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
The fashion industry is one of the world’s worst polluters: It accounts for 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions and more than four percent of the waste stream. As textiles decompose in landfills, they emit high levels of methane gas, which is a primarily contributor to global warming; dyes and other additives can leach into soil and contaminate groundwater. Although 95% of these materials are either reusable or recyclable, only about 15% are used again.
That’s the problem that California seeks to solve with SB 707, a first-in-the-nation textile Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law. Producers of textiles – as well as products made from textiles, such as accessories and furniture – will be required to implement and fund an EPR program to enhance recycling, increase reuse, and incentivize the design of products that are environmentally responsible – such as those made from recycled materials. Thrift stores, which have long served as second-hand markets for textiles, will also become collection sites, part of an integrated system for sorting and recycling used textiles that cannot be reused or resold. The program would be managed by the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
California is first – but it won’t be the last. In 2022, Massachusetts’ 2030 Solid Waste Master Plan updated regulations went into effect, adding textiles (and mattresses) to the list of materials banned from disposal or transport for disposal in another state. Clothing, curtains, towels, and other fabrics currently make up 6% of the waste that is incinerated or disposed of each year in landfills and waste-to-energy plants in the state, but analysis shows that 95% of the 230,000 tons of textiles discarded annually could be reused or recycled. The goal of the 2030 Solid Waste Master Plan is to reduce disposal by 30% over the next decade and by 90% by 2050, and strategies for reaching these objectives include these new bans. By promoting textile recycling, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has begun to build an infrastructure that could lay the groundwork for textiles EPR.
In 2008, France became the first country to enact a textile EPR law; by 2020, 39% of products were being collected. Programs like these incentivize the design of more sustainable products and build supply chains for those made with recycled materials, which are the building blocks of an emerging circular economy that protects our environment and builds a better future.
Although PSI did not work on California’s legislation, in 2016 we facilitated a multi-stakeholder working group in New York to develop the first standards for used textile collection, which were adopted by Goodwill and the Salvation Army, among others. The following year, we partnered again with the New York State Association of Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling and the New York Product Stewardship Council to host a broad group of stakeholders – including manufacturers, retailers, recycling/reuse organizations, fashion industry representatives, state and local government, researchers, nonprofits, and consumers – at an interactive summit at the Fashion Institute of Technology to discuss innovations in textiles production, recovery, recycling, and policy –including EPR.
We are thrilled to see California consider this bold step – and look forward to its global impact when the legislation becomes law.
by Scott Cassel and Kristin Aldred Cheek
Last fall’s textiles summit was a watershed moment in efforts to address textile waste in the U.S. Organized by the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), New York Product Stewardship Council (NYPSC), New York State Association for Reduction, Reuse and Recycling (NYSAR3), and New York State Pollution Prevention Institute (NYSP2I), the event brought together more than 200 textile designers, brand owners, used clothing collectors, recyclers, and government officials for the first time. The focus: improving the sustainability of the textile industry throughout the supply chain, including reducing the amount of textiles disposed and keeping millions of dollars in valuable materials circulating in our economy.
One point of general agreement at the summit was the need to move away from a “fast fashion” mentality and, in its place, build a repair-reuse-recycle mindset among businesses and consumers. Unfortunately, nearly one year later, leadership from brand owners and manufacturers remains largely absent.
Upstream, there are voluntary initiatives to reduce the environmental impacts of the textiles industry. Researchers are developing new methods to separate and extract fibers from used textiles, which would enable companies to recover the most valuable material and turn it into new products. Downstream, there are often-cited projects by companies like Patagonia and Eileen Fisher to repair, reuse, and recycle clothing.
Such efforts are examples of the varied possibilities for a more sustainable approach, but they shouldn’t distract us from the reality that the textiles industry as a whole is the second largest polluting industry in the world after oil and gas. While we wait for fiber recovery technology to be refined and brought to scale, or for voluntary efforts to grow to a meaningful level, the amount of textiles disposed continues to climb. A record 13 million tons of textiles went to landfills or combustion facilities in 2015 alone.
The technology to reuse, recycle, and repurpose many textiles already exists. Countless organizations and businesses already understand the value of recovering what’s currently being wasted and are clamoring for more material.
What’s missing is the properly funded infrastructure for collection and processing.
By requiring all textile manufacturers to finance and manage the post-consumer textiles they sell into the market, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies can achieve the efficient reuse and recycling of a high percentage of scrap textiles. EPR policies create an organized structure for cooperation and communication that is based on financial incentives and social responsibility. These systems create a level playing field among producers so that all players compete equally. At the same time, EPR lifts much of the burden from taxpayers who are currently funding disposal, regardless of their personal textile purchase and disposal habits.
There is a huge opportunity here for brand owners. Over the long haul, economies across the globe are heading toward more transparency, more substantive corporate responsibility, and more circularity. Companies that take responsibility for the lifecycle of their products will have the fewest risks and the greatest likelihood of increasing their market share. Moreover, companies that seize a leadership role today and engage in the process of developing an EPR system will be setting the bar for themselves and their competitors and defining product stewardship in the textiles industry for years to come.
