Supporters of SB 54, a bill to create an prolonged producer duty program in California for plastic in addition to printed paper and packaging, are racing the clock to move the bill. Their objective: to persuade the backers of a competing ballot measure to withdraw their proposal by a June 29 deadline.
Those that again SB 54, together with lawmakers, recycling trade representatives and main waste corporations together with Republic Services, say the bill is essentially the most complete and stakeholder-friendly initiative that may maintain producers accountable for plastic air pollution. They additionally argue it presents stronger franchise protections for haulers and MRFs, which traditionally have been cautious of earlier variations of the bill for giving an excessive amount of management to producers. State Sen. Ben Allen sponsors the bill.
SB 54 already has years of intense scrutiny and baggage connected to it: Previous iterations have been tabled or failed to move in 2019, 2020 and 2021 due to fights between competing pursuits. The 2019 and 2020 variations of the bill garnered assist from each Republic and Recology, whereas WM opposed the measure in prior years.
This 12 months, SB 54 is dealing with additional competitors from a ballot measure generally known as the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, which has some comparable targets however a special strategy to enhancing recycling and decreasing plastic air pollution. The ballot measure would require single-use plastic packaging and foodware to be recyclable, refillable, compostable or reusable by 2030. It would additionally name for decreasing single-use plastic packaging and foodware offered into the state by 25% by 2030. It would ban polystyrene meals packaging and require plastic producers and distributors to pay a 1-cent charge per merchandise, with the cash going towards waste and recycling efforts similar to infrastructure or air pollution abatement.
Supporters of the ballot measure embrace the Nature Conservancy and different environmental organizations, who say their initiative is extra easy, units earlier timelines for supply discount and instantly bans polystyrene. In distinction, SB 54 units a required 20% recycling fee for expanded polystyrene containers by 2025, which bill supporters view as a phase-out of the resin as a result of they see the edge as unattainable.
To take away this measure from the ballot, SB 54 would want to move the Assembly and the Senate by June 29. That’s as a result of the petitioners of the ballot initiative would want to agree to rescind the measure 130 days earlier than the election, which is about for Nov. 8. This deadline is particular to the bill, as California’s legislative session doesn’t finish till August. Sen. Allen’s employees didn’t reply to requests for remark as of press time.
SB 54 backers count on the bill to be thought-about Monday within the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, the place it should efficiently move via so as to survive. Other legislative delays, similar to extended debates or quite a few amendments, might additionally decelerate the method and threaten its extraordinarily tight deadline, mentioned Heidi Sanborn, govt director of the National Stewardship Action Council and a supporter of the bill. “The bill is so complex, and people haven’t had a lot of time to get their arms around it,” Sanborn mentioned.
If handed, SB 54 could possibly be essentially the most sweeping EPR legislation within the nation. Given the state’s affect on nationwide recycling and packaging coverage, it might have ripple results within the trade, Sanborn added.
What’s on this 12 months’s bill?
This 12 months’s model of SB 54 would create an prolonged producer duty program for printed paper and plastic packaging. A producer duty group can be accountable for assortment and recycling with oversight from the state.
The bill requires a 25% discount in single-use plastic packaging and foodservice merchandise by 2032 and calls for a 65% recycling fee by the identical 12 months. At least 10% of the source-reduction efforts would want to be achieved via eliminating single-use plastic, with 4% particularly although reuse or refill methods. The program would come with eco-modulated charges, that means producers might pay a penalty for utilizing hard-to-recycle or hazardous supplies of their packaging or get a credit score for utilizing extra sustainable, right-sized or reusable packaging.
The bill additionally has an environmental justice side that units up a plastic air pollution “mitigation fund” to handle current and historic environmental and well being impacts brought on by plastic air pollution. That cost to the PRO would begin at $500 million a 12 months over 10 years, with 60% going to initiatives in deprived, low-income and rural communities. It additionally directs the PRO and CalRecycle to keep away from disproportionate impacts on deprived and low-income communities when creating and implementing rules.
