Latest news with #CircularActionAlliance
Los Angeles Times
22-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
CalRecycle drafts revised plastic recycling rules that are more friendly to industry.
State waste officials have taken another stab at rules implementing a landmark plastic waste law, more than two months after Gov. Gavin Newsom torpedoed their initial proposal. CalRecycle, the state agency that oversees waste management, recently proposed a new set of draft regulations to implement SB 54, the 2022 law designed to reduce California's single-use plastic waste. The law was designed to shift the financial onus of waste reduction from the state's people, towns and cities to the companies and corporations that make the polluting products. It was also intended to reduce the amount of single use plastics that end up in California's waste stream. The draft regulations proposed last week largely mirror the ones introduced earlier this year, which set the rules, guidelines and parameters of the program — but with some minor and major tweaks. The new ones clarify producer obligations and reporting timelines, said organizations representing packaging and plastics companies, such as the Circular Action Alliance and the California Chamber of Commerce. But they also include a broad set of exemptions for a wide variety of single-use plastics — including any product that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over, which includes all packaging related to produce, meat, dairy products, dog food, toothpaste, condoms, shampoo and cereal boxes, among other products. The rules also leave open the possibility of using chemical or alternative recycling as a method for dealing with plastics that can't be recycled via mechanical means, said people representing environmental, recycling and waste hauling companies and organizations. California's Attorney General, Rob Bonta, filed a suit against ExxonMobil last year that, in part, accuses the oil giant of deceptive claims regarding chemical recycling, which the company disputes. Critics say the introduction of these exemptions and the opening for polluting recycling technologies will undermine and kneecap a law that just three years ago Newsom's office described as 'nation-leading' and 'the most significant overhaul of the state's plastic and packaging policy in history.' The 'gaping hole that the new exemptions have blown' into the bill make it unworkable, practically unfundable, and antithetical to its original purpose of reducing plastic waste, said Heidi Sanborn, director of the National Stewardship Action Council. Last March, after nearly three years of negotiations among various corporate, environmental, waste, recycling and health stakeholders, CalRecycle drafted a set of finalized regulations designed to implement the single-use plastic producer responsibility program under SB 54. But as the deadline for implementation approached, industries that would be affected by the regulations including plastic producers and packaging companies — represented by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Circular Action Alliance — began lobbying the governor, complaining the regulations were poorly developed and might ultimately increase costs for California taxpayers. Newsom allowed the regulations to expire and told CalRecycle it needed to start the process over. Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor, said Newsom was concerned about the program's potential costs for small businesses and families, which a state analysis estimated could run an extra $300 per year per household. He said the new draft regulations 'are a step in the right direction' and they ensure 'California's bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution,' said Villaseñor in a statement. John Myers, a spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce, whose members include the American Chemistry Council, Western Plastics Assn. and the Flexible Packaging Assn., said the chamber was still reviewing the changes. CalRecycle is holding a workshop next Tuesday to discuss the draft regulations. Once CalRecycle decides to finalize the regulations, which experts say could happen at any time, it moves into a 45 day official rule making period during which time the regulations are reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law. If it's considered legally sound and the governor is happy, it becomes official. The law, which was authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D- Santa Monica) and signed by Newsom in 2022, requires that by 2032, 100% of single-use packaging and plastic foodware produced or sold in the state must be recyclable or compostable, that 65% of it can be recycled, and that the total volume is reduced by 25%. The law was written to address the mounting issue of plastic pollution in the environment and the growing number of studies showing the ubiquity of microplastic pollution in the human body — such as in the brain, blood, heart tissue, testicles, lungs and various other organs. 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. Most of these single-use plastic packaging products cannot be recycled, and as they break-down in the environment — never fully-decomposing — they contribute to the growing burden of microplastics in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil that nourishes our crops. The law falls into a category of extended producer responsibility laws that now regulate the handling of paint, carpeting, batteries and textiles in California — requiring producers to see their products throughout their entire life cycle, taking financial responsibility for their products' end of life. Theoretically such programs, which have been adopted in other states, including Washington, Oregon and Colorado, spur technological innovation and potentially create circular economies — where products are designed to be reused, recycled or composted. Sanborn said the new exemptions not only potentially turn the law 'into a joke,' but will also dry up the program's funding and instead put the financial burden on the consumer and the few packaging and single-use plastic manufacturers that aren't included in the exemptions. 