To develop effective policy, there needs to be a facilitator that can develop a consensus on the extent of the problem, the goals sought by those with an interest in the outcome, the barriers to achieving those goals, and the solutions to overcoming those barriers. There is a roadmap for success. Over the past two decades, PSI has facilitated the development of many effective EPR policy models, and today our members are interested in the development of a policy model for textiles.
By Dave Galvin, Hazardous Waste Program Manager at the King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program
To flush or not to flush? This is a question many of us have faced over the years. Those who live with on-site septic systems are particularly sensitive to the quandary of what goes down the drain. Anything other than human waste and toilet paper (that is specifically made to break apart almost immediately) should be kept out of such systems, especially if there are small pumps involved along the way, which can easily clog. After you’ve had to clean a clogged pump or pipe by hand, your sensitivity to such matters goes up exponentially.
Some consumer products are labeled as “flushable,” but are they really? Items such as baby wipes and skin cleaners, paper towels, feminine care products, condoms, diapers, and even dental floss, are usually not designed to break apart immediately and are thus not intended to be flushed. Some wipes are marketed as “flushable” while others as “disposable”; they are made by the nonwoven fabric industry and are supposed to meet certain voluntary guidelines developed by this industry.
A group of wastewater and water quality associations is meeting with representatives of the nonwoven fabric industry (via a trade association known as the International Nonwovens and Disposables Association) to explore a “product stewardship approach.” What, you ask? Take-back of leftover wipes? No, let’s not go there. Instead, they have agreed to discuss the challenges that the wastewater agencies face and to tighten the requirements spelled out in the current Guidance Document for Assessing the Flushability of Nonwoven Disposable Products (third edition). A fourth edition is currently in the works.
Here is an instance where the product stewardship dialogue actually addresses design standards! How do you set criteria for flushability such that the product truly breaks down in ways that are compatible with on-site and municipal wastewater systems? How do you ensure that these products are truly acceptable to flush, that they are “biological nutrients” in McDonough and Braungart’s Cradle-to-Cradle sense? How do you establish clear and meaningful labeling and marketing standards for what is flushable and what is not? Interesting questions indeed, and a dialogue sure to blaze new territory in the product stewardship universe.
This discourse illustrates an expanded definition of product stewardship, one that covers the full lifecycle, including design and labeling decisions that affect end-of-life disposition. Who knows – maybe Scott Cassel should be invited to the “World of Wipes” international conference to expand the idea of what it means to affect sustainable product stewardship.
“Hard to handle” takes on new meaning where upstream meets downstream.
Dave Galvin is a Program Manager for the Hazardous Waste Management Unit in King County (Seattle, Washington), part of the multi-agency “Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County.” This program addresses household and small business hazardous wastes in the Seattle metropolitan area. Dave began working in this subject area in 1979 and was the one who coined the term “household hazardous waste.” He was the founding president of the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association and was previously the president of the Product Stewardship Institute’s Board of Directors. For additional information, Dave can be reached at Dave.Galvin@kingcounty.gov.
On March 1, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition launched a new voluntary initiative by leading companies such as Wal-Mart, J.C. Penney, Patagonia, and Timberland. According to the New York Times, the coalition seeks to develop “…a comprehensive database of the environmental impacts of every manufacturer, component, and process in apparel production, with the aim of using that information to eventually give every garment a sustainability score.”
This initiative marks a turning point for the apparel industry, and offers promise that consumers will be able to make more informed purchasing decisions. This effort is laudable on its own merits. However, in addition, these companies are opening the window to what they don’t know. And in so doing, it is bound to raise some interesting questions, ones that will likely lead to the need for global environmental and social standards for product manufacture. For years, U.S. companies have had to compete with cheaper labor in China, India, and other countries. But are they competing on labor costs and other criteria at the detriment of environmental and social impacts?
In fact, what do we know about the environmental and social impacts caused by manufacturing operations in developing countries? The answer is not much. We do know that many used electronics are shipped from well-meaning companies, government agencies, and non-profits in the U.S. to developing nations to be recycled. It all sounded so good…until the Basel Action Network informed us that many of these operations polluted rivers and sickened unprotected workers. It is likely that the Sustainable Apparel Coalition will find similar operations in which their members are unsuspecting enablers of poor environmental and social practices. As the New York Times reports, Americans spent nearly $340 billion last year on clothing and shoes, nearly all of which was made in other countries.
The New York Times article begins with an image of blue dye and other chemicals floating downriver from textile mills in China. An inside photo shows a fabric dyeing factory in Mumbai, India, that appears to provide little to no protection of the environment and workers. Our values, as Americans, are embedded in our laws. We would not want those same practices to take place on American soil. Those who uphold our country’s values for our own people should ensure that their actions are not enabling practices that cause harm to others in far-away places. We should not be exporting jobs to other countries if we are not also requiring that products we buy from companies operating in these countries be made using the same environmental and worker safety standards that we require of companies operating here in the U.S.
Companies participating in sustainable business practices know that you either pay now or pay more later…in the form of health care for sick or injured workers, cleanup of pollution, and replacement of poorly made products. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition is off to a good start.