17 States Sue California Over Plastic Recycling Mandate

Seventeen states, together with the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, sued California on June 22 over a plastic recycling law that they say unfairly burdens businesses.

At issue is the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, enacted in 2022.

“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” according to the lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.

If the Act comes into effect, the plaintiff states’ citizens and affected resident businesses will be subjected to “hardships and damage,” the complaint said.

The Act will impose “extensive compliance responsibilities” on member companies in the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. These businesses typically have “little or no control over the design or composition of the packaging they distribute.” As such, the Act will force them to “shoulder financial and logistical obligations” unrelated to their operational role in the product life cycle.

According to a post from the California Department of Resources Recycling & Recovery (CalRecycle), the Act targets single-use packaging and single-use plastic food service ware. Single-use packaging includes not only plastic and plastic-containing packaging, but also glass, ceramic, metal, fiber, paper, and wood.

The Act requires companies that create or package products in single-use packaging and single-use plastic food service ware to ensure that 100 percent of these items sold in California by 2032 are recyclable or compostable.

By this year, a 25 percent reduction in the sale or distribution of single-use plastic packaging and food service ware was required compared with 2023 levels. Moreover, the companies must ensure that 65 percent of such items are recycled.

The legislation “shifts the plastic pollution burden” from consumers to these companies, CalRecycle said. Companies are required to pay $5 billion over 10 years to address the environmental impacts of plastic pollution and aid communities deemed to be most negatively affected by the effects of single-use plastic waste.

The 17 states that filed the lawsuit are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

Sovereignty Issue

In a June 22 statement, the office of the Attorney General of Nebraska said the California law will force businesses across the country to comply with the state’s “contrived environmental preferences.”

The lawsuit accuses the Act of offending the sovereignty of states. “California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies; it has no power to ‘project its legislation’ into other States as if it were first among equals.”

America’s federal system does not allow one state, irrespective of how popular or economically significant it is, “to impose its policy preferences on all others.”

Plaintiffs highlighted that the Act grants regulatory power to implement the law to the Circular Action Alliance, an “unelected, unaccountable” private organization.

The lawsuit accuses the Act of violating both the California and the United States Constitutions.

The Act discriminates against interstate commerce, unconstitutionally delegates regulatory authority to a private entity, and violates the Import-Export Clause that prevents states from imposing burdensome taxes and duties on imports from other states, the complaint says.

Plaintiffs asked the court to issue an injunctive relief preventing its enforcement. The complaint names Zoe Heller, the director of CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance as defendants.

In an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, a spokesperson from the Circular Action Alliance said the nonprofit was appointed by CalRecycle as the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) to develop and implement the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, or SB 54, “under state oversight.”

The spokesperson said they were “closely monitoring developments” related to the litigation filed by the 17 states. “CAA’s role remains unchanged. We continue to implement SB 54 consistent with state law and regulatory oversight.”

“SB 54 sets ambitious goals, and as the PRO, CAA is responsible for building a practical, scalable program that enables producers to meet those requirements under real-world conditions. We remain committed to working closely with CalRecycle and interest holders to develop a program that is effective, practical to implement and capable of delivering the outcomes envisioned by the law.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Heller for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Packaging Crackdown

The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act is the “most significant overhaul” in the history of the state’s plastics and packaging recycling policy, according to CalRecycle’s post.

“It goes further than any other state on cutting single-use plastic at the source and represents a giant step toward a more circular economy that is essential to combat climate change,” the post said.

The extended producer responsibility (EPR) program set up by the law regulates “several thousand producers—as many as an estimated 5,741—whereas other California EPR programs regulate fewer than 1,000 producers.”

EPR is “a giant step toward a more circular economy that is essential to combat climate change,” the CalRecyle website says.

According to a Dec. 19 post by packaging company Amcor, packaging EPRs have been passed in seven states, including California, as of that time. The six other states are Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington.