1 of 19

California Senate Bill 54�(Allen, 2022)��An overview of the law and implications for local government

Last Updated: March 19, 2024

Purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of SB 54 - the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Responsibility Act - and specifically to highlight potential implications for local governments and how to engage in the implementation process moving forward.

NOTES ABOUT THIS PRESENTATION:

Slides include speaker notes to provide an overview of the law with an emphasis on local government perspectives.
Read time is estimated to be about 20 minutes.
File is set to “read only” so you can either export to PPT or save a copy to make edits to slides/speaker notes.
We anticipate making tweaks to slides and speaker notes as the regulatory process evolves; will use the same file/link and update the “last updated” date on slide 1 when changes are made.
For questions about the presentation, please contact Michelle Fay at mfay@stopwaste.org

2 of 19

SB 54�Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act

Reduce the volume of plastic and other packaging
Increase recycling
Shift packaging pollution responsibility to producers
Provide clarity and consistency for consumers
Stimulate investment in reuse and refill systems
Fund clean up efforts in disadvantaged communities

SB 54 sets ambitious goals to reduce the volume and increase the recycling of single use packaging entering our communities.
It requires that 100% of single use packaging is recyclable or compostable by 2032, and that at least 65% of plastic packaging, specifically, is actually recycled.
It will also provide more clarity and consistency for consumers regarding what materials are recyclable or compostable, including more consistency across jurisdiction lines.
It will stimulate investment in reuse and refill infrastructure and drive innovation in packaging design in ways that are good for people and the planet.
And it will create new money to clean up plastic pollution in disadvantaged communities, which are disproportionately impacted by the health and environmental consequences of plastic pollution and fossil fuel extraction.
The mitigation fund, as well as the investment needed to implement the law and achieve these outcomes, is to be funded by packaging producers.
Fundamental to the law is shifting the burden of costs to collect and process materials to packaging producers and away from local jurisdictions and ratepayers.
This represents a much different approach then SB 1383, which placed the implementation burden on local governments.
SB 54 will only achieve this shift and these outcomes of local jurisdictions and their partners engage in and inform the SB 54 implementation process.

3 of 19

SB 54 rulemaking timeline

4 of 19

Materials covered by the law

Single-use packaging

Includes plastic, paper, paperboard, metal, glass, multi-layer materials, etc. (definition is material neutral)

�Plastic single-use food ware

Cups, lids, straws, cutlery, stirrers, lidded containers, trays, plates, clamshells, food wrap, and wrappers

5 of 19

The Linear Economy

The hopeful news is that, if implemented effectively, SB 54 has the potential to accelerate a shift for how we produce and manage packaging materials from a linear economic model, to a circular one.
The linear economy is one in which we utilize finite resources to make things like packaging and single use food ware that we use briefly and then throw away…some refer to this as a “take, make, and waste economy,” and it leads to bad outcomes that affect our health and our environment.
SB 54 represents a shift to a more circular economy, in which we slow the flow of materials entering our economies and we keep materials in circulation through reuse and refill infrastructure and by creating new products out of things that would otherwise reach a dead end in the landfill.
And at the same time we mitigate and lessen our impact on natural ecosystems.
When we do this, we are not only reducing waste, but also saving all the inputs and resources that go into creating and transporting and processing these single use products

6 of 19

Implications for local governments

“Local jurisdictions are the backbone of the solid waste management and recycling efforts in California…the new law is intended to shift the burden of costs to collect, process, and recycle materials from local jurisdictions to the producers of plastic products.”

Per SB 54 (Allen, 2022), Section 42040(b)(2)

“It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to ensure that local jurisdictions will be made financially whole for any new costs incurred associated with the implementation of this chapter and its implementing regulations.”

Before diving deeper into the details of what the law requires and key aspects of the law for local governments to pay special attention to, let’s start by noting how language in the law makes it clear that local government interests informed the legislation.
Here are two examples, quoting the bill language… [reference quotes on slide]
This sets a significantly different tone then SB 1383, which placed the cost of implementation squarely on local governments…SB 54 is designed to shift the costs of collecting, processing and transporting recyclable and composable packaging materials away from jurisdictions and ratepayers, and instead those costs are to be paid by packaging producers.
The vision and the intention of the law are clear, but the devil is in the details of the rulemaking…these potential benefits will only be realized if the regulations are crafted and implemented in a way that reflects local government’s needs.