'If you want to bring the cost down, you've got to have a fair and level playing field where all the businesses are paying in and running the program. The more exemptions you give, the less funding there is, and the less fair it is,' she said. In addition, because of the way residential and commercial packaging waste is collected, 'it's all going to get thrown away together, so now you have less funding' to deal with the same amount of waste, but for which only a small number of companies will be accountable for sorting out their material and making sure it gets disposed of properly. Others were equally miffed, including Allen, the bill's author, who said in a statement that while there are some improvements in the new regulations, there are 'several provisions that appear to conflict with law,' including the widespread exemptions and the allowance of polluting recycling technologies. 'If the purpose of the law is to reduce single-use plastic ad plastic pollution,' said Anja Braden from the Ocean Conservancy, these new regulations aren't going to do it — they are 'inconsistent with the law and fully undermine its purpose and goal.' She also said the exemptions preclude technological innovation, dampening incentives for companies to explore new recyclable and compostable packaging materials. Nick Lapis with Californians Against Waste, said his organization was 'really disappointed to see the administration caving to industry on some core parts of this program,' and also noted his read suggests many of the changes don't comply with the law. Next Tuesday, the public will have an opportunity to express their concerns at a rulemaking workshop in Sacramento. However, Sanborn fears there will be little time or appetite from the agency or the governor's office to make substantial changes to the new regulations. 'They're basically already cooked,' said Sanborn, noting CalRecycle had already accepted public comments during previous rounds and iterations. 'California should be the leader at holding the bar up in this space,' she said. 'I'm afraid this has dropped the bar very low.'
Politico
11-03-2025
- Business
- Politico
Chucking California's recycling rules
With help from Alex Nieves and Lesley Clark REFUSE, REDO, RECYCLE: Gov. Gavin Newsom threw his administration's draft plastic recycling rules into the trash late Friday — and his message is already getting reused across the country. In case you missed it: Newsom hit restart on CalRecycle's rules implementing SB 54, the landmark 2022 bill that overhauled how plastic packaging gets recycled in the state. The reason, his spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said, was to 'minimiz[e] costs for small businesses and working families as much as possible.' It's a familiar refrain: Retail, plastics and farming groups had been tapping into the Democrats' reckoning over cost-of-living issues to argue for tweaks to the rules to lower costs to industry. In a statement late Friday, Cal Chamber called the decision to restart 'a prudent one, that provides the necessary time and attention to ensure regulations related to SB 54 are implemented in a thoughtful and cost-effective manner.' (CalRecycle's former director, Rachel Wagoner, also advocated for more time to tweak the rules in her new role as California executive director for Circular Action Alliance, the organization of producers charged with compliance. The Los Angeles Times reported last week that she is now facing a Fair Political Practices Commission complaint over going to work for the plastics industry. Wagoner declined to comment.) But the fact that it's coming from Newsom is giving succor to business groups opposing similar policies in other states. 'California's change in course should be taken into account by New York lawmakers, as the mandates in [the New York plastics bill] go beyond the California statute on key areas, including material bans, recyclability mandates and source reduction, indicating that the impacts of New York's proposal would be even more severe,' wrote more than 100 companies and groups, including the American Chemistry Council, Consumer Technology Association and Business Council of New York State, in an open letter POLITICO's Marie J. French obtained Sunday. It's not yet clear how big of a change Newsom's restart will make, policy-wise. The law still requires that thousands of companies reduce single-use plastic packaging and foodware by 25 percent by 2032 and pay for and ensure that 100 percent of their products are recyclable or compostable. Sen. Ben Allen, the author of the law and a big defender of the draft rules, said he had been nearing a compromise with CalRecycle, the governor's office, the Legislature and Circular Action Alliance to make minor changes to the rules like extending deadlines, clarifying language around which businesses must participate and exempting certain materials used in medicine and science, if they were finalized by Friday's procedural deadline. Either way, CalRecycle and the plastics industry are still tied to the statutory timelines laid out in the law, including an interim target of January 2027 to reduce the use of plastic packaging by 10 percent. But the debate has become a bit of a proxy political showdown over the direction of California's environmental mandates, especially because the negotiations that led to the passage of the law three years ago had already been so heated. Environmental groups were lobbying hard for CalRecycle to finish the rules by Friday's procedural deadline, backed up by at least a dozen Democrats in the state Legislature. Allen said in an interview that he was disappointed in Newsom's decision to restart the rules. The governor's office did not respond to additional questions in time for publication. 