Carpet

By Kristina Benoist, Marketing & Communications Director

March 26, 2025

California’s Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) was designed to be a groundbreaking shift in how plastic waste is managed, requiring producers—not taxpayers—to take responsibility for packaging waste. However, less than two years after its enactment in 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered a revision, citing rising compliance costs, delays in implementation, and growing resistance from both industry and environmental groups.

While this decision has generated debate, it does not signal a reversal of producer responsibility in California or across the country. Instead, California is refining SB 54—making targeted adjustments to improve the feasibility of implementation while maintaining the law’s core objectives.

ADJUSTMENTS, NOT A ROLLBACK 

When SB 54 was signed into law in 2022, it introduced some of the most progressive plastic reduction and recycling targets in the country, including: 

• A 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging by 2032. 

• A requirement that 65% of covered materials be recycled and certified through an approved process by 2032. 

• A $5 billion producer-funded mitigation fund over a 10-year period, specifically $500 million annually from 2027 to 2037, to address the environmental impacts of plastic pollution and support affected communities.
  

As implementation began, producers raised financial and operational feasibility concerns. In response, Governor Newsom declined to approve the rules as drafted, acknowledging industry concerns and directing regulatory agencies to refine them before they could proceed to the California Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling for formal adoption. 

Rather than a rollback, California is expected to make targeted revisions that ease the transition for producers while preserving the law’s key goals. 

The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) review process, which is standard for regulatory changes, could take up to a year. However, to accelerate certain adjustments, an “urgency bill” could be introduced in the California Senate, allowing a limited number of critical revisions to be fast-tracked. 

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EPR IN OTHER STATES 

While California’s experience with SB 54 is being closely watched, this revision process is unlikely to slow momentum for EPR nationwide. States like Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, and Maine are continuing to quickly move forward with their own packaging EPR programs, each tailored to their specific regulatory and economic landscapes. 

WHAT ADJUSTMENTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED 

California Senator Ben Allen—the lead sponsor of SB 54—recently outlined proposed adjustments and clarifications in a letter to Jeff Fielkow, CEO of Circular Action Alliance (CAA). These proposals were part of a negotiation effort to encourage CAA’s support for the draft regulations. While not changes to the law, the suggestions emphasized collaboration, regulatory flexibility, and timeline adjustments to support smoother implementation. CAA ultimately declined to endorse the proposals.  

Key points included:
1. Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) Plan Adjustments

The deadline for the initial PRO plan submission is proposed to be moved to July 1, 2026, providing producers more time to develop their compliance strategies.

2. Financial and Reporting Adjustments

Temporary Simplified Eco-Modulation Fees – A simplified fee structure will be used until the end of 2029 to ease the transition for producers.

3. Annual Reports & Fee Schedules: 

Annual Budget and Fee Schedules – Producers must submit budget and fee schedules annually by October 1, 2026, separate from the full program report.

4. Compliance and Data Collection

Source Reduction Data – Producers must submit baseline source reduction data before the PRO plan submission deadline of July 1, 2026. CalRecycle will have the authority to update this baseline before 2027.

5. De Minimis Exemption

CalRecycle will clarify its current rules for small producers (de minimis criteria) through emergency regulations before the July 1, 2026 deadline for PRO plan submission.

6. Regulatory & Technological Considerations

• Chemical Recycling Review: Any company using chemical recycling technologies will need to fund and commission peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate compliance. 

• Reusable Packaging Standards: Durability standards for reusable food serviceware will be refined. 

• Life Sciences Exemption: Secondary and tertiary packaging used in life sciences (e.g., medical and pharmaceutical industries) are proposed to be explicitly exempted. 

7. Reporting Flexibility
Annual, not Monthly, Reporting: To reduce administrative burden, producers will submit data annually rather than in monthly increments. 

WHAT’S NEXT FOR SB 54? 

With the Governor signaling the need for refinements to SB 54, the next steps focus on how these adjustments will be implemented. The process will move forward through multiple avenues, each operating at a different pace: 

• Legislative Action – Lawmakers will introduce a bill to formally adopt revisions, incorporating stakeholder input to ensure the changes balance feasibility with the law’s original intent. 

