Three years ago, Democrat California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the country’s most powerful plastic reduction policy. The law, known as SB 54, gave state recycling agencies until 2025 to write rules to dramatically reduce the sale of single-use plastics. At the time, Newsom said that the law wasLeading the nation“They are taking responsibility for the contaminants and cutting plastic with the source.”
Calrecycle, a California recycling agency, has been creating rules for enforcing the law since 2022, negotiating details with industry groups and environmental advocates. Incorporate public feedback. But earlier this month, the governor’s office unexpectedly rejected Callecicle’s proposed rules. He told me to go to the agency. Return to the drawingstay away from addressing the issues of plastic waste management in California.
“It’s like being slapped by a wet fish,” said Silla Lane, known as Atrium 916, founder and CEO of Sacramento’s Zero Waste Organization. Lane said he attended a long, complicated two-year meeting with Callex officials to provide information on the regulations. His office’s statement on the issue vaguely pointed out concerns about fairness and “minimizing costs for small businesses and working families.”
Eight members of Newsom arrived as plastics industry groups (many of whom publicly advocates in favor of the law), but increased complaints behind closed doors about the potential impact of the law. Without a clear explanation from the governor, many environmental groups suspect he has responded to industry pressures. “A lot of people have been hurt,” Lane said. He explained that the honest efforts they put into shaping the rules were rejected for unclear reasons.
When it passed in 2022, the SB 54 was hailed as the US.The most comprehensive policy to reduce plastic waste sources,””and”A big victoryIn the fight against marine plastic pollution. Until 2032, both weight and number of items could reduce the sales of one-used plastic package and food in the state by 25%. It also requires that plastic products recycling rates achieve significantly higher recycling rates, organize existing contamination and acquire existing packaging and food packaging even if you do not embed existing contamination and food.
CalRecycle was in charge of creating more specific rules for enforcing the law, including portraying applicable products. Another agency known in industry terminology as “producer-responsible organizations” coordinates corporate cooperation, requires plastic producers to become payment members, manages a $500 million fund, and ensures that the industry is complying with the law. The existing organization, called the Circular Action Alliance, made up of representatives from the plastics industry, has been designated SB 54’s producer-responsible organization.
SB 54 had achieved position in the California Legislature thanks to a more aggressive threat Voting Initiativewould have given it to plastic producers Less control Through the implementation of the plastic reduction target, it imposed a tax per cent on plastic producers and distributors, banning polystyrene food packaging entirely.
Getty Images
Supporters of Referendumwhich received 623,212 signatures that must be included in the vote, mostly grassroots environmental groups. Three sponsors of the initiative I agreed to withdraw it In exchange for the passing of SB 54, this was considered favored by business and industry groups. For example, the American Council on Chemicals (Plastics and Petrochemical Trade Group) announced that in 2022, SB 54 was “Not the best law to drive California towards the circular economy」 But that was Better results More than a vote initiative that was withdrawn. The group pledged to “work constructively with lawmakers and Callecicles to support the proper implementation of SB 54.”
The California Chamber of Commerce also said the policy would guarantee “.The certainty of long-term recycling and packaging policies. “The Plastic Industry Association refused to support SB 54, but said that Better than the voting initiative.
Still, it appeared that industry groups had hopes that unidentified changes to the law would be made in 2022. The American Council of Chemicals vowed to “support subsequent legislation to make the necessary improvements to ensure that SB 54’s intentions are effectively implemented.” The California Chamber of Commerce president said the bill “allows Congress to change its proposals in the future,” and the president of the California Business Roundtable said: calmer op-ed Lawmakers should “return to conversations prepared to make changes that can open doors for a more circular economy.”
After the law passed, Callecikle was retained Some information sessions and a workshop on upcoming rules with opportunities for participation from public and plastic producers. Agent We have started the formal rule creation process In the case of SB 54 on March 8, 2024, two comment periods were held. Meanwhile, industry groups provided feedback that year. Calrecycles has ended Draft of regulations It started in autumn and in September Notification to industry associations That they will be enacted soon. The rules were set to be adopted for a year from the start of rule creation on March 8, 2025.