'I made it clear I thought it was important that we stay on track,' Allen said. 'This whole thing has always been about affordability. It's one of the reasons the cities have been with us since the very beginning. They're the ones who have been carrying the costs and passing it on to ratepayers.' The most immediate result of the delay could be that Californians will start hearing about it more. Environmental groups seeking an end to single-use plastic packaging and foodware are suggesting a possible return to the California ballot, from which they had backed off in 2022 to negotiate SB 54 as a compromise. 'It is time to let the voters have a direct say in regulations that hold plastic producers accountable for their pollution,' said Dianna Cohen, co-founder and CEO of the Plastic Pollution Coalition. 'The plastics industry has proven time and again that they are incapable of self-regulation and will only continue business as usual at the expense of current and future generations.' — CvK NEW NEWSLETTER JUST DROPPED: Are you a transportation nerd curious about the future of autonomous vehicles? A fire techie monitoring Silicon Valley's influence in Washington, D.C.? Or just a friendly POLITICO fan? You'll love our new sister newsletter, POLITICO Pro Technology: California Decoded. You can subscribe here. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! FIRE MAPS, ROUND THREE: The cities of San Luis Obispo and Tehachapi and the unincorporated parts of San Luis Obispo, Ventura and Monterey counties got some bad news from California's rollout of its new local fire hazard zone maps today. Those jurisdictions saw the number of acres categorized at very high fire hazard and therefore subject to fire-resistant building codes and risk disclosure requirements for home sales jump significantly from the last update in 2011. The reason is Cal Fire's more sophisticated modeling, which gives more weight to the winds that have fueled catastrophic fires up and down the state in the last decade. Take unincorporated Ventura County, for example, the site of some of California's most devastating wildfires, including the 2017 Thomas Fire and 2018 Woolsey Fire. It had 5,370 acres classified as very high fire hazard in 2011. The new data suggests 31,487 acres are at very high fire hazard. The data released today, covering the Central Valley and coast, is part three of Cal Fire's four-part roll-out. Eastern and Southern California — including places like Altadena, where the Eaton Fire blew embers far beyond the boundaries of Cal Fire's old fire hazard maps — are scheduled for March 24. The local jurisdictions must still formally adopt the maps, though they can make changes as they see fit. — CvK NOT SO FAST: The Supreme Court today quashed a Republican effort to block climate liability lawsuits from California and other blue states. The justices issued an order rejecting a request by 19 Republican state attorneys general to challenge their Democratic counterparts who've sued oil companies for compensation for the costs of rising tides, intensifying storms and other disasters worsened by climate change, Lesley Clark reports for POLITICO's E&E News. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall launched the case last May, arguing that climate liability lawsuits — like the one filed by California in September 2023 — pose 'grave consequences' for the state's residents and would boost gas prices. Four of the court's conservative justices joined its liberal members in rejecting the request. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. California's lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Rob Bonta, alleges companies like Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute — the industry's trade group — lied to the public about climate change caused by fossil fuels, and seeks payment for damages and the establishment of a climate adaptation fund. — AN, LC THE OTHER BORDER ISSUE: House Republicans proposed halving the annual federal funding for a wastewater treatment plant in San Diego that cleans up raw sewage and pollutants flowing in from Mexico in their budget blueprint released over the weekend. The proposal would cut the International Boundary and Water Commission's operations, maintenance and construction funding from $156 million to $78 million. The commission runs the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is undergoing major repairs with previously-appropriated Congressional funding. Rep. Scott Peters, the Democrat who represents San Diego, said in a Monday statement that 'deferring those smaller annual upkeep costs meant we needed to spend a lot more money later on to fix all the damage that was done, not to mention the harm to community health, our local economy, and our national security.' Meanwhile, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin pointed at Mexico in a social media post on Saturday, where he wrote that he was 'just briefed' on the decadesold cross-border sewage pollution. 