EPR Surges in US as California Targets Recyclable Packaging by SB 54

California’s SB 54 changes who pays for packaging waste and who is responsible for making packaging recyclable or compostable by 2032. This shift affects producers, communities, and the cost of goods. It is observed beyond California, and other states consider similar measures.

SB 54 overview: packaging waste responsibility, 2032 goals, and producer accountability

SB 54 requires a 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging and foodware by 2032 compared to 2023 levels, and it requires all single-use packaging and foodware to become recyclable or compostable by 2032. It sets a 65% recycling rate for plastics by 2032. Interim targets include a 10% reduction and 30% recycling by 2027, followed by 20% reduction and 40% recycling by 2030. There is $5 billion planned over ten years for the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund starting around 2027, directed by a statewide producer responsibility organization, the Circular Action Alliance. This represents a transfer of cost and accountability from households and local governments to producers.

The policy will affect producers, communities, and the price of goods. It has drawn attention beyond California as other states observe and consider similar approaches.

Key targets and governance

On the human side, the stakes are clear. California’s packaging market tops $50 billion annually, and single-use packaging accounts for a large share of landfill, litter, and waste processing problems. The law pulls producers into the front seat of waste management by collecting fees, designing compliance plans, and reporting to CalRecycle. It also tries to reduce the burden on cities and counties, with CalRecycle projecting savings in local government costs over time, about $1.5 billion per year. The question remains how this will unfold on the ground. First, the PRO, Circular Action Alliance, onboarding producers and coordinating compliance, penalties, and reporting. By 2024, producers had to join, and the law sets up an enforcement path: up to $50,000 per day for non-compliance.

That level of possible penalties makes compliance needed. The law establishes a mechanism to enforce requirements and to track progress, with a clear incentive to improve practices. It is intended to reduce downstream costs for municipalities and to support more fast waste processing and recycling outcomes. The arrangements emphasize accountability and measurable results in the market and in operations.

Market response and infrastructure

Now, what’s the market response? We’re seeing a surge of investment in recyclable and compostable packaging. PepsiCo pledged serious money for sustainable packaging while also pushing local recycling partnerships. There’s a push toward reusable packaging pilots with big retailers and the emergence of new recycling facilities in Los Angeles, San Jose, and San Diego adding hundreds of thousands of tons of capacity. This is not PR. It is a real effort to align packaging design with what the waste system can handle, a missing piece for years in many places.

And the cost question stays with us: producers will face fees, redesign costs, and administrative burdens, which could translate to small price bumps for consumers, likely in the 1-3% range in some categories. I’m listening for how that lands in communities that already feel stretched. There are other moving parts to watch. EPS, the expanded polystyrene rules, are effectively a ban unless recycling climbs to 25% by 2025 and improves from there. That is a tight path and it forces a rethinking of packaging formats, which leads to a question: the cheapest plastic may not be the right option for the long run.

National context and infrastructure needs

Then there’s the broader national context. A handful of states have similar laws in motion, and the momentum for EPR is growing. Eleven states explored packaging EPR in 2024-2025, with several enacted, showin gCalifornia isn’t alone in trying to redesign the waste system from the producer side. And there’s a genuine push for infrastructure, MRFs upgraded with AI sorting, new composting streams, and advanced recycling technologies, because you can’t recycle your way out of a system designed around throwaway packaging without improving how the system handles waste.

Policy implementation and community benefits

From a policy lens, enforcement and real-world infrastructure matter most. Regulations were moving through rulemaking in 2024-2026, with finalized rules shaping how recyclability and compostability are defined, and how labeling is standardized so consumers aren’t misled about what’s actually recyclable in their own neighborhoods. The California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund is a mechanism to fund environmental justice work, litter cleanup, and pollution mitigation in communities bearing the brunt of waste mismanagement. If you’re asking producers to cover the lifecycle, you must ensure the communities most impacted actually benefit. What does this mean for businesses and communities right now? It means preparation.

Start by assessing packaging footprints and align designs with true recyclability or compostability. Build collaborations with converters, recyclers, and local governments. Consider reuse pilots and closed-loop packaging where the economics make sense. Track costs and savings transparently. The numbers are proof points for local policymakers and community leaders about what works and what does not.

Collaborations with partners should inform decisions and guide implementation of rules, monitoring, and reporting to verify that objectives are met and adjustments are made as needed.

Looking ahead: practical roadmap for businesses and communities

To wrap up, SB 54 isn’t a distant rumor. It’s a practical blueprint for shifting responsibility, funding, and behavior. California is signaling that the time of passive packaging waste is ending, replaced by a system where producers bear the lifecycle on their books and in their product designs. Other states are watching, some will copy, others will adapt. The big question is simple: can we build the markets and the infrastructure quickly enough to meet 2032 goals without leaving communities behind? I’d like to know what you think. How do you see your city or business responding to this shift? What proof points will you require before you say it’s working? Comment below. I’m listening. And if you want more, read on, because there’s plenty more to dig into as California paves the way forward.

Elena Ramirez

Elena brings to The Forest Blog a humble and sincere perspective on the changes that occur around ecology every day. She loves nature and therefore her care for it, but her real care, not allowing politics to break the reality of environmental care. Based on her extensive experience as a director of non-profit organizations and leader of social enterprises. Focused on the direct impact of ecological narratives on communities. Speaks to the human consequences and business impact that are often overlooked in official reporting, demanding attention to the real lives affected.