Ben Allen, a Democratic Sen. who represented parts of Los Angeles and sponsored SB 54, learned that within a week of the March 8 deadline, the industry group opposed the rules. He sat in the Circular Action Alliance and came up with something called a “roadmap” to address his concerns. If industry groups don’t oppose Calrecycle regulations that move forward on schedule, he and other lawmakers will make minor changes to the law itself, strengthen Calrecycle, and make minor adjustments to the rules it has spent so long.
The proposed changes were mentioned in a letter shared with Grist, including an exemption from Biosciences packaging, less frequent reports from packaging companies, and a timeline for plastic producers to become members of the producer responsible organization. Allen said he was almost at a compromise before the governor’s office announced. “People didn’t expect the governor to pull back the regulations that were drafted,” Allen said. “It was an incredible development.”
Newsom’s Office refused to state whether they had held meetings with business or industry groups, highlighting that delays in creating rules will not change the “timeline” of SB 54. When asked to elaborate on cost concerns, the governor spokesman wrote Grist. Regulatory Impact Assessment It was published last October by CalRecycle and estimated SB 54-related compliance costs for businesses and individuals in California.
AP Photo / Rich Pedroncelli
For businesses that sell more than $1 million products covered by SB 54 each year, the annual cost averages around $791,000, the report found. A typical small business will cost just $309 more. Households could potentially pay an average of $329 a year by 2032, but the report says the number is likely to be mitigated by an increase in personal income and health and environmental benefits totaling over $40 billion over the decade.
Allen opposed Newsom’s characterization of the bill’s sacrifices to entrepreneurs and families. The overall point of the bill was to address the “unacceptable” rise in the costs of waste collection and pollution control in California, he said, as there are cities. Forced In management Continuously increasing amounts of plastic waste.
“We knew there could be a slight increase in consumer costs, but it would be more than compensated for the benefits of back-end fee payers,” he added.
Of the six business and industry groups Grist reached out, only the Circular Action Alliance, which detailed specific concerns about the rules proposed by SB 54’s Calrecycle, said it included “clearing producer duties, compiling data to build program plans, and fixing timing and sequencing issues. The group said it was “actively involved with stakeholders” such as the governor’s office, Calrecycle and Allen.
“We look forward to continuing engagement with all involved in moving SB 54 forward,” the spokesman said.
Two groups, the American Chemical Council and the California Chamber of Commerce, have submitted a Grist Statement in support of SB 54. statement It asks policymakers to “create practical and effective regulations that promote economic growth, promote innovation and strengthen circulation.”
Without more clear information about Newsom’s intentions, environmental advocates are concerned that business and industry groups are trying to curb some of the law despite nominal support for 2022.
“We can argue that the deadline is irrational enough that they can delay implementation,” says Jennifer Savage, associate director of California policy at nonprofit Surfrider.
Plastic manufacturers and business groups have already seized SB 54 kerfuffle to argue that similar laws should not be pursued in other jurisdictions. Over 100 companies and groups signed this past weekend letter He opposed the New York bill, which was obtained through politics, on the grounds that it “indicating the impact of the New York proposal is even more severe beyond the laws of California in major regions.”
Allen said the governor’s office would like to move “quickly” to complete the Callex revision by this summer. This includes starting another 45-day public comment period, incorporating changes, and submitting final documents to the state Administrative Law Bureau To ensure that they are clear and legal.
Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for nonprofit Californians, said his organization is ready to participate no matter how possible, either by attending public workshops or by submitting comments written in draft new rules. He also hinted that the voting initiatives that environmentalists retracted when SB 54 was handed out may still be on the table.
“We are still committed to reevaluating all possible paths,” Cohen said.