'This is unacceptable,' wrote Zeldin. 'Mexico must honor its commitments to control this pollution and sewage!' — CvK D.C. to CA: Newsom appointed Andrew Rakestraw, a climate advisor for the Biden administration, as chair of California's Board of Environmental Safety on Friday. Rakestraw was previously a senior climate negotiator at the U.S. Department of State since 2022, and was a senior adviser for John Kerry, Biden's climate envoy. He served as a climate negotiator in the State Department's Office of Global Change from 2013 to 2019. HSR HELP: Newsom also named Emily Morrison chief of contract administration at the California High Speed Rail Authority. Morrison similarly comes from the federal ranks, where she was construction branch chief at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. She previously worked as a contracting officer for the Air Force. — Farmers called their work climate-smart to get federal funds from Biden — but those words may cost them under Trump. — Travel the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta at the center of Trump and Newsom's water wars with photos and words by Ryan Christopher Jones … and pair it with a letter by Reps. Adam Gray and Jim Costa urging Newsom and Trump to work together on water (tl;dr: 'Please don't sue.') — The United States' energy demand is projected to increase 30 to 40 percent by 2040 because of data centers, electric vehicles and appliances and general economic growth, according to a new report commissioned by most of the major U.S. energy trade groups.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ethics violation lodged against former CalRecycle director
For lawmakers and lobbyists who worked on ensuring the passage of California's landmark plastic waste law, Rachel Wagoner's abrupt career shift was nothing short of jaw dropping. The former director of CalRecycle — who oversaw, wrote and promoted the single-use plastic legislation known as SB 54 — is now the executive director of the Circular Action Alliance, a coalition of plastic and packaging companies determined to delay, if not derail, the law. And it's not clear her pivot is legal. On Feb. 19, an anonymous whistleblower submitted a formal complaint to California's Fair Political Practices Commission, asking the agency to investigate Wagoner on the grounds that she violated a 'switching sides' ban that prevents former regulators from receiving compensation to work against the state on matters they once oversaw. "It's pretty egregious," said Sean McMorris, transparency, ethics and accountability program manager for California Common Cause, a political watchdog group. "I don't know how else to say it, regardless of whether any laws were broken or not, the public's going to look at that and say, 'What's going on here? This is pretty suspicious.'" Read more: California banned polystyrene. Has the plastic industry spooked the governor into silence? Others say Wagoner was instrumental in pushing for regulations and language she is now calling problematic. "It certainly raises a lot of concerns," said Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who authored and sponsored the original legislation. Wagoner did not respond to questions from The Times, but in an email exchange from Feb. 12, she did said she was proud of the time she worked for the state government and feels privileged to have been asked to advise companies and to provide "information on SB 54 and California environmental and regulatory laws and processes." She said she does not advocate for the companies she represents in her new role — which include some of the world's largest producers and distributors of plastic packaging, including Amazon, Coca-Cola, Conagra, Procter & Gamble and Target. She said she just provides them with information. Larine Urbina, a spokesperson for the coalition, said the state's political practices commission had not reached out to her organization, and therefore "it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment at this time." SB 54, the plastic waste law Wagoner helped craft, was designed to reduce single-use plastics and packaging and shift the responsibility of plastic waste to the companies that manufacturer, market or sell those products — and away from the consumer and local jurisdictions. That can be done either by reducing the amount of single-use plastics these companies create and sell, or by manufacturing products that can be recycled or composted. 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. While the bill was signed into law in 2022, regulations designed to govern it had not yet been finalized. For the past two years, stakeholders representing plastic manufacturers and producers, packaging companies, environmental groups and waste haulers have hashed out and negotiated proposed regulations — debating such things as the definition of "producer," or where on food service items the words "reusable" or "refillable" must be displayed. Read more: Trump targets paper straw purchases by federal government — and won't stop there Throughout this period, CalRecycle — which was led by Wagoner until March 2024 — helped guide the discussions and incorporated feedback into several proposed drafts of those rules. For instance, in early June 2022, as the stakeholders were hammering out the first set of regulations, it became apparent that someone — the state or the industry — would periodically need to assess the state's waste infrastructure to ensure material was getting to where it needed to go and was being properly disposed