Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

California Proposes Significant Changes to Product Packaging Regulations

By Karlie Webb, Buck Dixon, Liz Glusman & Melissa Horne on October 15, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

What Happened

On Monday, October 14, 2024, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) opened a public comment period on changes to the previously proposed regulations implementing the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (Act). The 15-day written comment period runs through Tuesday, October 29, 2024.

The Act establishes California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme for packaging, which shifts the financial costs of recycling and disposing of single-use packaging to the manufacturers or brand holders of products sold in such packaging.

Why It Matters

CalRecycle’s proposed changes to its proposed regulation are extensive. Among many others, they include a new definition for “in the state” and a revised definition of “food service ware,” both of which are anticipated to provide significantly more clarity regarding which companies and transactions the EPR scheme will capture.

If adopted, the changes to the proposed regulation will even have the potential to limit future acceptable recycling processes. One of the newly proposed provisions explicitly limits what types of processes qualify as “recycling” and imposes strict requirements for demonstrating that a nonmechanical recycling process constitutes recycling under the EPR scheme. CalRecycle appears to be bolstering a trend we are seeing of state skepticism of “advanced recycling” or “chemical recycling” as a solution to plastic waste and disposal.

What Comes Next

California is one of five states that have enacted EPR laws for packaging. The other four — Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon — each have varying requirements and are in different stages of regulatory development. With no federal scheme on the horizon, however, California’s actions may have far-reaching ramifications if other states developing EPR schemes for packaging decide to follow the lead of the world’s fifth largest economy. 

Photo of Karlie Webb Karlie Webb

Karlie assists clients in all areas of environmental compliance for existing operations and environmental due diligence for real estate and equity transactions. Clients turn to Karlie when they are acquiring a property or company, and then rely on her environmental compliance counsel post-acquisition.

Read more about Karlie WebbEmail
Photo of Liz Glusman Liz Glusman

Liz navigates clients through a variety of complex environmental compliance areas to manage risks, achieve strategic business goals, and stay ahead of the evolving regulatory landscape.

Read more about Liz GlusmanEmail
Photo of Melissa Horne Melissa Horne

Melissa helps industrial and utility clients understand and navigate complex environmental requirements, with a focus on real-world implications for their business. She focuses her practice heavily on Clean Air Act and climate change issues, and advises clients on environmental justice and ESG matters.

Read more about Melissa HorneEmail
  • Posted in:
    Environmental and Climate
  • Blog:
    Environmental Law & Policy Monitor
  • Organization:
    Troutman Pepper Locke
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo