The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, is established to promote beverage container recycling. The act defines beverage container to mean the individual, separate bottle, can, jar, carton, or other receptacle, however denominated, in which a beverage is sold, and that is constructed of metal, glass, or plastic, or other material, or any combination of these materials, but does not include cups or other similar open or loosely sealed receptacles. A violation of the act is a crime.

Existing law authorizes the department, subject to the availability of funds, to pay a quality incentive payment of up to $180 per ton to qualified recyclers for thermoform plastic containers diverted from curbside recycling programs, as provided.

This bill would delete that authorization. The bill would instead require, on and after January 1, 2027, if a beverage is subject to the act and offered for sale in a plastic beverage container with a plastic cap, beverage manufacturers to ensure that the container to have has a cap that is tethered to the container that prevents the separation of the cap from the container when the cap is removed from the container by the consumer. The bill would exempt, until January 1, 2028, any type of beverage container with a recycling rate of better than 70% for calendar years 2022 and 2023, as determined by the department, from compliance with that requirement. The bill would exempt beverage containers with a capacity of 2 liters or more and beverage containers that contain beer or other malt beverages, wine or distilled spirits, or 100% fruit juice from the scope of the bill. The bill would also exempt a refillable plastic beverage container and a beverage manufacturer that sold or transferred 16,000,000 or fewer plastic beverage containers, as provided, during the previous calendar year from the scope of the bill.

By creating a new requirement under the act, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, is established to promote beverage container recycling. The act defines beverage container to mean the individual, separate bottle, can, jar, carton, or other receptacle, however denominated, in which a beverage is sold, and that is constructed of metal, glass, or plastic, or other material, or any combination of these materials, but does not include cups or other similar open or loosely sealed receptacles. A violation of the act is a crime.

Existing law authorizes the department, subject to the availability of funds, to pay a quality incentive payment of up to $180 per ton to qualified recyclers for thermoform plastic containers diverted from curbside recycling programs, as provided.

This bill would delete that authorization. The bill would instead require, on and after January 1, 2027, beverage containers, as defined, intended for sale in this state, if a beverage is subject to the act and offered for sale in a plastic beverage container with a plastic cap, the container to have a cap that is tethered to the container that prevents the separation of the cap from the container when the cap is removed from the container by the consumer. The bill would exempt, until January 1, 2028, any type of beverage container with a recycling rate of better than 70% for calendar years 2022 and 2023, as determined by the department, from compliance with that requirement. The bill would exempt beverage containers with a capacity of 3 2 liters or more and beverage containers that contain beer or other malt beverages, wine or distilled spirits, or 100% fruit juice from the scope of the bill.

By creating a new requirement under the act, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, is established to promote beverage container recycling. The act defines beverage container to mean the individual, separate bottle, can, jar, carton, or other receptacle, however denominated, in which a beverage is sold, and that is constructed of metal, glass, or plastic, or other material, or any combination of these materials, but does not include cups or other similar open or loosely sealed receptacles. A violation of the act is a crime.

Existing law authorizes the department, subject to the availability of funds, to pay a quality incentive payment of up to $180 per ton to qualified recyclers for thermoform plastic containers diverted from curbside recycling programs, as provided.

This bill would delete that authorization. The bill would instead require, on and after January 1, 2027, beverage containers, as defined, intended for sale in this state, to have a cap that is tethered to the container that prevents the separation of the cap from the container when the cap is removed from the container by the consumer. The bill would exempt, until January 1, 2028, any type of beverage container with a recycling rate of better than 70% for calendar years 2022 and 2023, as determined by the department, from compliance with that requirement. The bill would exempt beverage containers with a capacity of 3 liters or more from the scope of the bill.

By creating a new requirement under the act, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 45 (Padilla) - Recycling: beverage containers: tethered plastic caps

Bill Summary:

This bill would require beverage manufacturers to ensure that certain plastic beverage containers offered for sale in California have a tethered cap, and would remove the quality incentive payment (QIP) for curbside recycling, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimates one-time costs of $1.9 spread over 2026-27 and 2027-28 and ongoing costs of roughly $1 million annually thereafter (Beverage Container Recycling Fund [BCRF]) for 6 positions to implement and ensure compliance for beverage manufacturers selling containers with tethered caps in California—including reviewing products, providing technical assistance to beverage manufacturers to comply with tethering requirements, and educating recyclers and processors about accepting and handling containers with tethered caps—and for, in fiscal year 2027-28 only, one limited-term position to address civil penalties assessed for non-compliance with beverage container tethering requirements.
• To the extent the state successfully assesses civil penalties against beverage manufacturers in violation of the provisions of this bill, potential increases in state revenues of an unknown amount (BCRF).