of according to the law. The industry is responsible for meeting those targets — which include, among other requirements, that 65% of all single-use plastic packaging in the state is recycled by 2032. The stakeholders had initially agreed this costly, time- and personnel-intensive evaluation should be conducted by the industry. This would allow the industry to evaluate the assessment as it was being conducted and be responsible for it. But according to sources, Wagoner — who was director of the state agency — decided that responsibility should fall to CalRecycle. Several drafts of the proposed rules and changes were shared with The Times. Now, Wagoner and her industry coalition are complaining that the state is taking too long to do the assessment — which is expected to be completed in January 2026 — and, as a result, she said, it is compromising the ability of her organization to develop a program to meet their targets, which they need to have finalized by April 2026. "This timeline is challenging even under ideal conditions," she said in a Feb. 12 email. "The planning process will have to start without this required data and will be difficult to complete because of this delay." In addition, Wagoner's critics say she oversaw regulation changes that some experts say would have potentially opened the door for certain kinds of chemical recycling technologies — technologies that superheat plastics and turn them into fuel or other kinds of plastics — including one from Eastman Chemical Co., a company that Wagoner began consulting for a few months after she stepped down from CalRecycle. The changes in the regulations — which included wording about hazardous materials — have since been corrected and addressed. On Feb. 7, Eastman Chemical ran a sponsored ad in the Sacramento Bee heralding the benefits of recycling technologies. They also spent $177,500 in the fourth quarter lobbying CalRecycle on the SB 54 regulations. Read more: As global plastic production grows, so does the concentration of microplastics in our brains The Circular Action Alliance and other industry-friendly groups, such as the California Chamber of Commerce, have also been actively lobbying the governor's office since mid-December, urging Newsom to delay finalization. In a Dec. 15 letter to Newsom, the Chamber claimed the new law would cost California consumers more than $300 per year, a number that he said came from the state's own economic analysis. A Times review of that analysis shows just the opposite, however. The state's economists said they anticipated an increase in personal income — starting with a $3 bump in 2024 and climbing to $131 by 2032. In 2020, Wagoner was picked by Newsom to run CalRecycle. Prior to that, she had worked in the governor's office as a senior legislative strategist alongside Ann Patterson — who until Friday was Newsom's Cabinet secretary. Patterson stepped down soon after her husband, Nathan Barankin, became the governor's chief of staff. Wagoner served as CalRecycle director through March 2024, when she resigned, she said, for personal reasons. She became the executive director of the Circular Action Alliance on Dec. 4, after consulting for Eastman Chemical for several months. The Fair Political Practices Commission has not yet determined whether they will conduct an investigation or not. According to a Feb. 25 letter addressed to Wagoner, the former CalRecycle director has until March 11 to provide the agency with information to support her case, at which time, the agency will decide how to proceed. "What happened may not be illegal, and I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the public believes this is how it should work in California," said Heidi Sanborn, director of the National Stewardship Action Council. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Ethics violation lodged against former CalRecycle director
For lawmakers and lobbyists who worked on ensuring the passage of California's landmark plastic waste law, Rachel Wagoner's abrupt career shift was nothing short of jaw dropping. The former director of CalRecycle — who oversaw, wrote and promoted the single-use plastic legislation known as SB 54 — is now the executive director of the Circular Action Alliance, a coalition of plastic and packaging companies determined to delay, if not derail, the law. And it's not clear her pivot is legal. On Feb. 19, an anonymous whistleblower submitted a formal complaint to California's Fair Political Practices Commission, asking the agency to investigate Wagoner on the grounds that she violated a 'switching sides' ban that prevents former regulators from receiving compensation to work against the state on matters they once oversaw. 'It's pretty egregious,' said Sean McMorris, transparency, ethics and accountability program manager for California Common Cause, a political watchdog group. 'I don't know how else to say it, regardless of whether any laws were broken or not, the public's going to look at that and say, 'What's going on here? This is pretty suspicious.'' Others say Wagoner was instrumental in pushing for regulations and language she is now calling problematic. 