Litter significantly impacts the environment and communities, with around 50 billion pieces found along America’s roadways and waterways, equating to 152 pieces per US resident. It damages aquatic habitats, disrupts food webs, and harms wildlife through entanglement or ingestion. Litter buildup can cause flooding by clogging drains, spreading diseases, and attracting unwanted wildlife, resulting in significant economic costs and an estimated $11.5 billion annual cleanup expense in the U.S.

As a result of China’s “Operation National Sword” decision In 2018, which drastically reduced the United States’ ability to export recyclables and other solid waste, states began to consider policy solutions to their mounting waste and recycling management woes. Some states developed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies to implement programs creating state recycling markets, and in some states, reduce packaging altogether. On the west coast, Oregon and California have taken action to address plastic pollution and ensure producers share the responsibility of recycling.

Lessons from California

California’s EPR legislation, Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed into law on June 30, 2022. This law aims to reduce plastic material in the state incrementally by 2032, invests in California’s growing reuse and refill economy, and holds producers financially accountable for their packaging.

The law requires single-use plastic packaging and food serviceware to be reduced by 25% by both weight and plastic components. At least 10% of the source reduction must be achieved by eliminating single-use plastics without replacing it with another material, with 4% eliminated by transitioning to reuse and refill systems. The remaining 15% reduction can be accomplished through optimization of packaging including right-sizing, shifting to bulk packaging, or switching to non-plastic materials. As an alternative, up to 8% of the 15% reduction can be accomplished by using third-party certified post-consumer recycled content free from intentionally added PFAS.

The law also requires CalRecycle to list on their website what is considered recyclable. At least 65% of single-use plastic packaging and food serviceware must be recyclable or compostable by January 1, 2032. If there is a reduction or growth in particular single-use plastic packaging or food serviceware CalRecycle can increase or decrease the specific recycling rate for that plastic material.

Like other EPR bills, the Act does define producers as brand owners and those involved in manufacturing, advertising, distribution, or sale of plastic-containing products in California. There are exemptions for small businesses and specific products like medical devices, hazardous goods, paper, magazines, and newspapers.

Producers are required to join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) by January 1, 2024, or be able to demonstrate high recycling rates independently. Producers must be approved to participate in a producer responsibility plan of a PRO. PROs must submit their plans that outline steps to meet plastic reduction targets to CalRecycle. CalRecycle will review and approve the plans, which are reassessed every five years. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in penalties up to $50,000 per a day, per violation. PROs can charge, collectively, the plastic resin producers sourcing the plastic to producers up to $150 million to run the program and create a producer responsibility advisory board.

The estimated 13,615 producers selling in California will pay $5 billion over 10 years to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to be deposited into the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund to address the environmental impacts of plastic pollution, including impacts from aquatic litter, starting in 2027. The $5 billion will also be used as aid provided to affected environmental justice communities most impacted by the damaging effects of single-use plastic waste. The funding can be used for mitigating pollution, as well as clean-up efforts.

Trash and recyclables collected from the Grand River during a River Rally 2024 field trip.

Key Policy Language

“(j) (1) Upon appropriation by the Legislature, 40 percent of the moneys in the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund shall be expended by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Wildlife Conservation Board, the State Coastal Conservancy, the California Coastal Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Natural Resources Agency, and the California Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and reduce the environmental impacts of plastics on terrestrial, aquatic, and marine life and human health, including to restore, recover, and protect the natural environment.
(2) At least 50 percent of the funds appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall provide benefits to residents living in a disadvantaged or low-income community or rural area…
(k) (1) … 60 percent of the moneys in the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund shall be expended by the Strategic Growth Council, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Natural Resources Agency, and the Department of Justice to monitor and reduce the historical and current environmental justice and public health impacts of plastics, including to mitigate the historical and current impact of plastics on disadvantaged or low-income communities or rural areas.

(2) Of the moneys appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1), 75 percent shall directly and primarily benefit residents living in disadvantaged or low-income communities.”

Advocacy & Implementation Efforts

Two Approaches, Shared Goal: Ballot Initiative vs. Legislation

Two previous attempts to pass packaging and plastic source reduction legislation failed, due to a few circumstances, but mostly because source reduction was left very vague in the first two attempts. After the two failed attempts, Californians Against Waste drafted a ballot measure for the November 2022 ballot. Partners of Californians Against Waste included Recology; Caryl Hart who was married to the late Mickey Hart of the Grateful Dead, and Monterey Bay Aquarium. The ballot initiative would have mandated fees on all plastic packaging up to one cent and give CalRecycle the authority to ban categories of plastic or plastic packages and would have circumvented the legislative process.

Senator Ben Allen, however, saw the need for a larger framework than what was in the ballot initiative. In order to reduce the use of plastic, increase recycling, and create a circular economy, Senator Allen and Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez introduced the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act (Senate Bill 54 and Assembly Bill 1080) for the third time in 2022.