Background:

In 2021, global plastics production was estimated at 390.7 million metric tons: only nine percent of all plastic ever made has been recycled, according to a United Nations Environment Programme report. Plastics production and pollution have the potential to negatively impact human health, the environment, and ecosystems.

Plastic cap pollution. Despite their relatively minor volume, plastic caps punch above their weight in terms of litter pollution. In its annual ocean pollution report, the ocean conservancy cites bottle caps as the fourth most collected item of waste worldwide in 2023. Recent surveys of beach litter estimate that 139 billion bottle caps were found on US beaches in a given year, adding up to 218,639 tons of plastic pollution. Bottle caps were only second to cigarettes in the number of units of litter found on US beaches. Bottle caps have also held the position as the third most collected item on California Coastal Commission’s Cleanup Day since 1988. The consensus is clear: bottle caps are a major source of ocean litter.

Notably, caps seem to pose a higher risk of becoming litter than bottles: data from California’s Annual Beach Clean-up indicates that plastic beverage container caps are found in beach litter at roughly twice the rate of plastic beverage containers.

Tethered caps in Europe. To address the issue of plastic caps as litter, the EU announced a directive in 2018 (Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2019/904) to phase out loose plastic bottle caps. The directive specifies that single-use beverage containers of up to 3L in size “may be placed on the market only if the caps and lids remain attached to the containers during the products’ intended use stage.” As of July 2024, this Directive has entered into force and is legally mandated across the EU.

California’s Beverage Container Recycling Program (BCRP)

The BCRP was established over 30 years ago with the enactment of Chapter 1290, Statutes of 1986 (AB 2020, Margolin). The purpose of the program is to be a self–funded program that encourages consumers to recycle certain beverage containers. The program accomplishes this goal by first requiring consumers to pay a deposit for each eligible container purchased. Then the program guarantees consumers repayment of that deposit—the California Redemption Value, or “CRV”—for each eligible container returned to a certified recycler. Statute includes two main goals for the program: (1) reducing litter and (2) achieving a recycling rate of 80 percent for eligible containers.

Eligible beverage containers. Only certain beverage containers are part of the CRV program. Whether a particular container is part of the program depends on the material, size, and content of the container. Most containers made from glass, plastic, aluminum, and bimetal (consisting of one or more metals, including steel usually) are eligible, though there are exceptions. For example, containers for wine, spirits, milk, and soy drinks are not eligible for CRV, regardless of the container type. Container types that are not included in the CRV program are most cartons, such as milk cartons, and pouches made from multiple materials. Any container that holds 64 ounces or more is also not eligible.

Program expenditures. Not all CRV–eligible containers are recycled, and therefore the CRV deposit paid when a consumer purchased these containers is never redeemed. This means that distributors pay more CRV into the BCRF than is claimed by consumers. For example, for the past few years the BCRF has received roughly $1.5 billion in deposits, but only about $1.1 billion—or roughly 75 percent—was spent on redemption payments. State law requires that much of the unredeemed CRV be spent on specified recycling–related programs, such as QIP.

Quality Incentive Payments (QIP). QIP is designed to reduce contamination from thermoforms (which include bottles, lids, and many other items like clamshells and cartons) plastics like PP in bales of PET beverage containers. To incentivize cleaner bales of beverage container PET, CalRecycle is authorized to pay operators who take bottles collected from curbside up to $180/ton for PET bottle bales that have less than 2% thermoforms.

Proposed Law:

This bill would require certain plastic beverage containers offered for sale in California to have a tethered cap, and would remove the QIP for curbside recycling. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Require beverage manufacturers to ensure that beverage containers offered for sale in the state have a tethered cap by January 1, 2027, as specified.
   1. Exempt the following from this requirement:
      1. Until January 1, 2028, any type of beverage container with a recycling rate of better than 70% for calendar years 2022 and 2023.
      2. Beverage containers with a capacity of 3 liters or more from the scope of the bill.
      3. Beer and other malt beverages.
      4. Wine and distilled spirits.
      5. 100% fruit juice.
      6. Refillable plastic beverage containers.
      7. Beverage manufacturers that can demonstrate that the beverage manufacturer sold or transferred 16,000,000 or fewer plastic beverage containers to a distributor, dealer, or consumer located in the state during the previous calendar year.
2. Remove the authorization for CalRecycle to pay a QIP to recyclers of thermoform plastic containers.

Related Legislation:

AB 2779 (Stone, 2018) would have required that beverage containers offered for sale have a cap that is attached to the container on and after an unspecified date. The bill died on the inactive file.

