Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Fire Vapes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to ban disposable vapes, citing fire and recycling risks
Summary
AB 762 would prohibit the sale and distribution of disposable (single‑use) vape devices in California. Supporters said embedded lithium‑ion batteries cause fires and pose recycling hazards; opponents warned it could push consumers to illicit markets and harm regulated retailers, including the legal cannabis sector.
The Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee advanced AB 762 on April 8, voting to pass the bill to the Committee on Business and Professions. The motion carried by a committee majority; final committee voting was recorded as 4 to 1, with two members not voting.
Assemblymember Jesse Erwin, the bill’s author, told the committee AB 762 would ban the sale and distribution of disposable vapes because those devices are designed for short lifespans, contain nonremovable lithium‑ion batteries and cannot be reliably recycled. He said discarded devices commonly enter the trash and recycling streams and cause fires at material recovery facilities, imposing safety and cost burdens on local governments and facility workers.
Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste testified in support, describing disposable vapes as an “environmental disaster” at every stage of life and estimating U.S. disposal at roughly 4.5 devices per second. Joe La Mariana, executive director of Rethink Waste (a public joint powers authority in San Mateo County), described a 2016 facility fire at Shoreway Environmental Center caused by a lithium‑ion battery that led to a four‑month closure, $8.5 million in equipment replacement costs and furloughs for workers.
Opposition testimony came from a range of groups. Amy Jenkins of the California Cannabis Operators Association said banning integrated cannabis vaporizer devices would push medical patients to the illicit market and remove regulated options important for some patients. Alessandra Munozco of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance argued a ban would steer demand to unregulated channels, reduce tax revenue and harm compliant retailers. Several convenience‑store and cannabis industry groups also registered opposition.
Committee members asked about the availability and durability of rechargeable, refillable alternatives. Supporters showed a separable rechargeable device with replaceable pods, noting rechargeable options separate the battery from disposable pods and can be recycled through e‑waste channels.
After discussion, the committee voted to send AB 762 to the Committee on Business and Professions to allow additional consideration of enforcement and market impacts. The author and supporters said enforcement provisions and state resources recently allocated to vape enforcement would be used to limit illicit sales; opponents said illicit sales and consumer demand could undercut those efforts.
