Regulations for California’s extended producer responsibility for packaging law were not finalized by a March 8 deadline.
“The governor is directing CalRecycle to restart these regulations to ensure California’s bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution and is implemented fairly,” Daniel Villaseñor, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s deputy director of communications, said in a statement, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Newsom signed SB 54 into law in 2022, with an aim of using less plastic and increasing circularity for plastic packaging and food ware. Draft regulations were shared a year ago, followed by public input.
CalRecycle confirmed Friday that regulations were not submitted. “In the coming year, CalRecycle will continue to work with industry, advocates and other interested parties to develop rules that ensure California’s plastic pollution law balances the need to cut plastic pollution with the importance of minimizing costs to families and small businesses,” Lance Klug, a spokesperson with CalRecycle’s Office of Public Affairs, said in an email, without naming a new deadline for regulations.
Environmental groups said they felt that Newsom caved to business pressures.
“With countless hours spent developing and refining the draft SB 54 regulations, a thorough process with ample public engagement opportunities was conducted,” said Miho Ligare, plastic pollution initiative senior manager with the Surfrider Foundation, in a statement. “This is another unfortunate example of industry undermining public processes to disrupt and maintain the status quo and pad their bottom line.”
In a joint statement, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Ocean Conservancy and Oceana accused industry lobbyists of “an aggressive two-month campaign to press Newsom to shelve regulations that were developed with extensive public input.” They noted that CalRecycle had drafted multiple revisions in response to more than 5,000 comments and letters.
As part of the Break Free From Plastic Pollution movement, Surfrider and others called the turn of events “a betrayal.” In EPR negotiations, environmental advocates withdrew a ballot initiative in 2022 on banning expanded polystyrene foam. “Advocates are committed to reevaluating all possible avenues to achieving the targets and goals in SB 54, including reviving the ballot initiative to let voters decide this issue.”
Representing the plastics industry, the American Chemistry Council said it will collaborate with Newsom, CalRecycle and others “to craft regulations that achieve this objective in a way that works for both consumers and businesses and encourages innovative recycling technologies — helping meet the ambitious recycling targets envisioned in SB 54,” Ross Eisenberg, vice president of ACC’s plastics division, said in a statement.
State Sen. Ben Allen, who sponsored SB 54, on March 4 joined with colleagues calling on Newsom to implement proposed regulations without delay.
“Now is a critical opportunity to take action to uphold the recycling standards outlined in the law,” Allen said in a statement. “It’s time to bring these producers into the equation on behalf of California residents and future generations and get to work on the implementation of the law. Maintaining the status quo by going back to the drawing board is unsustainable at best.”
On Friday, state Sen. Catherine Blakespear said in a new statement that “progress is significantly delayed now.”
“The statutory timelines in SB 54 have not changed and we need to remain committed to meeting them, despite this regulatory step back,” she said. CalRecycle intended to review and approve producer responsibility organization plans in 2026.
There are already implications for other states. Politico reported Monday that dozens of business organizations — including Sealed Air, Berry Global, Pactiv Evergreen, Ameripen, the Flexible Packaging Association and other plastics, packaging and brand groups — wrote to New York lawmakers expressing concern over a reintroduced EPR bill in that state, and cited California’s shift.
“Governor Newsom recently ordered his environmental agency to start over on that state’s proposed EPR regulations, based on concerns that they would impose unacceptable burdens on consumers and businesses alike,” the letter states. “California’s change in course should be taken into account by New York lawmakers, as the mandates in S.1464/A.1749 go beyond the California statute on key areas, including material bans, recyclability mandates and source reduction, indicating that the impacts of New York’s proposal would be even more severe.”