SB 1013 (Atkins, Chapter 610, Statutes of 2022) adds wine and distilled spirits to the Bottle Bill) and, commencing January 1, 2025, authorizes dealers in unserved convenience zones to join a dealer cooperative to meet their redemption responsibilities.

AB 793 (Ting, Chapter 115, Statutes of 2020) establishes minimum postconsumer recycled content standards for plastic beverage containers subject to the BCRP.

AB 1628 (McKinnor, 2023) would have prohibited, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine from being sold or offered for sale in the state for residential or state use unless the washing machine contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers (µm). This measure was vetoed by the Governor.

Staff Comments:

Opponents of SB 45 argue that tethering caps will require beverage manufacturers to switch out their manufacturing equipment –a costly process that could be passed along to consumers and increase the cost of beverages on the shelf. The state is a beverage consumer and does purchase a number of bottled beverages through various departments and programs on an ongoing basis. For example, in its analysis of AB 2648 (Bennett, 2024), which would have prohibited state agencies from purchasing single-use plastic bottles, the Assembly Appropriations Committee found that several state agencies procure beverages in packaging potentially affected by this bill, including the Department of General Services, Department of Rehabilitation, Department of State Hospitals, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State Parks, and higher education systems of UC and CSU. To the extent that this bill impacts beverage consumers, it is within the realm of possibility that there could be some associated state costs.

On the other hand, a reduction in litter could potentially lead to some savings. For example, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program economic study published in 2014 examined the costs of marine debris to Californians. The study focused on Orange County and found that residents lose millions of dollars each year avoiding littered local beaches ---choosing instead to drive further to cleaner beaches. In one scenario, the study found that reducing marine debris by just 25% would save Orange County residents $32 million in June-August; eliminating marine debris entirely would save an estimated $148 million in 2014. A 2013 report produced for the Natural Resources Defense Council by Keir Associates estimated that Californians are shouldering $428 million annually to try to prevent litter from becoming marine debris that damages the environment, tourism, and other economic activities. To the extent that this bill results in a reduction in litter anywhere in the state, certain state departments could be impacted. For example, some state parks and beaches could collect additional revenue from day passes and camping reservations, as well as potentially realize savings from cleaning up less litter.

Some impacts of implementing SB 45 remain to be seen and any fiscal impact beyond CalRecycle’s direct implementation of the bill’s provisions still seem fairly speculative. Pinning down specific outcomes and any associated costs or savings with much precision presents a real challenge at this time. Ultimately, any fiscal impact on the state or consumers will depend on actual costs and market responses.

Budget actions related to QIPs. In addition to requiring tethering, SB 45 would also remove QIPs for curbside recyclers. QIPs are intended to enhance the quality of clean PET bales by incentivizing curbside operators to remove contamination from thermoforms (including caps). However, the contamination rate of 2% required to be eligible for the $180/ton subsidy is a challenging requirement, and the program did not have many takers when it first started. In the 2021-22 fiscal year, only 14 participants applied for and received QIPs, using only $1.06 million of the $10 million available for the program. According to CalRecycle, data provided to Plastics Recycling Update, these facilities produced only 5,900 short tons of PET bottle bales that qualified for QIP.

While the Budget Act of 2022 allocated $40 million to QIPs, the Budget Act of 2023, effective June 27, 2023, reverted these funds back to the Beverage Container Recycling Fund and reallocated them to the Plastic Market Development Payment Program. SB 45 takes the next step in affirming that the Legislature does not think that QIPs are the best use for money generated from the bottle bill CRV.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 45 (Padilla) - Recycling: beverage containers: tethered plastic caps

Bill Summary:

This bill would require beverage manufacturers to ensure that certain plastic beverage containers offered for sale in California have a tethered cap, and would remove the quality incentive payment (QIP) for curbside recycling, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimates ongoing costs of roughly $2 million annually (Beverage Container Recycling Fund [BCRF]) for 6-7 positions to implement and ensure compliance for beverage manufacturers selling containers with tethered caps in California—including reviewing products, providing technical assistance to beverage manufacturers to comply with tethering requirements, and educating recyclers and processors about accepting and handling containers with tethered caps—and address civil penalties assessed for non-compliance with beverage container tethering requirements.
• To the extent the state successfully brings civil action against beverage manufacturers in violation of the provisions of this bill, potential increases in state revenues of an unknown amount due to the collection of civil penalties.

Background:

In 2021, global plastics production was estimated at 390.7 million metric tons: only nine percent of all plastic ever made has been recycled, according to a United Nations Environment Programme report. Plastics production and pollution have the potential to negatively impact human health, the environment, and ecosystems.

Plastic cap pollution. Despite their relatively minor volume, plastic caps punch above their weight in terms of litter pollution. In its annual ocean pollution report, the ocean conservancy cites bottle caps as the fourth most collected item of waste worldwide in 2023. Recent surveys of beach litter estimate that 139 billion bottle caps were found on US beaches in a given year, adding up to 218,639 tons of plastic pollution. Bottle caps were only second to cigarettes in the number of units of litter found on US beaches. Bottle caps have also held the position as the third most collected item on California Coastal Commission’s Cleanup Day since 1988. The consensus is clear: bottle caps are a major source of ocean litter.

Notably, caps seem to pose a higher risk of becoming litter than bottles: data from California’s Annual Beach Clean-up indicates that plastic beverage container caps are found in beach litter at roughly twice the rate of plastic beverage containers.

Tethered caps in Europe. To address the issue of plastic caps as litter, the EU announced a directive in 2018 (Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2019/904) to phase out loose plastic bottle caps. The directive specifies that single-use beverage containers of up to 3L in size “may be placed on the market only if the caps and lids remain attached to the containers during the products’ intended use stage.” As of July 2024, this Directive has entered into force and is legally mandated across the EU.

California’s Beverage Container Recycling Program (BCRP)

The BCRP was established over 30 years ago with the enactment of Chapter 1290, Statutes of 1986 (AB 2020, Margolin). The purpose of the program is to be a self–funded program that encourages consumers to recycle certain beverage containers. The program accomplishes this goal by first requiring consumers to pay a deposit for each eligible container purchased. Then the program guarantees consumers repayment of that deposit—the California Redemption Value, or “CRV”—for each eligible container returned to a certified recycler. Statute includes two main goals for the program: (1) reducing litter and (2) achieving a recycling rate of 80 percent for eligible containers.

Eligible beverage containers. Only certain beverage containers are part of the CRV program. Whether a particular container is part of the program depends on the material, size, and content of the container. Most containers made from glass, plastic, aluminum, and bimetal (consisting of one or more metals, including steel usually) are eligible, though there are exceptions. For example, containers for wine, spirits, milk, and soy drinks are not eligible for CRV, regardless of the container type. Container types that are not included in the CRV program are most cartons, such as milk cartons, and pouches made from multiple materials. Any container that holds 64 ounces or more is also not eligible.

Program expenditures. Not all CRV–eligible containers are recycled, and therefore the CRV deposit paid when a consumer purchased these containers is never redeemed. This means that distributors pay more CRV into the BCRF than is claimed by consumers. For example, for the past few years the BCRF has received roughly $1.5 billion in deposits, but only about $1.1 billion—or roughly 75 percent—was spent on redemption payments. State law requires that much of the unredeemed CRV be spent on specified recycling–related programs, such as QIP.

Quality Incentive Payments (QIP). QIP is designed to reduce contamination from thermoforms (which include bottles, lids, and many other items like clamshells and cartons) plastics like PP in bales of PET beverage containers. To incentivize cleaner bales of beverage container PET, CalRecycle is authorized to pay operators who take bottles collected from curbside up to $180/ton for PET bottle bales that have less than 2% thermoforms.

Proposed Law:

This bill would require certain plastic beverage containers offered for sale in California to have a tethered cap, and would remove the QIP for curbside recycling. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Require beverage manufacturers to ensure that beverage containers offered for sale in the state have a tethered cap by January 1, 2027, as specified.
   1. Exempt the following from this requirement:
      1. Until January 1, 2028, any type of beverage container with a recycling rate of better than 70% for calendar years 2022 and 2023.
      2. Beverage containers with a capacity of 3 liters or more from the scope of the bill.
      3. Beer and other malt beverages.
      4. Wine and distilled spirits.
      5. 100% fruit juice.
      6. Refillable plastic beverage containers.
      7. Beverage manufacturers that can demonstrate that the beverage manufacturer sold or transferred 16,000,000 or fewer plastic beverage containers to a distributor, dealer, or consumer located in the state during the previous calendar year.
2. Remove the authorization for CalRecycle to pay a QIP to recyclers of thermoform plastic containers.

Related Legislation:

AB 2779 (Stone, 2018) would have required that beverage containers offered for sale have a cap that is attached to the container on and after an unspecified date. The bill died on the inactive file.

SB 1013 (Atkins, Chapter 610, Statutes of 2022) adds wine and distilled spirits to the Bottle Bill) and, commencing January 1, 2025, authorizes dealers in unserved convenience zones to join a dealer cooperative to meet their redemption responsibilities.