• Regulatory Adjustments – CalRecycle and the advisory board will refine program rules, clarify compliance requirements, and establish updated guidelines for producers through the regulatory process. 

• Urgency Bill Option – If certain revisions require immediate implementation, an urgency bill could be introduced in the California Senate to fast-track specific changes, allowing them to take effect sooner than the standard legislative timeline. 

• Administrative Review – The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) will oversee regulatory refinements. While this review process can take up to a year, select revisions may be expedited depending on legislative and agency priorities. 

The combination of these pathways ensures that SB 54 moves forward with adjustments that improve feasibility while keeping California’s producer responsibility framework intact. 

LOOKING AHEAD 

Extended deadlines and regulatory flexibility ensure that producers and the PRO can better prepare for compliance. Clarity on financial obligations helps industries transition smoothly into the eco-modulation fee structure. More specific guidelines on exemptions, reporting, and technology provide clearer expectations for producers and regulators. The continued dialogue and adjustments reinforce the state’s commitment to a workable and effective EPR system under SB 54. 

California’s adjustments to SB 54 will shape how the state fine-tunes its approach to producer responsibility, but its unique economic and regulatory environment means that its experience will likely not dictate how other states implement their programs. These adjustments intend to make SB 54 more easily implementable while still advancing California’s ambitious waste reduction and recycling goals. 

PSI diligently monitors and tracks all legislative developments, stakeholder responses and the evolution of these laws, not only in California, but for all 50 states.

Stay connected with PSI for updates on California’s plastics EPR law, industry reactions, and the future of producer responsibility nationwide. Want to learn how this legislation—and similar efforts in other states—could impact your business? Reach out to Darla Arians at darla.arians@productstewardship.us to explore how we can work together.

September 5, 2024

This week, the California Legislature passed significant EPR bills to establish several new programs and strengthen existing ones. Now awaiting Governor Newsom’s signature, the bills include first-in-the-nation EPR programs for textiles and marine flares, the second EPR law for EV batteries in the country, and meaningful amendments to California’s carpet and paint stewardship programs. These bills incorporate best practices learned in the past 10 years and put on display the blossoming of the EPR movement in the U.S. They also exemplify the important state-based advocacy of the California Product Stewardship Council, Californians Against Waste, and the National Stewardship Action Council. The Governor has until September 30 to sign the bills.

Textiles (SB 707)
California is poised to be the first state to enact an EPR law for textiles. The law would require producers of clothing, footwear, and household textiles to participate in and fund a statewide reuse and recycling program for their products. The California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) sponsored the landmark legislation, which seeks to reduce the environmental impact of the fashion industry by increasing the reuse and recycling of textiles, which are major contributors to landfill waste and pollution. The bill garnered broad support from environmental organizations, municipal waste managers, and key players in the fashion and textile industries. California will join the European Union, which already has textiles recycling mandates.

EV Batteries (SB 615)
This EPR law would be the second in the nation (after New Jersey) to require suppliers of electric vehicle traction batteries to ensure the collection and management of those batteries at end-of-life. The bill establishes a “battery management hierarchy” that prioritizes reuse, repair, and remanufacturing and requires that each battery have a unique identifier so that it can be tracked for responsible management. As the largest U.S. market for electric vehicles, California’s law could “fuel” the growth of EV battery recycling in the U.S., providing essential materials for renewable energy manufacturing in the U.S. Californians Against Waste led bill advocacy with support from recycler Redwood Materials and others. 

Marine Flares (SB1066) 
This bill, if enacted, would be another first-in-the-nation EPR law. It would require any manufacturer (currently just Orion) of marine flares  – pyrotechnic devices used to signal distress in boating – to establish and fund a program for collection and proper disposal. Additionally, the bill bans perchlorate from marine flares sold to California consumers. The chemical is increasingly found in groundwater, surface water, and soil and is known to damage human thyroid functions that are essential to mental function, metabolism, and fetal development. This bill was championed by the National Stewardship Action Council and Zero Waste Sonoma. 

