Plastics fee, expanded polystyrene ban may go before California voters in 2020

California voters may be casting ballots on a far-reaching plastics referendum in the 2020 elections, one that could put a 1-cent fee on plastic and some paper packaging, as well as banning restaurants from using expanded polystyrene containers.

San Francisco-based waste and recycling company Recology Inc. and allies in the environmental community filed a formal notice of their referendum plan Nov. 4. Recology has committed $1 million to gather signatures and place it on the November 2020 ballot.

"This initiative aims to hold the plastics industry accountable for the products they create, and support projects that create jobs and increase the use of recycled materials," Recology CEO Mike Sangiacomo said in a statement. "We must support investments in environmental restoration and domestic recycling infrastructure needed to close the loop."

The 1-cent fee would generate in the range of $1 billion a year to reduce plastics and litter in the environment, fund recycling and recycled-content programs and clean up past damage from plastics, said Eric Potashner, Recology's senior director of strategic affairs.

One of the aims is to help build domestic recycling markets, so the state is not dependent on export markets that can shut down suddenly, as China did with its National Sword program, he said.

"The issue we're having with plastics is the environmental damage it's doing and the lack of clear markets," Potashner said. "It's more of a clear and present risk to the state and the environment."

The referendum, the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act of 2020, would:

• Authorize a fee of up to a penny "per plastic product or component of packaging, including plastic-coated paper," starting in 2022, with the amount set based on factors like recycling rates, recycled content and carbon intensity of a package. The California Plastic Pollution Reduction Fee would be paid by manufacturers and not appear on product receipts to consumers.

• Ban restaurants and food vendors from distributing expanded PS containers.

• Require all packaging, not just plastics, and priority single-use products, which it defines as food service ware, to be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2030.

• Where feasible, have companies cut back on using virgin, fossil fuel-based plastics for single-use products.

• Establish retailer takeback and deposit systems, maximize recycled content in packaging and reduce unnecessary and single-use plastic packaging.

Many of the implementation details would be worked out by state agency CalRecycle.

The American Chemistry Council called the timing of the ballot plan "odd" because legislators in Sacramento plan to return in January to vote on major — and hotly debated — plastics packaging legislation.

"I think it is unfortunate that this dropped now, especially given all of the time and resources spent this year in the Legislature by many stakeholders to craft what is arguably the most comprehensive packaging recycling legislation in the nation," said Tim Shestek, senior director of state affairs in ACC's Sacramento office.

That legislation, known as Senate Bill 54 and Assembly Bill 1080, would have required single-use packaging and plastics to hit a 75 percent recycling rate by 2030 to be sold in the state. The bills died in the last day of the legislative session in September, but will return in January.

Shestek said it's "very well possible" those bills could be voted on in January and sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

"We are headed into the second year of a two-year session and no one should be surprised that it could take more than one year to put together legislation as comprehensive as these bills," Shestek said.

But Potashner said supporters want to move ahead with the referendum because there's no guarantee the Legislature will take action.

Shestek said the referendum has language not consistent with the bills, and he questioned the EPS ban.

But he said ACC recognizes that funding needs to be addressed. ACC this year proposed a three-tenths of 1 cent fee on all takeout food service packaging in California, which it said would generate $100 million a year for recycling and waste infrastructure.

"We agree there needs to be sustained funding for recycling infrastructure and we've clearly signaled our interest in working on such a proposal," Shestek said. "However, we think the Legislature should continue the work it has already invested in both SB 54 and AB 1080."

Potashner said the referendum is consistent with the bills, but goes further, with its detailed funding mechanism and EPS ban, neither of which are in SB 54 and AB 1080.

He said the referendum has another advantage over the legislation — it would create a funding source to clean up past damage from plastics in the environment. It has language that sets aside at least 30 percent of the funds to "restore, recover and protect" waterways.

"A good part of the ballot initiative would get funds to pay for restoration," Potashner said.

Recology's referendum, if it qualifies for the ballot, seems likely to set up a political battle larger and more costly than the last statewide vote on plastics in California, a 2016 measure that banned plastic bags.

Voters by a 53 to 47 percent margin adopted the bag ban, but not after industry spent at least $5.5 million urging voters to reject it. With more of the plastic packaging sector impacted this time, it seems likely this measure could be more contentious.

Recology has been heavily involved in the plastics debate in California. In late 2018, Sangiacomo first pledged $1 million to support some sort of ballot measure and wrote to ACC CEO Cal Dooley asking the industry to do more.

He argued that his company had gone to great lengths, including hiring a plastics engineer, to find sustainable solutions for the plastic it was collecting for recycling from California cities.

The environmental group Californians Against Waste, which is part of the referendum campaign, released a poll that said 71 percent of 813 voters surveyed support the key provisions in the ballot campaign.

The initiative's proposed ballot language says that California's local governments spend more than $420 million a year cleaning up plastic and other litter, and notes that global plastics production is expected to triple by 2050.

The ballot initiative is signed by three people: Sangiacomo and two members of the California Coastal Commission, Linda Escalante and Caryl Hart. Escalante is also the Southern California legislative director with the Natural Resources Defense Council and Hart is the former director of the Sonoma County Regional Parks.

Potashner said referendum supporters will be fund raising and working to build a campaign infrastructure, and have about a month to tweak the referendum language.