Haulers weigh in
Among the problems for haulers and processors up to now was trepidation {that a} new EPR mannequin might take away their operational or contractual management. Sanborn mentioned the newest model of the bill permits haulers and MRF operators to negotiate with the PRO over particulars similar to accumulating a sure kind of fabric or assembly new or bespoke specs. The PRO wouldn’t have the power to mandate something from MRFs and haulers and would in the end be accountable for funding many infrastructure or high quality enhancements, she mentioned.
“The haulers have always said they don’t want the manufacturers of anything telling them how to run their business or get in the middle of their contract,” she mentioned. “They’re saying, ‘if you want us to collect more stuff or get it cleaner, then you need to give us the money to go invest in the equipment and all the other things necessary to do that.’”
Major haulers similar to WM and Republic have been “instrumental” within the stakeholder course of for this model of the bill, Sanborn mentioned. Others conversant in the bill course of say a few of the state’s smaller haulers are ready to see if the bill will efficiently move earlier than making their very own opinions recognized. WM didn’t return requests for remark as of press time.
In a letter of assist for SB 54, Chuck Helget, Republic’s director of presidency affairs for its West and Southwest areas, mentioned hard-to-recycle single-use plastics have contributed to contamination in MRF streams and led to larger working prices. SB 54 helps steer these prices to packaging producers and away from residential and business ratepayers, he mentioned.
Helget acknowledged within the letter that the bill would require infrastructure or market enhancements to meet the bill’s targets, however he underscored that such enhancements can be achieved “through a process of collaboration and consent between recycling service providers, local governments, CalRecycle, and the producer responsibility organization.”
In an emailed assertion, a Republic spokesperson added that the method of writing and transferring SB 54 via the legislature “has been very deliberative and continues to evolve… We understand that additional amendments are being developed, and we are waiting to review those new amendments” earlier than making additional feedback.
Recology has supported earlier years’ variations of SB 54, however in 2020 it spent about $3.84 million to get the ballot initiative on the books, partially as a result of SB 54 was not gaining traction. The firm has since stepped back from any direct campaigning, in accordance to Resource Recycling. Questions about the place Recology now stands on both the ballot measure or SB 54 weren’t returned as of press time. Michael Sangiacomo, Recology’s former president and CEO, is among the three petitioners for the ballot measure.
Other supporters of SB 54 with a stake in assortment or processing embrace native governments similar to the town of Encinitas, which see the bill as a manner to assist scale back native air pollution. “A reduction at the source is the most efficient means of reducing plastic pollution and the unfortunate harm experienced by communities,” mentioned Encinitas Mayor Catherine Blakespear in a letter.
Opposition over EPR mannequin and extra
Some opponents usually are not satisfied that SB 54, as written, can be sufficient to shield recyclers’ and environmentalists’ pursuits.
In a letter from Californians Against Waste, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club of California, these opponents mentioned they’ve been “among the staunchest supporters” of the bill since 2019, however they’ve now withdrawn their assist over issues that the proposed EPR mannequin offers an excessive amount of energy to producers.
The teams additionally say the bill doesn’t focus sufficient on enhancing extra pollution-reduction strategies, similar to bans, deposits, or recycled-content mandates.
The American Forest & Paper Association, which opposes the bill primarily as a result of it says it would hurt paper recycling charges, mentioned throughout a press name yesterday that its members who function a dozen MRFs within the state are additionally involved with the PRO mannequin’s influence on operations. Terry Webber, AF&PA’s vp of trade affairs, mentioned the bill shifts focus towards a central “command and control” system and away from the state’s at the moment localized methods. “It goes a lot farther than any other EPR program currently in place in North America,” he mentioned. AF&PA has opposed EPR in different states, together with in Colorado, which handed its legislation in May.
The debate over such EPR fashions comes as no shock given rising curiosity in such applications and newly-passed EPR legal guidelines in the previous couple of years, together with ones in Oregon, Maine and Colorado, mentioned Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste.
“SB 54 is a microcosm of this bigger fight in the U.S. around EPR,” he mentioned. “Do we go down the road of Canadian, European EPR? Or do we stick with having regulatory agencies in charge?”