Carpet Amendment (AB 863)  
This amendment to California’s carpet stewardship program – the latest of three to improve the original carpet industry program – adds several elements to boost recycling, including a requirement for 5% carpet-to-carpet recycled content by 2028; mandatory sorting at approved collection sites by 2029, including proper storage and transportation of recyclable carpet to a recycler; standardized backstamping of carpet to support more efficient material sorting; and components of carpets published on the manufacturer website for better recycling. The amendment also includes nonvoting representation on the CARE board for a retailer, a circular economy NGO, and labor; funding for workforce development; audit transparency; and higher enforcement penalties. The original bill, which has since been amended, pushed even further, calling for a needs assessment to determine if the scope of the program should include other flooring such as luxury vinyl tile, sheet vinyl, and linoleum, which compete with carpet in the marketplace. This provision was intended to address a key carpet industry concern about leveling the playing field for all flooring. The original bill also contained higher targets for recycling and recycled content. This amendment was championed by the National Stewardship Action Council. 

Paint Amendment (SB 1143) 
PaintCare, the California paint stewardship program, added aerosol paints in 2023 to the original program established in 2007 by PSI, the American Coatings Association, and numerous government and private sector stakeholders. If enacted, this amendment would further expand the scope of the program to include furniture paint, marine paint, and other related products. Since adding aerosols to the California program, PaintCare has expressed interest in adding additional paint products to its programs in the other 12 jurisdictions with laws – yet another sign of the growing influence of EPR on materials management. This amendment, as well as the 2023 amendment, were championed by the National Stewardship Action Council.

Gas Cylinders (SB 1280) 
Although not EPR, this CPSC-sponsored bill would prohibit the sale of non-reusable or non-refillable propane cylinders. The bill would effectually require that all 1lb cylinders be reusable, just as 20lb barbeque tanks currently are.  

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

2023 legislative sessions are now underway and many extended producer responsibility (EPR) bills were first out of the gate! There is an unprecedented momentum for these bills. Both Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont and New York Governor Kathy Hochul have indicated their backing, representing an unprecedented level of support for the passage of packaging EPR legislation in these states.  

During legislative session, we monitor activity on bills requiring new EPR programs or amending existing EPR laws in the United States; this information is shared with our Members and Partners through emailed Legislative Updates and is also available to them in our Legislation Library. At press time, these are the bills that had been introduced: 

• Battery EPR in New York and Washington; on January 17th, the District of Columbia enacted their Batteries and Electronics amendment. Our model EPR legislation informed the first EPR law for all single-use household batteries, enacted in Vermont, as well as battery bills introduced in states across the country from 2015 to 2020, and, in 2021, the first battery EPR law for single-use and rechargeable batteries, as well as battery-containing products, which was enacted in Washington, D.C. Learn more about our perspective on battery EPR by clicking here. 
• Household hazardous waste (HHW) EPR in Vermont. Although no HHW EPR program currently exists in the United States, they have operated successfully in Canada since the 1990s: In Manitoba, collection volumes increased four-fold in the first five years of program implementation. PSI’s research fueled the introduction of HHW EPR bills in both Oregon and Vermont. Learn more about our perspective on HHW EPR by clicking here.
• Packaging EPR in Maryland, New York, Washington, and New Jersey (originally introduced in 2022 and still active). In 2016, we developed our model packaging EPR legislation, then updated it in 2019 with input from industry and government. Maine and Oregon used our model to enact packaging EPR laws in 2021, Colorado followed suit in 2022 and, that same year, California also enacted legislation that was informed by our model. Learn more about our perspective on packaging EPR by clicking here.
• Paint EPR in Missouri, which, if passed, would be the state’s first EPR law. Beginning in 2003, PSI convened and facilitated a multi-stakeholder dialogue that included participation and support from the paint industry, state and local governments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and recycled paint manufacturers to develop a consensus model for paint EPR legislation. In 2009, Oregon used our model to enact the country’s first paint EPR law; since then, we have helped pass paint EPR legislation built on the same model. Today, there are paint EPR laws in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Learn more about our perspective on paint EPR by clicking here.
• Mercury-containing lighting EPR in Washington. In 2007, PSI initiated a dialogue on fluorescent lighting that resulted in a national action plan on lamp recycling and contributed to the enactment of EPR laws in five states; we also partnered with rural governments in 13 other states to boost collection of lamps and other mercury-containing products. Learn more about our perspective on lighting EPR by clicking here. 
• Pharmaceuticals law EPR amendment in Oregon. In 2010, PSI led a national coalition to pass the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act and change related regulations that made it possible for retail pharmacies to host drug take-back programs for unwanted medicines, including controlled substances. That year, we developed model pharmaceuticals EPR legislation with our national coalition; by 2012, PSI Member Alameda County had used our model to establish the first pharmaceuticals EPR ordinance in the country, which was upheld by the courts despite industry appeals. Since then, our work has helped pass pharmaceuticals EPR laws in eight states and 23 local jurisdictions. Learn more about our perspective on pharmaceuticals EPR by clicking here. 
• Refrigerant-containing appliances EPR in Washington. In 2014, PSI provided research and policy analysis to New York City, which passed the first-ever law to safely manage refrigerant-containing appliances; since its passage, manufacturers collected more than 90,000 products and saved the city more than $1.3 million. PSI also helped defend New York City’s law against a legal challenge from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, and we contributed to the hydrofluorocarbons emissions reduction law enacted by Washington State in 2021. Learn more about our perspective on refrigerant-containing appliance EPR by clicking here. 
• Solar panel EPR in Minnesota. Washington state passed the first state solar panels EPR law in 2017. In 2021, PSI helped develop the solar panels EPR law enacted by Niagara County, New York – the first such local law in the country. Learn more about our perspective on solar panel EPR by clicking here. 

