California regulators still say it’s full steam ahead for the state’s extended producer responsibility for packaging program, which is due to commence come Jan. 1, 2027. But following multiple setbacks to key steps toward implementation, the state’s producer responsibility organization and other stakeholders raised consequences of that challenging timeline at the first SB 54 advisory board meeting of the year on Friday.
Already delayed rules for the 2022 law were expected in January, but CalRecycle announced earlier this month that it withdrew proposed regulations from the Office of Administrative Law’s review due to planned revisions related to packaging for food and agricultural commodities. Additionally, the needs assessment, which most recently was expected Jan. 1, 2026, has not yet been shared. As a result, California’s PRO Circular Action Alliance is currently readying its program plan without having the finalized regulations or needs assessment to inform it.
While there’s now precedent for getting packaging EPR programs ready for implementation in the U.S. in Oregon and Colorado, those states allowed more time for program plan refinement, stakeholders note.
Coming soon: Comment period, then draft program plan
CalRecycle affirmed at the meeting it will announce a new 15-day comment period soon for revised rules. The agency will only consider comments regarding the newly revised portions of the regulations.
“We're really wanting to stay true and get the get the proposed regulations submitted as soon as possible,” said Michelle Martin, deputy director of CalRecycle’s circular economy division.
There’s a June 15 deadline for CAA to turn in its draft program plan, which will apply for five years. Emily Coven, CAA’s executive director for California, told board members they “should plan on getting it on June 15” and not before then.
“We will be taking the needs assessment into consideration, of course,” she said. “Whether we will take every last word of it into full consideration in an incredibly short timeline — I don't know that I can make that promise ... We’re getting compressed by both sides.”
Once the program plan is submitted, CAA expects there will be 60 days for the advisory board to review it and then another 60 for CAA to respond to comments.
“In Oregon, there was a lot more back and forth. We just don't have the time to do that. So there will be a second draft in October that's submitted to the regulator for approval,” said Shane Buckingham, CAA’s chief of staff.
Supply data delays
Circular Action Alliance had a Nov. 15, 2025, deadline for California producers to submit their baseline supply data from 2023. According to a presentation Friday from CAA, 2,530 producers were registered in California, and CAA had received 1,941 reports with 2023 data.
The delays in California have led some producers to choose to wait to report until regulations are completed, despite CAA’s encouragement otherwise, Buckingham said.
“If producers want to get a clear indication [of what this is] going to cost, we need you to report,” Buckingham said, as that data informs fee setting. CAA’s next deadline is May 31, 2026, for 2025 supply data.
Participation and data collection are also critical to CAA’s source reduction planning, he said. “We have had to move back our reporting deadline for source reduction,” he said. “We wanted to be able to project bonuses and maluses, but without the regulations we've had to move that whole timeline back.”
Other concerns and updates
Individual producers and environmental advocates alike are also frustrated with the timeline ahead for SB 54.
“The situation is no longer a matter of routine regulatory uncertainty,” said Alicia Cafferty, vice president of government relations for Irvine, California-based home appliance maker BSH, calling SB 54 “unprecedented in its scope, scale and complexity.”
“Equally concerning is the status of the PRO plan under the current trajectory,” which “will be developed and reviewed on an increasingly compressed timeline, unfairly forcing either expedited or inadequate public comment periods or risking final approval after the January 1 program start date,” Cafferty said at Friday’s meeting.
“This is not workable,” she added, urging CalRecycle and the advisory board “to acknowledge this reality and adjust compliance timelines to align with the issuance of the final regulations and an approved PRO plan.”
Environmental advocates noted the challenging timeline that CAA is up against. Still, they’re worried that when the program plan is completed, there will be little opportunity for public input so close to the implementation date.
Renée Sharp, director of plastics and petrochemical advocacy and environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, believes previous public consultation “was extremely limited,” which “underscores why we really need a very robust public comment process for when the actual PRO plan is released.”
As for other implementation updates in California, Coven said CAA is currently hiring a recycling programs manager and recycling processing manager for California. CAA is also currently developing reimbursement application forms and standard contracts. It’s encouraging jurisdictions, service providers and alternative collection providers to reach out to discuss possible projects. CAA also just released a request for information for reuse and refill service providers.
CAA did not exactly specify when it would open its reimbursement portal in California. That’s contingent on hiring and training more staff in the first half of this year.
“I don't want to open up a process and not have people staffed and ready to answer questions; that's going to be a bad experience for everybody all around,” Coven said. “I am hoping, but not promising, that that happen in probably somewhere in the middle of the year.”
