Newsom stymies implementation of landmark California plastic law, orders more talks
Gov. Gavin Newsom this week stymied implementation of landmark state environmental legislation that would have limited the amount of single-use plastics sold and distributed in California — drawing outrage from environmentalists.The law, known as SB 54, was signed by Newsom in 2022. Since then, dozens of regulators, lawmakers, environmentalists and industry groups have worked together to write the rules and regulations that would guide its implementation. On Friday — the deadline to finalize those rules — Newsom told the negotiators to start over.“The Governor is directing CalRecycle to restart these regulations to ensure California’s bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution and is implemented fairly,” Daniel Villaseñor, Newsom’s deputy director of communications, said in a statement. But some environmentalists and lawmakers were incensed at the move. In a statement, representatives of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Ocean Conservancy and Oceana said Newsom’s decision “puts the interests of the plastics and fossil fuel industry above the wallets and welfare of Californians and the environment.” They cited his prior enthusiasm for the law, which his office once referred to as “the most significant overhaul of California’s plastics and packaging recycling policy in history.”“The only thing that has changed since these regulations were finalized six months ago is that Gavin Newsom is now running for president,” said one disgruntled environmentalist who had been working on the regulations since 2022, and who asked to remain anonymous because they continue to negotiate with the governor’s office on several legislative and regulatory items. SB 54 called for plastic and packaging companies to reduce single-use plastic packaging by 25% and ensure that 65% of that material is recyclable and 100% either recyclable or compostable — all by 2032. The law also required packaging producers to bear the costs of their products’ end-life (whether via recycling, composting, landfill or export) and figure out how to make it happen — removing that costly burden from consumers and state and local governments.According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.Single-use plastics and plastic waste more broadly are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, the accumulation of plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.Villaseñor, Newsom’s spokesman, cited the program’s cost as a deterrent. A state analysis showed the law, once enacted, would have cost the state $36 billion and each Californian households about $300. However, the analysis then noted those costs were “likely to be mitigated by an estimated increase in personal income amounting to $19.2 billion, coupled with additional health and environmental benefits totaling $40.3 billion.”Indeed, the analysis suggested most Californians were likely to see an increase in personal income as a result of the law, ranging from a $3 per person bump during the first year and $131 by 2032.“The law has always been about affordability,” said state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the architect of SB 54. “It’s been increasingly difficult for our cities and counties to handle the endless influx of plastics into our waste stream and they have been forced to increase rates on regular folks over and over again.”But others, including Nick Lapis, director of advocacy at Californians Against Waste, wondered if maybe it is time to bring the issue back to the voters.In 2022, a ballot measure that would have put an end to most single-use packaging and foodware in the state was pulled after industry representatives and lawmakers promised to write legislation that would essentially do the same thing, via SB 54. The only difference was that the law would allow the industry a major role in its oversight, development and management.Dropping the ballot measure was considered a mistake at the time by several environmentalists, who foresaw the industry delaying, derailing or killing it.“Suffice it to say that we just don’t have confidence that an industry so prone to deceiving the public for so long about the impacts of its products on our communities and our planet will now take the starring role in its own demise voluntarily,” wrote a coalition of environmentalists in a 2022 letter condemning the removal of the ballot initiative in favor of the law. Concerns about the governor’s commitment to the law began in December, when members of the Circular Action Alliance — a coalition that was formed to represent the plastic and packaging industry — began to complain about the regulations to Newsom.Rachel Wagoner, an executive director of the industry coalition was, until March 2024, the director of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle. Newsom appointed Wagoner to the CalRecycle position in 2020, and it was under her leadership that the majority of the law’s regulations were written and agreed upon. Larine Urbina, a spokeswoman for the Circular Action Alliance, said in a statement that her organization appreciated Newsom’s “commitment to the effective and efficient implementation of SB 54,” and that the alliance’s goal “is to ensure the legislation meets its significant ambitions and to help create a circular economy.”As lawmakers and environmentalists now scramble to pick up the pieces of the SB 54, they noted the bill was signed into law — and therefore the law of the land. “The Governor and legislators ... must continue to insist that the law’s goals and timelines are met,” wrote the representatives of Oceana, Ocean Conservancy and Monterey Bay Aquarium. Allen, the state senator, agreed with that sentiment.“We’re hopeful the administration and agency can move swiftly this go-around ... and come out with revised regulation that get us on track toward swift implementation of the law,” he said. “When that happens, it’ll be a win for both our environment and ratepayers.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom this week stymied implementation of landmark state environmental legislation that would have limited the amount of single-use plastics sold and distributed in California.
Gov. Gavin Newsom this week stymied implementation of landmark state environmental legislation that would have limited the amount of single-use plastics sold and distributed in California — drawing outrage from environmentalists.
The law, known as SB 54, was signed by Newsom in 2022. Since then, dozens of regulators, lawmakers, environmentalists and industry groups have worked together to write the rules and regulations that would guide its implementation.
On Friday — the deadline to finalize those rules — Newsom told the negotiators to start over.
“The Governor is directing CalRecycle to restart these regulations to ensure California’s bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution and is implemented fairly,” Daniel Villaseñor, Newsom’s deputy director of communications, said in a statement.
But some environmentalists and lawmakers were incensed at the move.
In a statement, representatives of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Ocean Conservancy and Oceana said Newsom’s decision “puts the interests of the plastics and fossil fuel industry above the wallets and welfare of Californians and the environment.”
They cited his prior enthusiasm for the law, which his office once referred to as “the most significant overhaul of California’s plastics and packaging recycling policy in history.”
“The only thing that has changed since these regulations were finalized six months ago is that Gavin Newsom is now running for president,” said one disgruntled environmentalist who had been working on the regulations since 2022, and who asked to remain anonymous because they continue to negotiate with the governor’s office on several legislative and regulatory items.
SB 54 called for plastic and packaging companies to reduce single-use plastic packaging by 25% and ensure that 65% of that material is recyclable and 100% either recyclable or compostable — all by 2032. The law also required packaging producers to bear the costs of their products’ end-life (whether via recycling, composting, landfill or export) and figure out how to make it happen — removing that costly burden from consumers and state and local governments.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.
Single-use plastics and plastic waste more broadly are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, the accumulation of plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
Villaseñor, Newsom’s spokesman, cited the program’s cost as a deterrent.
A state analysis showed the law, once enacted, would have cost the state $36 billion and each Californian households about $300. However, the analysis then noted those costs were “likely to be mitigated by an estimated increase in personal income amounting to $19.2 billion, coupled with additional health and environmental benefits totaling $40.3 billion.”
Indeed, the analysis suggested most Californians were likely to see an increase in personal income as a result of the law, ranging from a $3 per person bump during the first year and $131 by 2032.
“The law has always been about affordability,” said state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the architect of SB 54. “It’s been increasingly difficult for our cities and counties to handle the endless influx of plastics into our waste stream and they have been forced to increase rates on regular folks over and over again.”
But others, including Nick Lapis, director of advocacy at Californians Against Waste, wondered if maybe it is time to bring the issue back to the voters.
In 2022, a ballot measure that would have put an end to most single-use packaging and foodware in the state was pulled after industry representatives and lawmakers promised to write legislation that would essentially do the same thing, via SB 54. The only difference was that the law would allow the industry a major role in its oversight, development and management.
Dropping the ballot measure was considered a mistake at the time by several environmentalists, who foresaw the industry delaying, derailing or killing it.
“Suffice it to say that we just don’t have confidence that an industry so prone to deceiving the public for so long about the impacts of its products on our communities and our planet will now take the starring role in its own demise voluntarily,” wrote a coalition of environmentalists in a 2022 letter condemning the removal of the ballot initiative in favor of the law.
Concerns about the governor’s commitment to the law began in December, when members of the Circular Action Alliance — a coalition that was formed to represent the plastic and packaging industry — began to complain about the regulations to Newsom.
Rachel Wagoner, an executive director of the industry coalition was, until March 2024, the director of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle.
Newsom appointed Wagoner to the CalRecycle position in 2020, and it was under her leadership that the majority of the law’s regulations were written and agreed upon.
Larine Urbina, a spokeswoman for the Circular Action Alliance, said in a statement that her organization appreciated Newsom’s “commitment to the effective and efficient implementation of SB 54,” and that the alliance’s goal “is to ensure the legislation meets its significant ambitions and to help create a circular economy.”
As lawmakers and environmentalists now scramble to pick up the pieces of the SB 54, they noted the bill was signed into law — and therefore the law of the land.
“The Governor and legislators ... must continue to insist that the law’s goals and timelines are met,” wrote the representatives of Oceana, Ocean Conservancy and Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Allen, the state senator, agreed with that sentiment.
“We’re hopeful the administration and agency can move swiftly this go-around ... and come out with revised regulation that get us on track toward swift implementation of the law,” he said. “When that happens, it’ll be a win for both our environment and ratepayers.”