We also expect to see introductions of additional battery, carpet, electronics, mattress, packaging, paint, and pharmaceuticals EPR bills and amendments in additional states. We appreciate the leadership of legislators and stakeholders who are leading the charge, and look forward to celebrating with our community when these bills become law. 

by Suna Bayrakal, PhD
Director, Policy and Programs 

After Governor Hochul signed the legislation last week, New York became the second state after California to enact a carpet EPR law – and the first in the nation to include artificial turf. PSI was cited by NRDC and others as playing a significant role in advancing the legislation. “The enactment of New York’s carpet EPR bill benefited from two decades of advocacy from experts across the country, including those from state and local governments, environmental groups, and carpet recyclers,” said Scott Cassel, PSI’s CEO and founder. “This next-generation carpet EPR law is yet another indication that the overwhelming public sentiment is for producers to take responsibility to prevent negative impacts from their products and packaging all through their lifecycle.”  

Spearheaded by Senator Brian Kavanagh and outgoing Assemblymember Steve Englebright, the bill passed both the Senate and Assembly in May and was expected to be signed quickly by Governor Kathy Hochul. Enactment was delayed in part by controversy over a proposed insertion of language that would have expanded the definition of “recycling” to include “chemical recycling” technologies such as pyrolysis, which many organizations, including PSI, consider energy recovery as it. The additional language was not included in the law. 

Although the national average for carpet recycling is 5%, the rate in New York is just 1% — each year, the state sends 515 million pounds of unused or discarded carpet to fill up New York landfills or be burned in waste-to-energy plants. Local governments and businesses spend more than $22 million annually to dispose of it. 

The New York carpet EPR law is a significant upgrade to the nation’s first carpet EPR law, enacted in 2010 in California, which was heavily promoted by the carpet industry. The New York law establishes mandatory goals for recycling and post-consumer content in new carpet, convenient collection statewide, education and awareness, and the phase out of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from new carpet production. It will also establish a multi-stakeholder advisory board to advise producers and the state, which oversees the program. Requiring carpet producers to finance and manage the collection and recycling of scrap carpet removes the financial burden of managing this bulky material from local governments and taxpayers and will reduce the energy needed to make new carpet, lowering greenhouse gas emissions and saving valuable natural resources. 

The bill will also help create permanent full-time recycling jobs. Since the enactment of California’s law and two subsequent amendments, the state has created 500 direct and indirect jobs and, in 2021, achieved an annual carpet recycling rate of 27%. Projections show that New York could achieve those same goals in fewer than five years, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by 165,000 tons per year, which is equivalent to taking 32,000 cars off the road.