California Revising Plastic Packaging EPR Regulations
SB 54, also known as the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, is now being revamped by California's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. An arm of the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CalRecycle, as it's informally known, released a revised draft of the regulations last week. Now, stakeholders have until June 3 to submit feedback on the proposal.
More from Sourcing Journal
California Law Enforcement and DAs Take On Retail, Cargo Thieves
Will Trump Tariffs Help or Hurt U.S. Garment Workers?
Teamsters Ask CA Legislators to Back Bill Requiring Human Operators for Autonomous Delivery Vehicles
The EPR bill, which establishes a program to manage packaging and single-use plastic food containers across numerous sectors of California's economy, bestows primary responsibility for the packaging products' end-of-life on their producers.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law in 2022, mandating that by 2032, all single-use plastics in the state must be recyclable or compostable, and the overall use of these materials be reduced by 25 percent. By the end of that period, 65 percent of single-use plastic packaging should be recycled, the law states.
But the law's facilitators—CalRecycle—failed to meet a March 8 deadline for delivering the regulations tied to the law. Newsom requested that the regulations process for SB 54 be restarted, which is where the process stands today. California officials have said that that the timeline for implementing the law will not be impacted by the delay.
SB 54 is not California's first EPR bill—the state has implemented such programs for batteries and mattresses—and its provisions informed much of the text of SB 707, the Responsible Textile Recovery Act, which mandates that producers of apparel, accessories and home textiles deal with the end-of-life impacts of the products they produce through recycling, reuse and repair. SB 707 was signed into law by the governor last year, and faces a similar regulatory process in the months and years ahead.
But many in the business community are skeptical about what the EPR bills will mean for California's businesses, many of which are not accustomed to the burden of these responsibilities or equipped to comply with the new laws.
The halting progress in the regulation and rollout of SB 54 could be a harbinger of what's to come for the textile-focused EPR, as both programs focus on sectors with broad impacts and seek to regulate a wide range of products made from different materials.
California Retailers Association (CRA) president Rachel Michelin said the trade group is still reviewing the updated draft regulations, but reiterated its 'support and appreciation for Governor Gavin Newsom's consideration of the impact on affordability that these regulations will have on everyday consumers, especially given the ongoing uncertainty with the Trump Administration's tariffs.'
She also thanked CalRecycle for its collaboration with retail stakeholders, which will continue through upcoming public hearings. An informal rulemaking workshop will take place on May 27 at California EPA headquarters in Sacramento, followed by a May 30 advisory board meeting and a June 23 workshop on covered materials and reporting guidance.
Michelin said the CRA is 'committed to ensure California's landmark Packaging EPR program regulations are successfully implemented, achieving California's ambitious recycling objectives while avoiding undue financial burdens on consumers.'
'CRA members are committed to the environmental goals of SB 54 and appreciate the time taken to craft a collaborative and effective regulatory framework,' she added. 'This demonstrates California's leadership in addressing plastic pollution and advancing sustainable recycling practices.'
While several states are seeking to tackle plastic and textile waste, especially in the wake of California's landmark legislative progress, tariffs and economic uncertainty are on the minds of many decision-makers.
Some sustainability commitments are falling by the wayside as fiscal pressures mount; last week, PepsiCo last week abandoned its commitment to shareholders for 20 percent of all beverage servings to be delivered in reusable or refillable packaging. It also pulled back on commitments to reduce its use of virgin plastic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Ukraine's Zelenskyy to meet Trump on Monday after US-Russia summit secured no peace agreement
'It is important that Europeans are involved at every stage to ensure reliable security guarantees together with America,' he said. 'We also discussed positive signals from the American side regarding participation in guaranteeing Ukraine's security.' Advertisement Zelenskyy said he spoke to Trump one-on-one and then in a call with other European leaders. In total the conversations lasted an hour and a half. Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin in Alaska, but Friday's summit appeared to end without concrete progress on bringing an end to the war. Trump said that 'there's no deal until there's a deal,' after Putin claimed the two leaders had hammered out an 'understanding' on Ukraine and warned Europe not to 'torpedo the nascent progress.' During an interview with Fox News Channel before leaving Alaska, Trump insisted that the onus going forward might be on Zelenskyy 'to get it done,' but said there would also be some involvement from European nations. Trump did not speak to reporters on his flight back to Washington. When his plane landed, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump was on the phone with NATO leaders after a lengthy call with Zelenskyy. Advertisement Trump then disembarked Air Force One without speaking to reporters. He didn't respond to shouted questions about the phone calls as he climbed into his limousine. Trump spoke with Zelenskyy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Polish President Karol Nawrocki, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, European Commission spokesperson Arianna Podesta said. She gave no details of the conversation. There was no immediate comment Saturday from European leaders who, like Zelenskyy, didn't have a place at the table at Friday's summit. Putin's foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, said on Russian state television Saturday that a potential trilateral meeting between Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy has not been raised in U.S.-Russia discussions. 'The topic has not been touched upon yet,' Ushakov said, according to Russian state news agency RIA Novosti. Russian attacks on Ukraine continued overnight, using one ballistic missile and 85 Shahed drones, 61 of which were shot down, Ukraine's Air Force said. Front-line areas of Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk and Chernihiv were attacked.
