Circular Action Alliance filed its final California SB 54 plan after 2,400 comments. CalRecycle's decision now sets 2027 fees

How California's producer programme is put together

SB 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act of 2022, tracked as PR-US-004, makes producers of single-use packaging and plastic food service ware fund and run the system that collects and recycles it. CAA is the approved producer responsibility organisation (PRO), and CalRecycle’s SB 54 page says the department approves its plan, budget and annual reports.

The permanent regulations took effect on 1 May 2026, when the Office of Administrative Law approved them, according to a CalRecycle bulletin of the same day. Producers then had until 1 June 2026 to join CAA and submit supply data, register as an independent producer, or apply for the small producer exemption⁸.

The statute sets hard outcomes. CalRecycle’s producer guidance lists 10% less single-use plastic by 1 January 2027, 30% recycled by 2028, 20% less and 40% recycled by 2030, and by 2032 a 25% cut, a 65% recycling rate and 100% recyclable or compostable packaging.

The plan is the document that turns those targets into money. It sets what CAA spends, how it splits costs across about 60 covered material categories, and the rate per pound each producer pays. On top sits the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund, which CAA’s May fee document puts at $500 million a year, assumed to be paid in full by plastic packaging producers³.

What changed between the June draft and the October plan

15 June: the draft. CAA submitted its draft plan to the Packaging Producer Responsibility Advisory Board on 15 June 2026, its release that day said, and opened comments until 14 August. CalRecycle’s Advisory Board page records the board’s duty to offer written comments within 60 calendar days of receiving a plan⁷.

June: litigation from both sides. Oceana, NRDC and the Californians Against Waste Foundation sued CalRecycle in San Francisco Superior Court on 2 June 2026, Oceana said on 4 June, arguing the regulations exclude large categories of plastic packaging and allow indefinite exemptions. Resource Recycling reported that 17 Republican state attorneys general, with the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), filed a federal challenge on 22 June.

14 August: comments close. The 60-day comment period ended on 14 August. CAA said on 13 October that it received more than 2,400 comments from local jurisdictions, trade associations, NGOs, tribal representatives, producers and the Advisory Board¹. Resource Recycling put the count at 2,401 comments from 213 individuals representing 201 organisations.

20 September: the mitigation fund bill falls. California’s governor vetoed SB 1180, which would have set spending rules for the mitigation fund, Packaging Dive reported on 21 September. The fund therefore runs under SB 54’s existing terms, and the veto message said the bill risked complicating implementation of the Act and the fund, Packaging Dive reported.

13 October: the final plan. CAA filed the revised plan with CalRecycle. Its release says the changes cover environmental justice, reimbursement, materials strategy, a Responsible End Markets standard, budget development and fee-setting, with the budget and fees chapters expanded¹.

The reported numbers. Resource Recycling reported a 2027 budget of $1.105 billion, against as much as $1.87 billion in the June draft, and a five-year budget of $7.81 billion to $13.05 billion, against $9.35 billion to $17.2 billion. SPI has not yet confirmed these figures in the plan document.

“By recognizing the unique challenges across different material categories, our plan creates a structured strategy that provides the time and framework to overcome complex technical hurdles while making steady, measurable progress towards SB 54’s recycling goals.” CAA chief of staff, release, 13 October 2026

What the plan sets and how CalRecycle reviews it

The review clock. Section 42051.2 of the Public Resources Code, in the published text, says that “Within 90 calendar days of receipt of the plan from the PRO, the department shall” respond, by approving, disapproving or conditionally approving it, asking for more information or setting a timeline. CAA’s submission page gives CalRecycle 75 calendar days². SPI has not yet confirmed which period CalRecycle will apply; from 13 October, 75 days runs to 27 December 2026 and 90 days to 11 January 2027, by SPI’s calculation.

If CalRecycle says no. Section 42063 requires CalRecycle to explain in writing how a plan is noncompliant, and the PRO must then resubmit within 30 calendar days, the code text says. If a resubmission still falls short, the department directs changes and requires another resubmission¹¹.

After approval. Section 42051.2(c) gives the PRO 90 calendar days after approval or conditional approval to implement the plan and post it online. CAA’s release says CalRecycle will judge whether the plan meets requirements for implementation by 1 January 2027¹.

What fees looked like in May. The only CAA fee figures SPI has read in primary form are the illustrative fees of 1 May 2026, which CAA called “good faith, non-binding fee rate ranges”. They cover only new and incremental SB 54 costs, not existing recycling system costs, and CAA said final rates would appear in the plan³.

The reported final rates. Resource Recycling reported proposed 2027 base fees of 1 cent a pound for aluminium non-aerosol containers, 2 cents for glass bottles, 3 cents for cardboard, 10 to 13 cents for HDPE bottles, 12 to 13 cents for PET bottles, jugs and jars, mostly 24 to 30 cents for film and flexibles, and 30 cents for PVC and polystyrene film. It also reported a 26 cent mitigation fund fee and a 3 cent reuse fee per pound of plastic. SPI has not yet confirmed these rates in the plan.

Where the money goes. Resource Recycling reported the 2027 spending split in the final plan as $600 million of regulatory-driven costs, including the $500 million mitigation fund payment, $155 million for material management, $119 million for administration, $86 million for other operations such as end markets, reuse and pilots, $80 million of operating reserves and $65 million for education, outreach and contamination reduction. SPI has not yet confirmed this split in the plan.

Modulation. The same report said the plan proposes an estimated malus on virgin plastic of $100 a ton in 2027, $150 in 2028 and $200 in 2029, and bonuses starting at $500 a ton for reductions against a 2026 baseline and $1,500 against a 2023 baseline. These figures are also reported, not yet confirmed by SPI in the plan text.

