La emblemática ley de contaminación plástica de California entra en vigor en medio de confusión y amenazas legales

After years of political battles, rewrites, and regulatory infighting, the first phase of California’s landmark plastic pollution law, Senate Bill 54, went live on June 1. The law aims to reduce single-use plastic packaging and food service ware by 25% by 2032, require that all such packaging sold in the state be recyclable or compostable, and ensure that 65% of single-use plastic packaging is actually recycled.

However, the rollout has been met with widespread dissatisfaction from both industry groups and environmental advocates.

Industry groups and compliance lawyers argue that the rules remain opaque and expensive despite major rewrites made at their demand. Recycling and anti-waste advocates counter that regulators weakened the law with exemptions and carve-outs that could undermine its environmental goals.

“It’s a convoluted law,” said Christopher Smith, a lawyer at Saul Ewing who advises companies on compliance. “And there are going to be legal challenges” to it, he added.

Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for state agency CalRecycle, defended the regulations, stating they reflect engagement from many parties and “support successful implementation.” She noted that new guidance was issued on May 1, with additional materials to follow. Turner described the law’s rollout as “a dial, not a switch.”

By the initial June 1 deadline, companies must register and report how much packaging they sell in California. They generally must register through a producer responsibility organization (PRO) or report directly to regulators, or prove they qualify for an exemption.

Lawyers and industry groups say even this first step is sowing confusion. Determining whether a company qualifies as a “producer” is not always straightforward.

Grocery stores that wrap sandwiches in-house may be considered producers, while stores selling prepackaged sandwiches may not. Farmers packaging products on site may qualify for exemptions, but the process for obtaining those remains unclear.

“Companies are trying to understand registration requirements, reporting obligations and how they fit into the new compliance structure,” said Danielle Waterfield of Ameripen, a packaging trade group. “That takes a tremendous amount of data collection and internal coordination.”

Turner said just shy of 3,000 producers had registered as of May 27. In an earlier impact assessment, the state estimated that 5,700 would be obligated to do so.

The reporting requirement is significant because companies must quantify the packaging they put into the California market—data that will eventually determine their financial obligations to the PRO. Under the law, producers must give $500 million annually to a state plastic pollution mitigation fund by next year.

Rachel Wagoner, who formerly ran CalRecycle and now consults for corporations on compliance, called the expected costs to producers “staggering,” with even medium-sized businesses likely paying millions or tens of millions of dollars. “This bill attempted to do what four or five bills would do,” Wagoner said.

“Trying to build multiple systems in one system that’s never been built before.”

The rollout is unfolding amid a broader backlash to such policies. Earlier this year, 10 Republican attorneys general warned dozens of companies participating in plastics-reduction initiatives that coordinated action could violate antitrust law.

Meanwhile, trade groups have filed lawsuits challenging EPR and packaging-reduction laws in states including Oregon and Colorado.

Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste, a nonprofit that helped push for the law, is nonplussed by industry protests. “Taxpayers and ratepayers are already paying for this system,” he said.

“The whole idea behind EPR is that producers should bear more responsibility for the waste their products create.” However, Lapis isn’t happy either. His group says the final regulations created too many exemptions and weakened portions of the original bill, particularly around chemical recycling and plastic-to-fuel technologies that many environmental groups argue should not count as true recycling.

Californians Against Waste is among the organizations planning to sue the Newsom administration.

There is something that Lapis and Wagoner can agree on: that SB 54 likely asks too much without the appropriate support structures in place. “The targets in the bill are very aggressive,” said Lapis.

“We have said for many years that we should have a suite of policies to get there and not just put it all on the manufacturers.” Or as Wagoner put it, “I fear it’s too heavy. It’s falling into the weight of its own intentions.”