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Zelensky Details Trump Phone Call, Confirms Washington Meeting
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky says he has spoken with US President Donald Trump, as well as other world leaders, following Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Zelensky has also confirmed that he will meet with Trump in Washington on Monday. Posting on Telegram, Zelensky said he had spoken with Trump for about an hour one-on-one, before European leaders joined for another half hour. Writing on Telegram, he said, "We support President Trump's proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, America and Russia. Ukraine emphasizes that key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and the trilateral format is suitable for this. "I am going to discuss all the details after the killings, after the war, with President Trump in Washington on Monday. I am grateful for the invitation." Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives at number 10 Downing Street for a meeting with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Picture date: Thursday August 14, 2025. 81250677 (Press Association via AP Images) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives at number 10 Downing Street for a meeting with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Picture date: Thursday August 14, 2025. 81250677 (Press Association via AP Images) AP This is a developing story and will be updated.
CNN
3 minutes ago
- CNN
How a unique California law puts the Menendez brothers' fate into the hands of one politician
After serving several decades in prison, Erik and Lyle Menendez are facing the possibility of freedom as the California Board of Parole Hearings this week considers whether they've adequately atoned for the 1989 murder of their parents. While this may seem like the final moment in the long and captivating saga, refueled by several attempts by the brothers' lawyers and the former district attorney to achieve what they say is a more modern version of justice, the brothers have one more potential roadblock – California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor holds an unusual power that allows him to 'affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider' for someone convicted of murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term, according to state law. While the governor is required to follow certain parameters, he is given broad oversight on the decision. The little-known and rare ability, established in the 1980s, looms large over the brothers as they prepare to explain to a parole panel why they should be released. It's not clear how Newsom is leaning, and his office did not answer a question from CNN about his potential decision, but here's what we know about the power that gives him ultimate authority to decide on the brothers' freedom. The governor's ability to veto the parole board's decision dates to the 1980s, when public reaction toward a now-forgotten case grabbed headlines – as well as the attention of voters. William Archie Fain, convicted of the 1967 killing of a teenage boy and rape of two teenage girls, was released on parole in 1983 to much outrage from the public, according to the Los Angeles Times. After getting parole, he continued to be accused and found guilty of other crimes, ranging from assault to peeping. Then-Gov. George Deukmejian tried to prevent his release, but state courts ruled Fain had to be freed. In response, the California legislature passed Proposition 89, which gave voters the option to allow the governor power to modify the parole board's decision. While there were concerns it would unjustly give a politician too much power, many were more worried about the potential for violence during a tough-on-crime era. 'Proposition 89 will not politicize the parole process, but it will provide an extra measure of safety to law-abiding citizens by giving the Governor the authority to block the parole of criminals who still pose a significant threat to society,' Deukmejian and a state senator wrote in a 1988 voter information guide arguing for the proposition. 'Prop 89 will correct a weakness in the state's parole system and further strengthen California's system of justice.' The proposition ended up passing with 55% of the vote, according to the UC Law San Francisco Repository. The only other state that gives its governor the power to veto parole grants is Oklahoma, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The proposition does limit the window of reversal to 30 days, meaning if the parole board votes to release the brothers, Newsom has 30 days from when the decision is released to change it. Since the proposition's passing, the power bestowed on the California governor has been curbed slightly by court rulings over the past two decades, said Christopher Hawthorne, clinical professor of law and director of the Juvenile Innocence & Fair Sentencing Clinic at Loyola Law School. In one, the California Supreme Court ruled the governor must reasonably assess the defendant's risk against public safety, Hawthorne said. Another ruling several years later allowed the governor to consider whether the defendant had insight into their crime, he added. While the power has been modified, the governor still has room to a make a decision in the Menendez case as long as it follows these guidelines. Since the proposition was added to the California state constitution, governors have often used it to deny parole in cases during the 1990s and early 2000s, when tough-on-crime policies were more popular, according to Hawthorne. 