'It certainly raises a lot of concerns,' said Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who authored and sponsored the original legislation. Wagoner did not respond to questions from The Times, but in an email exchange from Feb. 12, she did said she was proud of the time she worked for the state government and feels privileged to have been asked to advise companies and to provide 'information on SB 54 and California environmental and regulatory laws and processes.' She said she does not advocate for the companies she represents in her new role — which include some of the world's largest producers and distributors of plastic packaging, including Amazon, Coca-Cola, Conagra, Procter & Gamble and Target. She said she just provides them with information. Larine Urbina, a spokesperson for the coalition, said the state's political practices commission had not reached out to her organization, and therefore 'it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment at this time.' SB 54, the plastic waste law Wagoner helped craft, was designed to reduce single-use plastics and packaging and shift the responsibility of plastic waste to the companies that manufacturer, market or sell those products — and away from the consumer and local jurisdictions. That can be done either by reducing the amount of single-use plastics these companies create and sell, or by manufacturing products that can be recycled or composted. 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. While the bill was signed into law in 2022, regulations designed to govern it had not yet been finalized. For the past two years, stakeholders representing plastic manufacturers and producers, packaging companies, environmental groups and waste haulers have hashed out and negotiated proposed regulations — debating such things as the definition of 'producer,' or where on food service items the words 'reusable' or 'refillable' must be displayed. Throughout this period, CalRecycle — which was led by Wagoner until March 2024 — helped guide the discussions and incorporated feedback into several proposed drafts of those rules. For instance, in early June 2022, as the stakeholders were hammering out the first set of regulations, it became apparent that someone — the state or the industry — would periodically need to assess the state's waste infrastructure to ensure material was getting to where it needed to go and was being properly disposed of according to the law. The industry is responsible for meeting those targets — which include, among other requirements, that 65% of all single-use plastic packaging in the state is recycled by 2032. The stakeholders had initially agreed this costly, time- and personnel-intensive evaluation should be conducted by the industry. This would allow the industry to evaluate the assessment as it was being conducted and be responsible for it. But according to sources, Wagoner — who was director of the state agency — decided that responsibility should fall to CalRecycle. Several drafts of the proposed rules and changes were shared with The Times. Now, Wagoner and her industry coalition are complaining that the state is taking too long to do the assessment — which is expected to be completed in January 2026 — and, as a result, she said, it is compromising the ability of her organization to develop a program to meet their targets, which they need to have finalized by April 2026. 'This timeline is challenging even under ideal conditions,' she said in a Feb. 12 email. 'The planning process will have to start without this required data and will be difficult to complete because of this delay.' In addition, Wagoner's critics say she oversaw regulation changes that some experts say would have potentially opened the door for certain kinds of chemical recycling technologies — technologies that superheat plastics and turn them into fuel or other kinds of plastics — including one from Eastman Chemical Co., a company that Wagoner began consulting for a few months after she stepped down from CalRecycle. The changes in the regulations — which included wording about hazardous materials — have since been corrected and addressed. On Feb. 7, Eastman Chemical ran a sponsored ad in the Sacramento Bee heralding the benefits of recycling technologies. They also spent $177,500 in the fourth quarter lobbying CalRecycle on the SB 54 regulations. The Circular Action Alliance and other industry-friendly groups, such as the California Chamber of Commerce, have also been actively lobbying the governor's office since mid-December, urging Newsom to delay finalization. In a Dec. 15 letter to Newsom, the Chamber claimed the new law would cost California consumers more than $300 per year, a number that he said came from the state's own economic analysis. A Times review of that analysis shows just the opposite, however. The state's economists said they anticipated an increase in personal income — starting with a $3 bump in 2024 and climbing to $131 by 2032. In 2020, Wagoner was picked by Newsom to run CalRecycle. Prior to that, she had worked in the governor's office as a senior legislative strategist alongside Ann Patterson — who until Friday was Newsom's Cabinet secretary. Patterson stepped down soon after her husband, Nathan Barankin, became the governor's chief of staff. Wagoner served as CalRecycle director through March 2024, when she resigned, she said, for personal reasons. She became the executive director of the Circular Action Alliance on Dec. 4, after consulting for Eastman Chemical for several months. The Fair Political Practices Commission has not yet determined whether they will conduct an investigation or not. According to a Feb. 25 letter addressed to Wagoner, the former CalRecycle director has until March 11 to provide the agency with information to support her case, at which time, the agency will decide how to proceed. 'What happened may not be illegal, and I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the public believes this is how it should work in California,' said Heidi Sanborn, founding Director of the California Product Stewardship Council.