In order to keep the ballot initiative from being placed before California voters in November 2022 and work through the legislative process, a group of stakeholders agreed to work together to pass legislation by June 30, 2022. Stakeholders included entities such as The Recycling Partnership, Ocean Conservancy, Monterey Bay Aquarium, National Stewardship Council, Republic Services, CalRecycle, local government, CalChamber.

Realizing no legislation could be crafted that quickly in one large group, Tina Andolina, Senior Policy Analyst for Senator Allen, created stakeholder working groups with an understanding that if a bill was not passed by June 30, 2022 the ballot initiative would go before Californians. This deadline put enough pressure on the stakeholders to collaboratively craft legislation. They were divided into 4 groups and over nine months they were focused on PRO structure, local government and haulers, fees and enforcement, and source reduction and then went line-by-line through the bill until they reached a compromise agreement for which they could move the legislation.

The ballot initiative played a crucial role in fostering that collaboration among various parties who otherwise wouldn’t have worked together. Many stakeholders preferred to directly shape the legislation rather than leave it to voters, and the industry wanted to be involved in the legislative process. The potential costs and conflicts of a ballot battle motivated everyone to negotiate, resulting in a highly collaborative effort to develop the final version of SB 54, with extensive discussions and detailed reviews of the bill.

While there was a celebration of the passage of SB 54, no one was 100% satisfied with the legislation, as the passage of SB 54 necessitated significant compromise, especially around contentious issues like the regulation of polystyrene. Environmental groups pushed for a complete ban, while some lawmakers were against any explicit product bans. Ultimately, a stringent interim standard for expanded polystyrene was implemented, designed to be challenging for the industry to meet, although the business sector was given a chance to comply. The paper industry also was awarded some concessions. The legislation would not regulate office paper, magazines, or newspapers, as well as large cardboard boxes delivering goods to retail establishments.

CalRecycle published draft rules in 2024, which received a number of public comments. They are currently in the process of addressing the comments.

CalRecycle must adopt regulations and establish a 25% source reduction baseline by January 1, 2025. By July 1, 2025, it must determine the amount of covered material in landfills and publish current recycling rates for each material category by January 1, 2026.

Lessons Learned

For states aiming to pass EPR legislation, the high level of engagement in its development is crucial, alongside greater collaboration and harmonization among state laws. An open and equitable creation process is also key, with hopes that the legislation will have widespread effects both domestically and internationally. The success of this type of initiative depends on its scalability, and there is optimism about its potential global impact, as sustainable packaging producers are already attracting interest from major brands following the bill’s passage.

Lessons from Oregon

Oregon’s EPR legislation, Senate Bill 582, the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, became effective on January 1, 2022. Oregon is currently in the rulemaking process phase and the program will launch on July 1, 2025.

The Act creates one list of recyclable items, which ranges from cans, paper, and small plastic tubs to large metal appliances like dryers. Having one list ensures consistency in residential and business recycling programs across the state. The Act also requires producers and manufacturers of packaged items, paper products, and food serviceware to share the responsibility with local governments in the recycling process. Local governments are still responsible for educating residents about what is recyclable and collecting the curbside recyclables. While residents will continue to pay their current fees for the collection of the recyclables, the producers and manufacturers will finance improvements to the recycling system and ensure recycling programs are convenient, accessible, and responsible.

Producer responsibility varies by product type and branding. For packaging, the producer is the manufacturer if branded or unbranded, or the brand licensee if produced by another party. If neither is in the US, the importer is the producer. For printing and writing paper, the producer is the publisher for publications or the manufacturer if branded; otherwise, it’s the brand owner, licensee, or importer. For food serviceware, the producer is the first seller in the state. All of these producers and manufacturers must meet two mandatory and one aspirational life cycle accountability goals for packaging and food serviceware. By 2028 25% of all plastic must be recyclable and 50% by 2040, with an aspirational goal of 70% by 2050.

The Act also mandates the establishment of a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). A PRO is a nonprofit entity established by producers or a collective of producers to oversee a statewide Producer Responsibility Program aimed at improving and expanding Oregon’s recycling services. This program enforces producer accountability throughout the lifecycle of their products, thereby promoting sustainability and minimizing environmental impact.

Packaging producers and manufacturers must register with a PRO and pay annual membership fees, proportionate to the costs incurred by the PRO for managing product life cycles. This fee structure encourages producers to prioritize environmentally friendly products and packaging, with lower fees for those less harmful to the environment. Local governments can seek reimbursement for costs incurred in recycling programs, including transportation to processing facilities, further aligning responsibilities between producers and local authorities.

Recycling processing facilities in Oregon must meet new performance standards, including material quality, reporting, and paying living wages. These facilities need a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) permit or equivalent standards to receive materials from local communities, which will ensure collected materials go to approved facilities. Responsible end markets, which can handle materials without causing pollution, can purchase and recycle sorted materials. Producers and processors are responsible for ensuring materials collected in Oregon reach these responsible end markets.

