Seventeen states across the United States, along with the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), jointly filed a lawsuit against California on June 22, accusing the state’s plastic recycling regulations of imposing unfair burdens on businesses.
The focus of the dispute is on California’s SB54 law, the “Plastic Pollution Prevention and Producer Responsibility Act,” which was passed in 2022 and went into effect in May of this year. The complaint received by the Eastern District Federal Court of California stated that “virtually all products packaged or transported in plastic containers, as well as a large amount of other packaging materials containing plastic, are subject to the provisions of this law.”
The lawsuit pointed out that if the SB54 law is officially implemented, residents of the plaintiff states and affected businesses will face “hardships and losses.” NAW member companies will have to bear “broad compliance responsibilities,” but these companies typically have “little control over the packaging design or materials of the products they distribute,” thus forcing them to take on “financial and logistical responsibilities unrelated to their operations.”
According to data from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), SB54 primarily targets single-use packaging and single-use plastic food service ware; the former also includes glass, ceramics, metals, fibers, paper, and wood materials. SB54 requires businesses producing or using such single-use products to ensure that by 2032, 100% of these products sold in California are recyclable or compostable.
Furthermore, businesses must reduce the sales or distribution of single-use plastic packaging and food service ware by 25% in comparison to 2023, and ensure that 65% of them are recycled.
CalRecycle stated that SB54 effectively shifts the responsibility of preventing plastic pollution from consumers to relevant businesses. As per the regulations, businesses must pay $5 billion over ten years to address the environmental impacts of plastic pollution and assist communities deemed most affected by single-use plastic waste.
The 17 states bringing the lawsuit include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office released a statement on June 22, stating that California’s law forces American businesses to comply with the state’s “arbitrary environmental preferences,” infringing on state sovereignty.
The complaint stated, “California has no authority to dictate national policies; it has no right to ‘project’ its legislation onto other states as if it were superior to them.” The plaintiffs believe that the U.S. federal system does not allow any state – regardless of its popularity or economic strength – to impose its policy preferences on other states.
The lawsuit emphasizes that the law delegates regulatory authority to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which is an “unelected, unaccountable” private organization.
The lawsuit argues that the law violates both the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. It alleges that the law discriminates against interstate business activities, unconstitutionally delegates regulatory authority to a private entity, and violates the Import-Export Clause, which prohibits states from imposing burdensome taxes and tariffs on goods from other states.
The plaintiffs are seeking a restraining order from the court to halt the enforcement of the law. The complaint also lists CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller and the Circular Action Alliance as defendants.
A CAA spokesperson stated in an email to the Epoch Times that the non-profit organization was appointed by CalRecycle to develop and implement SB54 under the “supervision of the state government.” As of the deadline, the Epoch Times had not received comments from Heller.
According to CalRecycle data, SB54 is the “most significant reform” in the history of California’s plastic and packaging recycling policies, establishing an “Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR) system that regulates up to 5,741 businesses, significantly more than the EPR systems in other California programs, which typically oversee fewer than 1,000 businesses.
The CalRecycle website highlights that the EPR system is a crucial step towards a circular economy and is essential in addressing climate change.
According to data released by packaging company Amcor on December 19, the United States had seven states pass packaging EPR laws as of last year. In addition to California, the states include Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. ◇