SB 54 (Allen) & AB 1080 (Gonzalez) – Oppose Unless Amended
The Pacific Water Quality Association (PWQA) remains opposed to AB 1080 and SB 54, as proposed to be amended by the authors.
The proposed amendments do not address the overarching, fundamental issues that the PWQA has with the bills and they raise new, significant concerns.
The authors recently circulated proposed amendments that do little to address long standing concerns and appear to be based on political expediency rather than sound public policy.
Both bills still require millions in new spending at Cal Recycle, delegate expansive new regulatory and fee authority to Cal Recycle, fail to address on-going challenges with existing programs like the Bottle Bill and the need for significant additional infrastructure statewide to implement the bill, all while the state struggles financially and has slashed spending in other areas.
The impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic are far from over, and the current framework of these bills will have significant impacts on consumers and businesses- inevitably raising costs for all Californians on items that we continue to rely on to protect ourselves.
For some businesses, the single-use products and single-use packaging covered by these bills are critical to their livelihood. With less than three weeks left in the legislative session and significant work necessary to produce sound policy, we are vehemently opposed to the passage of AB 1080 or SB 54.
Based on draft amendments circulated by the authors on August 5 2020, the following are our primary concerns with the legislation, but is not exhaustive of the problems with the bills:
- Scope Not Limited to Plastics Only: The authors claim that the bills have been narrowed to cover plastics only. However, the proposed amendments contain language that is complicated and open to significant interpretation by Cal Recycle thereby creating uncertainty for the regulated community. The bill is not limited to only the plastic portion of a multi-material package. In fact, any shipping container, paper, or glass container used to safely deliver products to consumers will be included if they contain any plastic
- Source Reduction: To the “maximum extent feasible” is a standalone mandate, left up to Cal Recycle to determine and could lead to onerous requirements. Amendments would expand the definition to mean, “the elimination of or net reduction in the amount of single-use packaging or a priority single-use product before it is created.” It is not possible to eliminate or reduce something that has never been created. This definition could create an impossible standard to regulate or
- Definitions: Very few terms are defined in the bills. Instead, the authors direct Cal Recycle to define recyclable and compostable, for example. The document circulated on August 5 states this is to maintain alignment with SB 1335 regulations currently being developed by Cal Recycle. This is extremely concerning given how Cal Recycle has overstepped its statutory mandate by proposing arbitrary criteria, constraining the ability of industry to comply, and failing to conduct appropriate environmental
- Infrastructure: Zero financial or permitting support for infrastructure, which we desperately
- Standardization: Absence of statewide standardization to create a uniform recycling system for the state that includes the collection of all recyclable and compostable materials compliant under this proposed
- Over-the-counter medicines: Are not exempt, despite prescription and animal medicines being granted an exemption.
- Stewardship programs: Proposed amendments would reduce the ability of the stewardship organization to ensure the cost-effective collection of single-use packaging and
- Fees: Will be set by emergency regulation, with no cap. Proposed amendments indicate $15,000 will be on the low end of annual fees paid by
- Penalties: Extremely high at up to $50,000 per day/per violation for a broad universe of what would qualify as a violation. Imposes a sales ban on non-compliant packaging/products enforced by
- Cal Recycle: By ceding so much authority to Cal Recycle, the bills will inevitably create an unsustainable regulatory program resulting in higher costs of all packaging and products covered by this
We support the desire for a sustainable future, and we agree with the first mandate in the bill, which is to require all single-use packaging and priority single-use products be designed for recyclability and composability by 2032.
In our proposed amendments, we maintain the rate and date structure of the bills as a sign of good faith, despite the significant challenges produces will face in meeting such aggressive mandates.
SB 54 and AB 1080 would delegate an overwhelming amount of authority to Cal Recycle, and grant them carte blanche to levy fees on manufacturers to administer and enforce the program, at a time when the lasting effects of the pandemic on the economy are still unknown.
We must call into question the establishment of such a large, unnecessarily bureaucratic program, especially this year.
We previously provided specific suggestions to address these concerns. While we appreciate the discussion about our proposed amendments; until these fundamental, overarching concerns are addressed in AB 1080 and SB 54, we must remain opposed.
Greg Reyneke
PWQA President
cc:
California State Senate Members California State Assembly Members
Rachel Wagoner & Melissa Immel
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom
Jared Blumenfeld, Secretary, Cal EPA
Ken DeRosa, Acting Director, Cal Recycle
Mindy McIntyre, Deputy Director for Legislative Affairs, Cal Recycle