'In the mid-'80s, California passed law after law after law, frequently by initiative, that made it much harder to get anyone out of prison. And that flow only reversed in about 2012 or 2013 when Gov. (Jerry) Brown was in office,' he said. 'For a long, long time, it was almost impossible to get parole, get found suitable for parole, and if you did get found suitable, the governor reversed a lot of parole grants at that time.' Hawthorne cited the case of Leslie Van Houten, a former Charles Manson follower and convicted murderer, as an illustration of when governors repeatedly denied parole despite the board approving it. Newsom also denied parole for Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated US Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, with the governor citing Sirhan's 'refusal to accept responsibility for his crime' and 'lack of insight and accountability,' among other reasons. 'He does not understand, let alone have the skills to manage, the complex risks of his self-created notoriety. He cannot be safely released from prison because he has not mitigated his risk of fomenting further political violence,' Newsom wrote in a 2022 Los Angeles Times op-ed explaining his decision. 'Every governor is fairly allergic to releasing high-profile defendants,' Hawthorne said, though 'California has done really well in the last 10 years or so' in increasing the availability of parole overall. 'It was something that was not available, essentially, during the (Pete) Wilson, (Gray) Davis or (Arnold) Schwarzenegger administration, with very, very few exceptions,' he said. The three governors served successively from 1991, but starting in 2011, 'Jerry Brown's administration and Gavin Newsom's administration have done infinitely better,' he said. While the Menendez brothers have some elements working in their favor, such as family and public support, as well as encouraging recommendations from prison and corrections officials, some have passionately argued against their release. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman hotly contested their potential resentencing earlier this year, despite his predecessor, George Gascón, requesting it. The previous district attorney, Hochman said in a statement, 'did not examine or consider whether the Menendez brothers have exhibited full insight and taken complete responsibility for their crimes.' His statement also cites the two points Newsom can consider in a potential reversal of a parole board decision. To help make his case, Hochman created a chart comparing factors considered by the parole board for Sirhan and each Menendez brother. Some of the factors include time served in prison, their education level before and during incarceration, and the gravity of the offense. Since Newsom denied Sirhan's parole based on the factors laid out in the chart, Hochman argued, the Menendez brothers definitely don't qualify for release as the they have more prison rules violations and haven't exhibited full insight into their crimes. Hochman has said the brothers lied when they claimed the motive for killing their parents was due to abuse they faced from their father. He has previously said he believes evidence to corroborate the abuse allegations is 'extremely lacking;' earlier this year he said his review of the case showed the killings were premeditated and not the result of a threat from their parents. Although a judge ultimately ruled to resentence the brothers earlier this year – which is why they now have a parole hearing – the positions taken by Hochman's office could still factor into the governor's decision on parole. The situation is definitely a 'political hot potato,' Hawthorne said, though the overwhelming support for release from family members could heavily weigh the decision. More than 20 Menendez relatives have banded together over the past year to advocate for release, saying they believe the brothers' abuse claims and that society's understanding of childhood sexual abuse has changed dramatically since their conviction in 1996. They also say the brothers have grown and tried to help others through rehabilitative programs in prison. Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the Menendez brothers and leader of the coalition, told reporters last October that 'If Lyle and Erik's case were heard today, with the understanding we now have about abuse and PTSD, there is no doubt in my mind that their sentencing would have been very different.' She also read a statement from Terry Baralt, Jose Menendez's sister: 'I implore the district attorney's office to end our prolonged suffering and release Lyle and Erik back to our family. Thirty-five years is such a long time. My prayer is that I live long enough to see my nephews again and to hug them once more.' Oftentimes, a victim's family opposes release, Hawthorne said, making this a unique situation. 'It's interesting in this case, given that Jose and Kitty Menendez's family are largely in favor of both Eric and Lyle getting out – those voices will matter, and they will be brought to bear in that 30-day window when the governor has the case,' he said. The family will be able to express their opinions to the governor's office through calls, letters and other documents, in an attempt to sway his opinion. 'I can't think of a governor who wouldn't be sensitive to that,' Hawthorne said.