The Act also requires the DEQ to conduct a statewide needs assessment to identify the different types of covered products causing litter and marine debris and where prevention and cleanup efforts are needed. The assessment may recommend adding litter and marine debris clean up prevention to the responsibilities of the PROs, along with funding suggestions.

Key Policy Language

Section 26.a (2) “The needs assessment may include recommendations for adding litter and marine debris cleanup and prevention to the responsibilities of producer responsibility organizations and recommendations for funding such responsibilities. If the needs assessment does not include recommendations for adding new responsibilities for producer responsibility organizations, the report required under subsection (4) of this section must include an explanation of why such responsibilities are not needed to address the issue of litter and marine debris. (3) In conducting the needs assessment, the Department of Environmental Quality shall consult with local governments, the Department of Transportation, the State Parks and Recreation Department, producer responsibility organizations and the Oregon Recycling System Advisory Council.”

PROs must also pay a waste prevention and reuse fee, separate from their membership fee. This fee, capped at 10% of the PRO’s three-year average annual expenditures, supports programs aimed at reducing environmental impacts of covered products. These funds can be awarded as grants or loans to various entities, including local or tribal governments and non-profit and private organizations to further reduce environmental impacts from these products.

Advocacy & Implementation Efforts

Following China’s Sword policy and implementation, Abby Boudouris, Senior Legislative Analyst, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and her colleagues pulled together stakeholders from local governments such as Lane County and City of Beaverton, Denton Plastics, Solid Waste handlers and haulers like Rogue Waste, Environmental Fibers International, Oregon E-Waste and Paintcare, The Recycling Partnership, National Recycling Coalition, North Pacific Paper Company, and Oregon Refuse and Recycling Association to form a Recycling Committee. The Recycling Committee’s sole purpose was to recommend a concept for modernizing Oregon’s recycling system. Utilizing Oregon’s 2050 Vision for Materials Management and the mandate from the state Senate Environment & Natural Resources Committee, chaired by then Senator Michael Dembow (D-Portland), the Recycling Committee met every six weeks to develop recommendations for modernizing Oregon’s recycling system.

Oregon DEQ’s informational video, starring Binny!

In 2020, they asked the Governor, then Kate Brown, for support and to introduce legislation. During this time Senator Dembow and Representative Janeen Sollman co-sponsored the bill. (Sollman is now an Oregon Senator.)

When these bills were introduced, environmental advocates became involved and developed their own working group to develop from scratch a piece of model legislation working with local and state governments from around the country, Environment America, and the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. The advocates, however, realized the legislative vehicle would be the DEQ’s Recycling Committee bill introduced by SenatorDembow and Representative Sollman. So the environmental advocates turned their efforts to public awareness and education.

To push back on opposition from the pulp and paper industry, and to apply additional pressure so concessions would not be made during the legislative process, the environmental advocates educated the public on producer responsibility. In particular, they educated Oregonians about how the bill would address the challenges they face when purchasing products where they have no control over the packaging but are responsible for the end waste. They shared how the bill would give the producers an incentive to shift to a circular economy.

At the end of the day, concessions were made for the paper industry to neutralize their opposition to the bill. Particularly this bill would not regulate office paper, magazines, or newspapers, as well as large cardboard boxes delivering goods to retail establishments. Also, to appease some of the producers, the state legislature ultimately landed on a shared funding responsibility model, where residents and producers both pay for the program.

With these concessions and the support of the Recycling Committee the legislation passed and was signed into law.

As of 2024, the Producer Responsibility Organization Plan is still being established, and implementation is expected to begin in July of 2025.

Lessons Learned

When crafting EPR legislation the process matters. Getting all the stakeholders to the table to craft legislation together is incredibly important. By making sure everyone has a seat at the table, the legislation will likely be stronger and there will be more support for the legislation as it moves through the process. In this case the environmental advocates were not involved in the crafting of this legislation and were stuck scrambling to pull their own group together to create model legislation. In an ideal world, the environmental advocates would have had a model piece of legislation to introduce first or a seat at the table to influence the legislation being crafted.

EPR programs can be costly, so ensuring the producers of the waste rather than just the consumers are paying for the whole program, rather than just expanded services, is a key incentive needed to reduce the amount of packaging used in the first place.

It was realized later that it was advantageous that only one PRO sent in a program plan, even though the law did not restrict implementation to one PRO. Having more than one PRO implementing the plan in the beginning could get complicated quickly.

Lastly, there are a number of entities that would have liked to see source reduction goals reducing the amount of packaging and plastic needed to be recycled. The program, however, once set-up and fully rolled out will increase the amount of recycling and reuse of products, reducing the amount of litter found in rivers, lakes, and streams.