The battle for single-use plastic is brewing as 17 states try to block California's law

Attorneys general in seventeen states are suing California over its landmark single-use plastic law, which went into effect on June 1.

The lawsuit comes after a coalition of environmental groups sued the state over the same law this month, arguing the new laws create loopholes so large they invalidate the law.

The states are led by Nebraska Atty. Gen. Mike Hilgers, and plaintiffs include the National Assn. For Dealers-Distributors. The coalition is asking the court to block the law's immediate effect.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that has a negative impact on the rest of the country,” Hilgers said in a news release. “If California is left unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities.”

Other states in the union are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for Eastern California in Sacramento on Monday.

State Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022. It was considered a landmark law because it requires plastic and packaging companies to use single-use plastics and ensure by 2032 that all food packaging can be recycled or shipped.

It accumulates plastic waste it's surprising water and seassickening and threatening marine life human health.

The aim was not only to reduce single-use plastic, but also to put the burden and costs of dealing with it on producers and packaging manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It should have encouraged companies to consider the end of their products and encouraged innovation in material re-design.

In accordance with analyzing one situation2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic parts sold, offered for sale or distributed by 2023 in California.

The plastic law that is used the most is what is known as the law of producer responsibility. It emphasizes the concept of a “circular economy” where the producer of an item must consider its fate – ensure that it can be reused or recycled, or at least reduced.

In California, all manufacturers of single-use packaging and plastic food items (plates, knives, spoons, etc.) join an independent entity known as a producer organization. Only one such organization is allowed in California: the Circular Action Alliance.

States and National Assn. Wholesale-Distributors says the plastic law discriminates against businesses that sell to the state in two ways: by forcing them to change or change their plastic packaging and by giving the state authority to the cooperative, empowering a private entity to regulate and impose taxes and fees on businesses that sell in California.

“California does not have the right to dictate the policies of the rest of the state,” said Eric Hoplin, president and chief executive officer of the trade group, in a statement. “Because this Act extends the reach of California laws far beyond its borders and brings its conduct entirely out of touch with California, the Act violates the principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

In addition, attorneys general say the law stifles their freedom of speech by forcing companies to join and sponsor corporate speech they may disagree with.

Hoplin and his organization filed a similar lawsuit in Oregon in February. Oregon has a single-use plastic law. A federal judge has blocked implementation of that law. The trial begins on July 13.

Heidi Sanborn, executive director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates for producer responsibility and the circular economy, said in May that both SB 54 and the Oregon law were public policies “passed by legislatures and implemented with federal oversight.”

He said the rules create clear and consistent rules so all producers contribute appropriately to the costs of recycling and waste management.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are also unhappy.

On June 2, Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Californians Against Waste Foundation filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court.

They suspect that the final rules of the law, which were written and approved by the government's waste disposal agency, include exclusions from large categories of plastic packaging that companies can use forever. In addition, they say the regulations also allow polluting recycling technologies, such as chemical recycling, that were prohibited by the law as originally written.

“While SB 54 remains a huge success as a state law to reduce single-use plastic, some of the final regulations implementing this law undermine the legislative intent,” said Christy Leavitt, Oceana's executive director of the campaign, in a statement.