Politico
25-02-2025
- Business
- Politico
Sacramento's sausage-making comes for plastics
Presented by With help from Alex Nieves and Blanca Begert IN A PLASTIC WORLD: California is on the cusp of a potentially society-transforming climate policy change — and having some cold feet. We're not talking about electric cars, massive solar farms or corporate emissions reporting: We're talking about making producers recycle their plastic packaging. CalRecycle is facing a March 7 deadline to submit to the Office of Administrative Law its rules implementing Sen. Ben Allen's SB 54, a 2022 law that requires thousands of companies to reduce their single-use plastic packaging by 25 percent and pay to recycle or compost all their products, or else it has to start over. By one environmental group's estimate, the law could save 115 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions over a decade, equivalent to shutting down 28 coal-fired power plants. But the companies that will have to carry out the program are pushing back, saying that the rules as written are both too costly and setting them up to fail. 'I feel like we're prioritizing expedience over getting it right,' said Rachel Wagoner, the head of CalRecycle until last March and since December the California executive director for Circular Action Alliance, the organization CalRecycle selected to set up the recycling program on behalf of all producers. (She's said she's following state rules banning her from lobbying her former agency for a year.) A broad coalition of business and farming groups, including Circular Action Alliance, signed on to a Dec. 14 Chamber of Commerce letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom outlining some of the concerns. Among them: The rules as drafted would cost much more than initially estimated (CalRecycle has estimated that as many as 13,615 manufacturers would have to participate and pay a total of $500 million per year beginning in 2027) and don't allow for new technology that could help process tricky materials. On the other side, environmental groups and 14 lawmakers including Allen are pushing CalRecycle and the governor's office to proceed with the current draft rules, even if they acknowledge the rules may not be perfect. They say that negotiations with industry leading up to the law have already settled some of those concerns, including by disallowing controversial chemical recycling. 'We need a strong foundation on which to base future actions,' the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Newsom this month. 'Stay the course.' Both sides argue that California's mantle of environmental leadership is at stake. California wasn't the first state to pass a bill setting up an 'extended producer responsibility' program for plastic packaging (that title went to Maine in 2021) nor will it be the first to formally approve the industry's plan for compliance (Oregon just claimed that title last week by approving a plan by Circular Action Alliance). But California has the largest market and the most detailed rules so far, attracting outsized attention from other states and countries. Just last year, the state of Minnesota and the European Union passed EPR laws that borrowed from California's approach, said Anja Brandon, the director of plastics policy at Ocean Conservancy. 'That adds to the crux of this moment that we are in, where we want to see California stand by this groundbreaking law that it passed,' she said. Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said his office was 'considering all options.' 'California is committed to achieving the goals of SB 54 — to cut down on plastic pollution — and we take stakeholder input very seriously,' he said in an email. 'We are considering all options for how to move forward to successfully implement this ambitious program.' CalRecycle spokesperson Melanie Turner said Monday the agency was still working to finalize the rules by March 7. On Tuesday, Wagoner, Brandon and a bevy of other advocates from either side will testify to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on the concept of extended producer responsibility. Expect SB 54 to come up, as well as philosophical debates about what EPR is at its core: 'Something we hear from industry often is if you get too prescriptive, you shy away from EPR, and that's just not true,' said Brandon. 'EPR is defined by holding producers accountable for the whole life cycle of their product.' — CvK Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! THE BILLS ARE IN: Friday was the deadline to introduce new bills in the Legislature. All told, 2,350 bills have come in, 226 more than by the cutoff deadline last year, according to attorney and lobbyist Chris Micheli. Here are some of the newest ones that caught our attention: CAP-AND-TRADE: We still don't know what the legislature is planning to do on cap-and-trade, where reauthorization past 2030 is a stated priority for the year, but the spot bills are in. Watch these spaces: SB 840 from Sens. Monique Limón and Mike McGuire and AB 1207 from Assembymember Jacqui Irwin. You can also watch the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies hearing on Wednesday where lawmakers will be discussing changes to the state's carbon market. LITHIUM BATTERY FIRES: Fires at battery plants are hot — literally, and in the Capitol. The Assembly Committee on Emergency Management introduced AB 1285, which would require the State Fire Marshal to develop fire prevention, response and recovery plans for utility-grade lithium storage facilities. That measure comes after fires at Moss Landing Power Plant, the world's largest battery storage facility. It joins Assemblymember Dawn Addis' AB 303, which would ban energy storage facilities from environmentally sensitive areas or within 3,200 feet of schools and homes and reverse a 2022 measure that accelerated the permitting process for them. GAS STOVES: Freshman Assemblymember Carl DeMaio is taking Republicans' latest swing at efforts to ban gas appliances, a climate policy that's sparked a national culture war in recent years. His bill, AB 1238, would block state agencies and local governments from adopting or enforcing any rule or ordinance that prohibits the use of gas stoves in residential or commercial buildings. CPUC HEARINGS: Assemblymember Joe Patterson's AB 1273 would prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from placing utilities' rate-increase applications on its consent calendar, which means they get voted on