Unit-based charges. CAA’s May document also showed a component-based mitigation fund charge of 0.10 to 0.12 cents per plastic component, alongside the weight-based fee³. It assumed plastic packaging producers pay the full $500 million a year, because resin manufacturers’ optional contribution of up to $150 million cannot be required without a statutory amendment.

SPI calculation (clear PET bottle, May ranges): a clear PET bottle carried 11 to 35 cents of base fee, plus 17 to 25 cents of mitigation fund fee and 4 to 10 cents of reuse fee per pound, or 32 to 70 cents a pound in all. On Resource Recycling’s reported final figures the same bottle would pay about 41 to 42 cents, a figure SPI has not yet confirmed.

Who pays most under the California plan

Plastic film and flexibles. In CAA’s May ranges, polystyrene film carried 70 to 179 cents a pound and PVC film 69 to 176 cents, the top of the schedule³. These lines also bear the mitigation fund fee and the reuse fee, which apply only to plastic component weight.

Rigid plastic bottles. Clear PET and natural HDPE bottles sat at 11 to 35 and 13 to 40 cents in May. They are the formats closest to the 2028 target: Resource Recycling reported CalRecycle’s estimate that even PET and HDPE bottles, jugs and jars are more than 10 percentage points short of the 30% rate required for 2028.

Expanded polystyrene food service ware. Producers have been barred since 1 January 2025 from selling, distributing or importing EPS food service ware into California, because the 25% recycling rate was not met, CalRecycle’s EPS page says. That restriction, tracked as PR-US-005, applies to producers, not to retailers or restaurants that do not meet the producer definition, and CalRecycle notified the shortfall on 6 August 2025⁹.

Glass, metal and fibre. Glass ranged from 1 to 3 cents a pound in May, corrugated from 2 to 5 cents and aluminium containers with plastic from 5 to 12 cents. These materials pay no mitigation fund fee on the base material, so a switch from film to fibre cuts two lines at once.

Producers that paid early. Resource Recycling reported that CAA invoiced early fees in August 2026 and that the remaining $33 million is included in the 2027 budget, with a 31 May 2028 deadline for claims on costs incurred before 1 January 2027. SPI has not yet confirmed these figures in the plan.

Producers inside CAA. Resource Recycling reported that more than 4,000 producers have registered with CAA in California. The 1 June 2026 registration step was the gate: producers either joined CAA, registered as independents or applied for the small producer exemption⁸.

The source reduction problem behind the budget

The budget and the fees rest on a target CAA may not meet on time. SB 54 asks for 10% less single-use plastic by 1 January 2027, the programme start date, rising to 20% by 2030 and 25% by 2032⁶. CAA’s chief of staff said on 13 October that the plan gives “the time and framework” for materials facing technical hurdles, which points to a phased approach rather than an even cut across categories.

Recycling is the other gap. The 2028 target is 30% for single-use plastic, and the reported CalRecycle estimate puts even PET and HDPE bottles more than 10 points short. CAA’s own wording in the plan, quoted by Resource Recycling, accepts that “not all materials will be viable to bring into the system” by the law’s deadlines; SPI has not yet confirmed that wording in the plan.

Litigation adds a third variable. A state court case brought by Oceana, NRDC and the Californians Against Waste Foundation attacks the regulations as too weak, and a federal case with NAW argues the law is unconstitutional, Resource Recycling reported. Either could change the rules the plan was written under. The SB 54 regulations took effect only on 1 May 2026, CalRecycle’s bulletin says, which left CAA six weeks to file a draft and five months to finish the final plan⁸.

The mitigation fund is the fixed cost in the middle of all three variables. Its $500 million a year falls due whatever the recycling outcome, and CAA’s May document assumed plastic packaging producers carry all of it³.

How California compares with Oregon and Colorado

CAA already runs packaging EPR in Oregon, tracked as PR-US-002, and Colorado, tracked as PR-US-003, so producers can set the California ranges beside two live schedules in the same currency. Oregon’s 2026 fee schedule, published on 29 October 2025, charges 25.0 cents a pound for clear PET bottles and 9.0 cents for natural HDPE bottles¹².

Colorado’s 2026 dues schedule, published on 13 October 2025, charges 15.0 cents for clear PET bottles and 14.0 cents for natural HDPE, with eco-modulation already applied¹³. CDPHE says its executive director approved CAA’s plan in December 2025 and dues have been payable since January 2026.

The film and PVC lines show the widest gaps. Oregon charges 43.0 cents a pound for HDPE and LDPE film and 97.0 cents for rigid PVC; Colorado charges 48.0 and 81.0 cents. Neither schedule has a polystyrene film line, but both price foamed polystyrene containers high, at 138.0 cents in Oregon and 172.0 cents in Colorado.

The bases differ in ways that matter. California’s illustrative fees cover only new and incremental SB 54 costs, not the costs of the existing recycling system, CAA’s May document says, while the Oregon and Colorado figures are final 2026 rates for programmes already invoicing³. California also adds the mitigation fund fee on plastic, which neither the Oregon nor the Colorado schedule contains.

Timing differs too. Colorado’s participation requirement began in July 2025 and dues in January 2026, CDPHE says, and CAA published Oregon’s 2026 schedule on 29 October 2025^12,14. California’s first invoices under the plan depend on CalRecycle’s ruling, so its final schedule will arrive after both of the other states have completed at least one full fee year.

The colour signal also runs the same way in all three. Colorado’s 2026 schedule prices pigmented PET bottles at 43.0 cents a pound against 15.0 cents for clear, and CAA’s May California ranges put pigmented PET at 13 to 38 cents against 11 to 35 cents for clear^3,13. The gap is narrower in California’s illustrative base fees, but it points producers the same way.