7 of 19

In California, by 2032:

100% of single-use packaging and plastic single-use food ware will be recyclable or compostable

65% of plastic single-use packaging �and food ware will be recycled��30 % by 2028 | 40% by 2030

25% of single-use plastic packaging and food ware will be source reduced by weight and component�10% by 2027 (2% reuse/refill)�20% by 2030 (4% reuse/refill)

8 of 19

Requirements for expanded polystyrene food service ware

May not be sold in the state unless the following recycling rates* are achieved:

25% by 2025
30% by 2028
50% by 2030
65% by 2032

*Current recycling rates estimated to be in the low single digits

9 of 19

Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO)

Producers must join PRO
PRO collects and reports producer data and collects fees to pay for implementation of the law
Circular Action Alliance (CAA) selected as CA’s PRO
Implementation plan and budget due January 2027

The law requires producers of materials covered by the law to form and join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) for the purposes of complying with the law.
CalRecycle recently announced that the nonprofit Circular Action Alliance, has been selected to be CA’s PRO.
The PRO will do things like help inform producers about the law’s requirements, collect and report producer data, and collect fees from the producers to fund the law’s implementation.
CAA is also the PRO for EPR laws in Colorado and Oregon.
They have until April 2026 to develop an implementation plan and budget which will at least in part be identified from the SB 54 needs assessment, which CalRecycle will conduct over the next two years.
As mentioned, a foundational element of the law is that it is designed to shift to burden of costs to producers and away from local jurisdictions and ratepayers.
The PRO plan must include:

Investment in improving or expanding or creating new collection and processing infrastructure, including the associated technology
Transporting materials to material recovery facilities and ultimately to end markets where it can be used to create new products
Market development, to increase demand for products made from recycled materials
The costs incurred by local governments or service providers related to data collection and reporting
Investment in reuse and refill infrastructure and other source reduction activities
Outreach/education

All of these costs are to be covered by the producers…this is a big deal and what makes it an extended producer responsibility law, b/c right now, these costs are being paid by local jurisdictions, in partnership with their haulers and processors, and these investments are ultimately funded in large part by ratepayers.

10 of 19

Enforcement

$50,000/day/violation civil penalties
CalRecycle has authority to reject or revoke the PRO implementation plan

11 of 19

SB 54 Advisory Board

16 members with pre-defined seats to represent range of perspectives
Advisory Board reviews the needs assessment and PRO plan and budget

SB 54 establishes a 16-member Advisory Board to help ensure producers are meeting the requirements of the law. Each seat on the board is pre-set to represent a range of perspectives—from environmental justice, cities, rural communities, ocean advocacy, haulers, and composters to packaging producers and manufacturers.
The main role of the Advisory Board is to advise CalRecycle and the PRO on implementation of the law.
Specifically, the Advisory Board is tasked with reviewing and providing input on the needs assessment and the PRO Plan and budget, including how the PRO will cover the costs incurred by local jurisdictions and service providers.
It’s also a forum for entities to raise any issues or concerns if they feel that implementation of SB 54 is disrupting the sustained operation or commercial viability of solid waste collection programs.
The cities representative on the Advisory Board is Timothy Burroughs. Timothy is the Executive Director of StopWaste, which is the Alameda Co Waste Management Authority. Timothy was nominated for the Board position by the League of California Cities.

12 of 19

$5 billion plastic pollution mitigation fund

$500M per year x 10 years paid for by producers
Designed to help clean up existing plastic pollution
Funds to focus on addressing environmental justice and public health impacts of plastic pollution

Another key feature of the law is its focus on cleaning up the existing mess created by the profusion of plastic pollution.
Starting in 2027, PRO to pay $500M per year for 10 years into a CA Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fun.
These funds are separate from the fees the PRO will pay to fund collection and processing infrastructure.
60% will go to monitor and reduce the historical and current enviro justice and public health impacts of plastics…this funding is intended to benefit disadvantaged communities…will be allocated by state agencies, for example, in grants to tribes, local jurisdictions, NGOs.
40% of the money to be allocated to natural resource agencies, such as the Dept of Fish and Wildlife and CA Coastal Commission to “reduce the environmental impacts of plastics on terrestrial, aquatic, and marine life and human health, including to restore, recover, and protect the natural environment.”

The law acknowledges disproportionate impacts of plastic production and pollution on disadvantaged and low-income communities, and as such, half of that 40% must provide benefits to residents living in a disadvantaged, low-income communities, or rural areas.

Local jurisdictions should inform how these funds are allocated in order to ensure that they bring benefits to disadvantaged/low-income communities in cities and towns…

13 of 19

Recyclability

Defined by SB 343
Limits use of chasing arrows and recyclability claims starting July 2025
Materials must be collected by recycling programs that cover at least 60% of the state’s population and sorted into defined streams at facilities that serve at least 60% of CA’s recycling programs
Same criteria apply for materials collected outside of a curbside program

?

SB 54 will require that all packaging and single use food ware be recyclable or compostable by 2032, so now I’ll go into a bit more detail to share how those two terms are defined.
SB 54 actually points to another law SB 343 to define recyclability. That law was passed in 2021 and is known as the truth in labeling law.
Under that law, in order for a material to be deemed recyclable, it must meet two criteria:
First, at least 60% of the state’s population must have access to a program that collects the material for recycling.
And second, the material must be sorted into a defined recycling bale or stream by transfer and processing facilities that collectively serve at least 60% of the state.
So people must have access, and those materials must actually be baled and sent for recycling.
Under SB 343, materials that don’t meet these thresholds may no longer be labeled as “recyclable” and cannot be stamped with the chasing arrows symbol starting July of next year.

14 of 19

Compostability

Defined by AB 1200 and 1201
Must meet ASTM standards for compostability, be free of PFAS, and be distinguishable from non-compostable products
Designed to be “associated with the recovery of desirable organic wastes”
Accepted for use in organic agriculture by January 2026

?

