canteens and to satisfy certain Penal Code obligations involving bottled water.Practically, the bill combines a hard recycled‑content floor with operational nudges: it encourages installing and maintaining accessible water bottle refill stations to enable reusable bottles, and it instructs agencies to replace bottled offerings in cafeterias and vending where feasible. The statutory definitions clarify scope — which beverage types are covered and which state entities are subject to the rule — while pointing to ADA, Health and Safety Code, and California Building Standards Code requirements for refill station installations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The ban targets single‑use plastic beverage bottles under 24 fluid ounces and explicitly excludes milk and 100% fruit juice from that definition.
The prohibited purchases are limited to bottles made of less than 90% recycled plastic — only bottles with 90%+ recycled content would pass the statute’s standard.
The rule applies to contracts entered into, modified, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, and agencies must report compliance to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by January 1, 2027.
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation may still procure conventional single‑use bottles to stock prison canteens and to meet specific Penal Code requirements for providing bottled water.
The Department of General Services must revise procurement rules so that any food service contract under its purview complies with SB 14’s recycled‑content and replacement requirements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on purchasing low‑recycled single‑use plastic bottles
This subsection establishes the core procurement ban: state agencies may not enter into, amend, or renew contracts to buy single‑use plastic bottles under 24 fl oz if the bottles are made of less than 90% recycled plastic. In practice this creates a bright‑line recycled‑content threshold procurement officers must check before award; contracting officers will need a mechanism to verify suppliers’ recycled content claims and incorporate those checks into bid evaluation and contract language.
Push to install refill stations and replace bottled offerings
The bill encourages agencies to install or maintain at least one water bottle refill station accessible to visitors and requires agencies to take steps to replace single‑use bottles in food service facilities with reusable or recyclable alternatives. This is operational: facilities managers will need to budget for station installation, modify cafeterias and vending assortments, and coordinate signage and user access while meeting Health & Safety and ADA standards cited in the definitions.
Emergency and corrections exceptions
Agencies may buy lower‑recycled bottles when reasonably necessary for emergency preparedness or response; the statute does not define ‘‘reasonably necessary,’’ leaving room for agency judgment. Separately, CDCR receives two narrow exceptions: purchasing bottles for sale in prison canteens under Penal Code §5005 and providing bottled water where required by Penal Code §§3408 and 4023.8. Those carve‑outs create limited, explicit pathways to continue use of conventional bottles in corrections contexts.
DGS duty to enforce procurement compliance
The Department of General Services must ensure that any new, modified, or renewed agreements for food service under its contracts comply with the section and must revise contracting and procurement rules accordingly. That means DGS will likely publish new standard contract terms, solicitation templates, and evaluation criteria, and will have an administrative role in training procurement staff and auditing vendor compliance.
Reporting, effective dates, and contract coverage
SB 14 applies only to contracts entered, modified, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026. Agencies must submit a compliance report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by January 1, 2027, conforming to Government Code Section 9795. The combination of the effective date and reporting deadline forces agencies to review pipeline contracts, amend solicitation language before renewals, and document steps taken to switch offerings and install refill infrastructure.
Collective bargaining, scope, and statutory definitions
The bill preserves obligations under collective bargaining agreements entered into or renewed before January 1, 2026, and excludes the California State University from the ‘‘state agency’’ definition. It also imports statutory definitions for ‘‘plastic’’ and ‘‘reusable’’ from Public Resources Code and defines ‘‘single‑use plastic bottle’’ (under 24 fl oz) while setting technical standards for refill stations (ADA, Health & Safety, and Building Standards Code compliance). Those definitional choices shape who must comply and the technical requirements for infrastructure upgrades.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Beverage manufacturers that can supply bottles with at least 90% recycled plastic — the bill creates procurement demand for high‑rPET products and could open government contracts to those producers.
- Suppliers and installers of water bottle refill stations and nonplastic reusable containers, which will see increased opportunities from the statutory encouragement and replacement mandate at food service facilities.
- Operators and patrons of state facilities who prefer reduced single‑use plastic waste and increased access to refillable water — the bill promotes health and convenience through more refill points and fewer disposable bottles being sold onsite.
- Producers and processors in the recycled‑plastics value chain who can scale up supply to meet a new institutional buyer (state agencies), potentially improving markets for recycled feedstock.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies and facility managers who must revise solicitations, verify recycled‑content claims, retrofit cafeterias, and budget for refill station installation and maintenance.
- Food service contractors and vending operators faced with replacing bottled offerings or sourcing higher‑cost 90%+ recycled bottles, which may increase operating costs or require changes to product mix.
- Department of General Services, which must draft new procurement rules, update templates, provide training, and monitor compliance without dedicated implementation funding identified in the text.
- Manufacturers of conventional low‑recycled‑content plastic bottles that will lose state procurement contracts and may face reduced demand from a major public purchaser.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 14 pits an aggressive environmental procurement standard — forcing public buyers away from most conventional single‑use plastic bottles — against practical constraints: the availability and cost of 90%+ recycled plastic bottles, the capital and operational costs of installing accessible refill infrastructure, and the need for flexibility in emergencies and corrections settings; choosing a strict recycled‑content floor advances waste‑reduction goals but creates supply, verification, and fiscal headaches that may undermine near‑term compliance.
SB 14 sets an ambitious recycled‑content target and marshals procurement to shift product mixes at state facilities, but the text leaves several operational gaps. The statute does not specify how agencies must verify that a bottle contains 90% recycled content — no certification body, testing protocol, or documentation standard is named.
That omission forces DGS to define acceptable proof (vendor declarations, third‑party certifications, batch testing), and those choices will shape compliance costs and litigation risk.
The emergency carve‑out is broad on its face: agencies may use conventional bottles ‘‘when reasonably necessary’’ for health and safety in emergencies, but the bill supplies no criteria, documentation, or post‑event review requirements to limit that discretion. Coupled with CDCR’s explicit exceptions, agencies with frequent short‑term needs could rely on the exception in ways that dilute the policy’s footprint.
Finally, the bill imposes duties on DGS and other agencies without allocating implementation funding here; installing accessible, ADA‑compliant refill stations and shifting vending assortments will create upfront capital and operating expenses that a vendor or agency will need to absorb or seek budgetary relief for.
Other unresolved questions: how the prohibition interacts with resale items (vendors selling bottles in state‑owned retail spaces), whether post‑consumer contamination affects the feasibility of 90% recycled content in small bottles, and how the preserved pre‑2026 collective bargaining agreements will be reconciled with facility‑level operational changes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.