As California plastics bill dies, focus shifts to plastics tax referendum

For the second year in a row, a far-reaching plastics packaging bill that would have required a 75 percent recycling or composting rate died in the final hours of California's legislative session.

The measure had passed the state Senate Aug. 30 but fell four votes short of what it needed to clear the state Assembly Aug. 31, the last day for legislation to pass in the 2020 session.

The bill's defeat, however, does not end the issue. Advocates said their focus will now shift to a statewide ballot that would ask voters to put a tax on single-use plastic to fund recycling and cleanup, a referendum similar to the plastic bag ban California's electorate approved in 2016.

The legislation that failed Aug. 31, the California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, would have required producers of single-use plastic packaging and some foodservice items to achieve a 75 percent recycling or composting rate for their products by 2032.

It also would have required that those products be completely recyclable or compostable by 2032.

The news website Calmatters.org said many Democrats in the assembly sat out the vote, as supporters of the bill like Sierra Club and Californians Against Waste urged their members on social media to contact legislative offices in a last effort to win votes.

In the end, the bill got 37 votes in support but needed 41 to pass the 80-member chamber. In the Senate a day earlier, the bill passed with 23 votes, two more than it needed. Democrats control both chambers by wide margins.

It's not clear what comes next for the legislation, which was first introduced last year by Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, and Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica.

Allen and the Sierra Club both said on Twitter Sept. 1 that focus will now shift to a referendum on single-use plastics packaging that's likely to go in front of voters in 2022. It would put a 1-cent fee on plastic packaging to fund recycling and environmental cleanup.

It also includes a statewide ban on expanded polystyrene food containers and requires cutting the amount of single-use plastic sold in the state by 25 percent by 2030.

"I'm sorry your legislature couldn't deliver," Allen wrote. "Now let's harness the energy of the people to pass the plastics initiative, coming to a ballot near you in 2022."

California voters adopted a statewide plastic bag ban in a referendum vote in 2016, and the campaigns for and against the 2022 plastics initiative seem likely to be much stronger than the 2016 vote over just over bags.

In a floor speech before the vote, Gonzalez said single-use plastic currently costs cities and counties too much to clean up and recycle.

"No one is saying that these items don't have a use, but we are not being honest with ourselves about their end of life, and it's past time to do something about it," she said. "Without comprehensive reform, we will continue to throw our single use plastics in the recycling bin … but they will only end up in the landfill or incinerated."

The bill had been through several iterations since it was first introduced last year, starting out with a focus on plastics before adding in other materials and stalling in the closing hours of the 2019 session. But the version that came back this year was narrowly focused again on plastic.

Supporters of the bill said it was a more comprehensive approach than bans pursued in other states and cities. In a Sept. 1 statement, the environmental group Oceana said it was disappointed in the vote.

"With marine plastic pollution projected to triple by 2040, the need for comprehensive single-use plastic regulation has never been more urgent," said Christy Leavitt, the group's plastics campaign director. "As the fifth-largest economy in the world, California could have dramatically curbed the amount of single-use plastic entering the ocean and polluting the planet by passing this bill."

The bill also had strong support from California's cities and counties.

The League of California Cities, for example, used social media in the final hours of the debate to urge lawmakers to pass the legislation to "help cities reduce plastic pollution and tamp down on skyrocketing recycling costs to local governments."

The league referenced support for the bill from mayors in Los Angeles, Oakland and Sacramento. As well, the mayor of San Jose tweeted support in the hours leading up to the vote and urged the city's delegation in the assembly to help pass it.

In an email, a league of cities executive said bans on imported plastic scrap by China and other countries and lack of U.S. markets mean taxpayers are paying more to support recycling.

"Over the last several years, international recyclable material commodity markets have dried up," said Derek Dolfie, the group's legislative representative. "In the past, cities used the high scrap value from recyclable materials to subsidize the cost of collection and processing of recyclables for their residents.

"Now, some cities cannot find markets for these materials and instead must pay to recycle these materials, leading to higher garbage rates and increased processing costs," he said. "These increased costs couldn't come at a worse time, as California cities have been saddled with unanticipated COVID-19-related expenses and suffered tremendous losses in tax revenues."

He said the league would like to see more support for domestic recyclables markets and incentives to use recycled content, as well as "a narrowing of the waste stream to the most highly recyclable materials."

But business groups pointed to what they said were flaws with the bill.

The Consumer Brands Association, which represents major packaged foods makers, said it was glad lawmakers rejected the bill, saying that the state should focus on "practical, scalable solutions" like the U.S. Plastics Pact, which launched in late August.

"For the second time, Californians demonstrated that they don't want a Band-Aid approach to fixing the state's recycling system, but rather real, lasting change," said Meghan Stasz, vice president of packaging and sustainability with CBA.

A coalition of California business organizations and national plastics groups, including the American Chemistry Council, the Plastics Industry Association, the Western Plastics Association and the Flexible Packaging Association, came out strong against it.

They said the legislation failed to address existing challenges with recycling programs and the need for additional infrastructure to implement the bill, among others in a long list of concerns they circulated.

"The impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic are far from over, and the current framework for this bill will have significant impacts on consumers and businesses — undoubtedly raising costs for all Californians for items we continue to rely on to protect ourselves," the group said. "We must call into question the establishment of such a large, unnecessarily bureaucratic program, especially this year."

The group said it had submitted amendments to achieve the bill's mandates but they were rejected.

"We now have a chance to hit the reset button and work with all interested stakeholders to craft legislation that will really address the issue of sustainability," said Tony Radoszewski, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association.

Another plastics bill, requiring 50 percent recycled content for plastic beverage containers by 2030, did pass the Legislature Aug. 30 and now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom.