Packaging stakeholders are grappling with possible next steps in California and beyond after a disruption to implementing the state’s EPR law, SB 54.
In recent days, California Gov. Gavin Newsom directed CalRecycle to restart the regulatory process for the state’s extended producer responsibility for packaging law that mandates certain thresholds for single-use plastic reduction and recyclability come 2032.
The inspiration behind revisiting the process was “minimizing costs for small businesses and working families as much as possible,” per a statement from Daniel Villaseñor, Newsom’s deputy director of communications. When Newsom signed the law in 2022, the intent was to raise $5 billion from industry over 10 years “to assist efforts to cut plastic pollution and support disadvantaged communities hurt most by the damaging effects of plastic waste.”
Even with the turn of events, California intends for SB 54’s overarching timeline to remain the same. There will be an SB 54 advisory board meeting March 21, which is slated to cover next steps for advancing regulations, plus an update on needs assessment studies. CalRecycle has not yet responded to request for comment regarding the timeline for rulemaking and implementation.
Circular Action Alliance, the producer responsibility organization selected for California, said it continues to build out its operations to support implementation and will adapt as needed.
“Some dates are set in the statute and will not change as a result of these regulations. To ensure timely execution and that we meet our statutory obligations, CAA is moving forward with plan development,” Larine Urbina, senior vice president of communications, explained in an email.
“The additional time provided for refining the regulations will allow us to address critical elements and ensure the program’s long-term success,” Urbina said. CAA’s areas of concern with SB 54 implementation have been “around timelines and sequencing, such as meeting deadlines in light of delays to the needs assessment, lack of clarity on producer registration and fee collecting timelines, and the timing of reports based on other critical steps.”
The Product Stewardship Institute, a policy and consulting nonprofit focused on EPR programs, said the change in California ought to be viewed as a “‘course correction’ rather than wholesale rejection of a program that, in essence, is headed in the right direction.” While states are bound by statutory requirements, statutory amendments are sometimes needed.
“Given the complexity of its provisions, some adjustments were expected,” said Kristina Benoist, communications and marketing manager at PSI, in an emailed statement. “At PSI, we have seen that successful EPR implementation benefits from a phased approach, allowing for industry adaptation while maintaining strong environmental goals.”
Plastics Industry Association CEO Matt Seaholm said in a statement Monday that the decision to restart the regulatory process “highlights the significant challenges in its original implementation for consumers, recyclers, and businesses.” Stakeholders have already extrapolated Newsom’s action to policy in at least one other state. Following California’s shift, dozens of business organizations, including packaging companies and trade groups, wrote to New York lawmakers expressing concern over a reintroduced EPR bill, Politico reported.
“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,” Ameripen, the Flexible Packaging Association, American Chemistry Council and others said in a letter.
There’s mixed opinions on how much of an influence California’s action could have in other states considering or implementing packaging EPR laws.
“I don't see a lot of nexus between what's happening in California and other states,” said Dan Felton, CEO of the Flexible Packaging Association. While California is pausing regulations, it’s still going to move forward, Felton said, and other states are doing their own thing.
Notably, EPR discussions this year come as tariffs and other economic pressures could strain prices for consumer goods.
Mark Bescher, founder and principal at Legacy Public Policy, who works with Ameripen and the Consumer Brands Association, among other industry groups, said cost could be an especially compelling point in 2025.
With EPR, “certainly in the near term you are adding a cost to consumer goods companies that are going to likely have to pass it down to the price of goods and on consumers,” he said. “So I think by having Governor Newsom publicly state that — it puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the governor in New York, and anyone running for governor in New Jersey,” where packaging EPR is also under consideration.
This could have a “cooling effect on getting through any legislation in a rush,” Bescher added.
PSI thinks California’s evaluation could prove instructive to other states. “While California’s experience with SB 54 will be closely watched, this revision process is not expected to slow EPR progress in other states. In fact, the issues worked out in California might actually benefit other states as they might address similar issues in program implementation,” Benoist wrote.
As for the New York bill, it advanced from the Senate’s environmental conservation committee to the finance committee this week.
“Last session, we ran out of time to pass the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act in both houses,” said Assemblymember Deborah Glick in a press release Tuesday. Glick sponsors the legislation in the Assembly, while state Sen. Pete Harckham sponsors it on the Senate side.
“This early forward momentum of the bill is good news for the municipalities and New Yorkers who have been overburdened with the rising cost of the disposal of toxic packaging from producers,” Glick said.
Asked for a response to the letter, Harckham said “the issue in California was about rulemaking, not the legislation itself.”
“This is a strong bill that has been worked on extensively with input from scores of stakeholders, including those in industry,” Harckham said in an emailed statement.