Additional language in the March 8, 2024 draft regulations:

Accepted by 50% of collection programs and facilities now, and 75% starting January 2026

Essentially to be labeled compostable products must:

○ Meet product standard specifications and cannot contain PFAS, the harmful forever chemicals often used to create a moisture barrier on things like molded fiber food ware.

○ Products must also be distinguishable from non-compostable products

○ And finally, starting January 2026, they must be accepted in feedstocks used to produce compost that can be used in organic agriculture. For reference, compostable plastics are not currently accepted as a feedstock in organic agriculture.

So those are the rules that apply to any product in the state in order to be labeled as compostable.
SB 54 will add additional restrictions specifically for single-use packaging and food ware.
The first formal draft regulations released in March state that in order for packaging or food ware to be considered compostable, it must be currently accepted by 50% of the state’s organics collection programs, and starting 2026, 75% of programs in the state must accept the materials for composting.
CalRecycle conducted a survey of compost facilities late last year and found that just 1 facility out of 24 that responded claims to accept compostable plastics.
Given there are only 34 facilities in the state, it doesn’t look like it will be possible for compostable plastics to meet this requirement, assuming it makes it through the draft phase into the final regulations.

15 of 19

Recyclable covered materials

Note: Jurisdictions must collect materials designated recyclable or compostable

NO:

Compostable covered materials

● That was an overview of how recyclability and compostabilty are defined...now let’s talk about which materials are actually considered recyclable and compostable...

● SB 54 required CalRecycle to publish a list of all covered material categories including what materials are currently considered recyclable and compostable across the state based on the criteria we covered in the last two slides...

● This slide highlights some of the key takeaways from the list that was published in December:

o Out of 98 covered material categories, just 37 meet the criteria for recyclability … essentially glass and aluminum containers, paper and cardboard, and rigid plastics 1, 2, and 5 are considered recyclable in the state... you can see examples shown here on the slide, but #1 plastics are things like soda and water bottles; #2s things like milk jugs and detergent containers; and 5s are typically tubs like yogurt containers...

o Even if those 1s, 2s and 5s are made using a “thermoform” process, things like clamshells, berry containers and lettuce tubs, those made the cut as being recyclable. But plastic utensils and flexible/film plastics did not. ‘Poly-coated food service ware’ like paper coffee cups and plates with a thin plastic coating are not recyclable or compostable.

o Aseptic cartons like shelf-stable milk and soup cartons as well as gable-top milk cartons, are also not recyclable/compostable.

o Perhaps one of the biggest surprises is that Tin/Steel/Bimetal cans are not recyclable. In the study conducted by CalRecyle, only 24% of the state’s population collects these for recycling, and only 33% of surveyed counties have a MRF that actually recovers them.

o Compostable plastics are not considered compostable, nor is bamboo food ware.

o Waxed cardboard is not recyclable/compostable.

● Under the law, local jurisdictions are required to collect all materials deemed to be recyclable or compostable... they can also choose to accept more than what’s on the list. So for example, a city could continue to or bimetal cans if they choose to.

16 of 19

Responsible end markets

Recycling is conducted in a way that benefits the environment and minimizes risks to public health and worker health and safety
End market entities must be compliant with all required permits, licenses, and regulations
Must be transparent, e.g. document chain of custody, maintain records, be willing to be inspected, etc.

17 of 19

Key questions for local governments

Role of local governments and haulers/service providers in negotiating costs with PRO
Effect of SB 54 reimbursements on ratepayers
Onboarding new materials onto acceptability list
How will this impact local businesses
How to communicate clearly and effectively with the public

18 of 19

Needs Assessment

Informs the PRO Plan & Budget�
CalRecycle will conduct five studies starting this year�
Proposed budgets shown�(subject to change)�
Needs Assessment must be completed before a PRO Plan and Budget can be approved

19 of 19

�Getting involved

Stay informed on the CalRecycle�SB 54 listserv
Attend SB 54 Advisory Board meetings and provide comments
Attend CalRecycle workshops�and submit written comments
Work with partners - NSAC, CalCities, RCRC, CSAC, or your local JPA

It’s important for local governments and their partners to participate closely in the rulemaking process underway now and to make perspectives and interests known.
The best way to stay engaged is to make sure you’re on the CalRecycle listserv. You scan this QR code it will take you to the sign up page.
If you can, attend CalRecycle workshops either in person or virtually to hear what other stakeholders are saying about the regulations and also to provide your own feedback.
You can also submit written comment letters addressing one or more of the topics that are the focus of each workshop.
If you can’t attend all the workshops and develop your own comments, leverage existing efforts by partner organizations…

National Stewardship Action Council working group with local gov’t subgroup
Connect with CalCities, CA State Assoc of Counties (CSAC), or Rural County Representatives of CA (RCRC)
Connect with your local JPA/Waste Management Authority
Reach out organizations that you may already partner with, such as CA Resource Recovery Assoc or CA Product Stewardship Council or Californians Against Waste to participate in their comment letter process