Dive Brief:
- California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed SB 1180, a bill meant to establish new spending requirements and eligible entities for the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund. The fund, which was originally created by extended producer responsibility and source reduction law SB 54, is expected to be worth $5 billion over the next decade.
- In explaining his veto, Newsom commended the intention for funds to reach communities most burdened by plastic pollution. But SB 1180 might complicate ongoing work to implement SB 54, he said.
- The bill was opposed by industry groups, including the Flexible Packaging Association, Foodservice Packaging Institute and Plastics Industry Association, and there was a recent push for a veto over concerns it could stymie plastics production, Plastics News reported. The bill was supported by environmental advocacy groups.
Dive Insight:
The veto is the latest development in a tumultous path for getting packaging and plastic pollution reduction policy up and running in California.
State Sen. Ben Allen authored SB 54, also known as the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which California adopted in 2022. One piece of that law was the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund, which would collect $500 million from producer responsibility organization Circular Action Alliance every year from 2027 through 2037, potentially collecting $150 million from plastics manufacturers. Some 60% of the money would go toward initiatives related to reducing environmental justice and public health harms from plastics, while 40% go toward limiting impacts on animal and human health.
Allen introduced SB 1180 in February this year to offer a more detailed and transparent framework for the PPMF to center big-picture policy goals. “More seats at the table, same sized pie,” per an August bill analysis. SB 1180 passed the Senate 29-5 in May and later passed the Assembly 27-10 in August.
Among the bill’s proposed parameters, it noted that expenditures would have to improve public or environmental health, incorporate outreach efforts that inform the public of the purpose and scope of funded programs, and benefit communities most burdened by the impacts of plastic pollution and California Native American tribes. Newly eligible agencies, such as utilities, would only be eligible for grants if they collaborate with entities such as tribes, NGOs or land trusts.
Any grants funded by PPMF would have to offer technical assistance to eligible applicants, among other requirements. State administrative and program support costs, exclusive of technical assistance, would be limited to 10% of the funds allocated in any fiscal year. PPMF funds could generally not be used for any PRO obligations. Additionally, the California Environmental Protection Agency would have to post a list of expenditures each year.
Newsom said Sunday his administration is “working through the complex, foundational work of implementing [SB 54], including its core producer responsibility requirements and ensuring compliance clarity for the regulated community.”
“Much of the work to ensure the funding reaches the most appropriate entities is already underway,” and SB 1180 “risks complicating implementation” of both the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act and the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund, Newsom added.
The implementation timeline for SB 54 has become more compressed for Circular Action Alliance after Newsom had CalRecycle revisit regulations last year as opposed to finalizing them. Rules were not finalized until May of this year.
CAA intends to submit the final draft of its California program plan by Oct. 13, for approval and kick-off come Jan. 1, 2027. CAA anticipates remitting the first Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund fees come March 1, 2027.