without discussion. If you haven't tracked the CPUC lately, the public comment period is typically filled with fiery speeches opposing rate increases, and you may be surprised how much ends up on the consent calendar. COMMUNITY SOLAR: Assemblymember Chris Ward is back with a bill to force the California Public Utilities Commission to do what he always wanted on community solar — make it more accessible by reimbursing it in a way that accounts for its full cost savings to the grid. Last year the CPUC, tasked with implementing Ward's 2022 law AB 2315 to boost community solar, rejected a proposal from the solar industry, environmentalists and a ratepayer advocate group to let renters buy credits in small solar projects and access savings like the ones people get from installing rooftop solar. The commission instead voted through a proposal closely aligned with one introduced by utility Southern California Edison that expanded existing subscription programs from the state and utilities and created a new program using federal funds that are now in question. At the time, they argued their proposal was more cost effective. Ward told the CPUC that its plan was 'outdated,' 'commercially unworkable' and 'wholly inconsistent' with his 2022 law. The new bill, AB 1260, would amend the program to be more in line with his intentions and use a pricing formula to account for more of the cost savings of community solar, like reducing the need for electrical wires to travel long distances. WHAT MORE: What other bills do you think will be big this year? As always, please let us know. BRB, MOVING TO OAKLAND: The cities of San Jose, Palo Alto, Orinda and Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated parts of Mendocino, Sonoma and Napa counties got some bad news from California's rollout of its new local fire hazard zone maps today. In those places, the number of acres categorized at very high fire hazard and therefore subject to fire-resistant building codes and risk disclosure requirements for home sales jumped significantly from the last update in 2011. The reason is Cal Fire's more sophisticated modeling that accounts for factors like the winds that blew embers across LA neighborhoods last month and that will move 1.4 million acres statewide into the two highest fire risk severity areas. Take San Jose for example: In 2011, it had 3,310 acres classified at very high risk. The new data suggests 7,142 acres are at very high fire risk. The data released today covers the Bay Area and the North Coast and represents part two of Cal Fire's four-part rollout after inland Northern California. The Central Valley and Central Coast are scheduled for March 10, and Southern and Eastern California for March 24. The local jurisdictions must still formally adopt the maps, though they can make changes as they see fit. One city got some good news: Oakland, the site of a deadly firestorm in 1991 that kicked off many modern urban fire preparedness efforts. In 2011, it had 10,838 acres categorized as at very high fire risk. Today's data showed only 1,945 acres in that category, with another 5,151 at high or moderate fire risk. — CvK TURNING TO THE AIRWAVES: The auto industry is taking to the court of public opinion with an opening shot at California's electric vehicle mandate. The California New Car Dealers Association announced today that it's funding a digital and television ad buy, kicking off the lobbying effort with a three-minute spot on a newly launched website. The campaign calls on the California Air Resources Board to pause enforcement of the Advanced Clean Cars II rule to give 'infrastructure, consumer demand, and market readiness' time to develop. It also asks state officials to adopt a 'balanced, phased approach' to the EV transition, though it stops short of detailing a specific policy plan. Spokespeople for Newsom and CARB didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Most automakers — with Stellantis as the notable exception — have been opposed to ACCII, which requires them to sell increasing percentages of electric vehicles annually, before effectively banning the sale of new gas cars by 2035. But the ad buy is the industry's first major attempt at spreading that message to California residents. (The dealers' association said it will reveal the other 'businesses, trade groups, and consumer advocates' that are part of its coalition later.) The ad buy also comes as the Trump administration is attempting to overturn ACCII through the congressional review process. — AN BACK TO ACCI: The Supreme Court has set an April 23 hearing date for a long-simmering case around a previous iteration of California's clean vehicle rules. The court will hear Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, an oil industry lawsuit filed in 2022 shortly after the Biden administration reinstated Advanced Clean Cars I — the emissions waiver Trump's EPA revoked in 2019, Lesley Clark reports for POLITICO's E&E News. Lawyers for the industry argue California should not have unique privileges to set stronger-than-federal emissions standards, a carve out under the Clean Air Act the state has held for more than 50 years. The D.C. Circuit issued a unanimous decision last April that industry groups and Republican-led states lacked standing to bring their claim because they failed to show that tossing out the waiver would fix the injuries they say occurred. The Supreme Court hearing comes after it rejected a Trump administration request to delay the hearing to give EPA time to reassess the 'soundness of the 2022 reinstatement decision.' — AN SHOPPING FOR WIND: California is moving ahead on offshore wind despite Trump's plans to kill the industry. The CPUC today directed the Department of Water Resources to initiate centralized state procurement for various types of clean energy under a deal negotiated and signed into place in 2023. It's still a long way away. Solicitations for geothermal and the 7.6 gigawatts of offshore wind the state will be trying to buy won't open until 2027. — BB — The firefighter union's backlash to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass' decision to sack the city's fire chief is adding to her political headaches, writes our Melanie Mason. — Some Yosemite National Park staffers hung an upside-down American flag off El Capitan this weekend to protest the Trump administration's job cuts. — Vistra began a two-week process to disconnect batteries at its Moss Landing plant after they burned in a fire last month.