AB 793 (Ting, Chapter 115, Statutes of 2020) establishes minimum postconsumer recycled content standards for plastic beverage containers subject to the BCRP.

AB 1628 (McKinnor, 2023) would have prohibited, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine from being sold or offered for sale in the state for residential or state use unless the washing machine contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers (µm). This measure was vetoed by the Governor.

Staff Comments:

Opponents of SB 45 argue that tethering caps will require beverage manufacturers to switch out their manufacturing equipment –a costly process that could be passed along to consumers and increase the cost of beverages on the shelf. The state is a beverage consumer and does purchase a number of bottled beverages through various departments and programs on an ongoing basis. For example, in its analysis of AB 2648 (Bennett, 2024), which would have prohibited state agencies from purchasing single-use plastic bottles, the Assembly Appropriations Committee found that several state agencies procure beverages in packaging potentially affected by this bill, including the Department of General Services, Department of Rehabilitation, Department of State Hospitals, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State Parks, and higher education systems of UC and CSU. To the extent that this bill impacts beverage consumers, it is within the realm of possibility that there could be some associated state costs.

On the other hand, a reduction in litter could potentially lead to some savings. For example, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program economic study published in 2014 examined the costs of marine debris to Californians. The study focused on Orange County and found that residents lose millions of dollars each year avoiding littered local beaches ---choosing instead to drive further to cleaner beaches. In one scenario, the study found that reducing marine debris by just 25% would save Orange County residents $32 million in June-August; eliminating marine debris entirely would save an estimated $148 million in 2014. A 2013 report produced for the Natural Resources Defense Council by Keir Associates estimated that Californians are shouldering $428 million annually to try to prevent litter from becoming marine debris that damages the environment, tourism, and other economic activities. To the extent that this bill results in a reduction in litter anywhere in the state, certain state departments could be impacted. For example, some state parks and beaches could collect additional revenue from day passes and camping reservations, as well as potentially realize savings from cleaning up less litter.

Some impacts of implementing SB 45 remain to be seen and any fiscal impact beyond CalRecycle’s direct implementation of the bill’s provisions still seem fairly speculative. Pinning down specific outcomes and any associated costs or savings with much precision presents a real challenge at this time. Ultimately, any fiscal impact on the state or consumers will depend on actual costs and market responses.

Budget actions related to QIPs. In addition to requiring tethering, SB 45 would also remove QIPs for curbside recyclers. QIPs are intended to enhance the quality of clean PET bales by incentivizing curbside operators to remove contamination from thermoforms (including caps). However, the contamination rate of 2% required to be eligible for the $180/ton subsidy is a challenging requirement, and the program did not have many takers when it first started. In the 2021-22 fiscal year, only 14 participants applied for and received QIPs, using only $1.06 million of the $10 million available for the program. According to CalRecycle, data provided to Plastics Recycling Update, these facilities produced only 5,900 short tons of PET bottle bales that qualified for QIP.

While the Budget Act of 2022 allocated $40 million to QIPs, the Budget Act of 2023, effective June 27, 2023, reverted these funds back to the Beverage Container Recycling Fund and reallocated them to the Plastic Market Development Payment Program. SB 45 takes the next step in affirming that the Legislature does not think that QIPs are the best use for money generated from the bottle bill CRV.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Blakespear, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 45

SUBJECT: Recycling: beverage containers: tethered plastic caps

DIGEST: This bill requires that beverage containers offered for sale in California have a tethered cap by January 1, 2027, and removes the quality incentive payment for curbside recycling.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Bottle Bill (PRC § §14500 et seq.), which:
   1. Requires beverage containers, as defined, sold in-state to have a California redemption value (CRV) of 5 cents for containers that hold fewer than 24 ounces and 10 cents for containers that hold 24 ounces or more. Requires beverage distributors to pay a redemption payment to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for every beverage container sold in the state.
   2. Provides that these funds are continuously appropriated to CalRecycle for, among other things, the payment of refund values and processing payments.
   3. Requires CalRecycle to establish a processing payment for a beverage container covered under the Bottle Bill that has a scrap value less than the cost of recycling, to be determined as specified, that is at least equal to the difference between the scrap value of the material and the sum of the cost of recycling and a reasonable financial return. Establishes a processing fee, paid by beverage manufacturers. Specifies reductions in the fee, known as “offsets,” based on the recycling rate of the material and caps the maximum processing fee at 65% of the processing payment.
   4. Defines “beverage” as:
      1. Beer and other malt beverages;
      2. Wine and distilled spirit coolers;
      3. Carbonated water;
      4. Noncarbonated water;
      5. Carbonated soft drinks;
      6. Noncarbonated soft drinks and sports drinks;
      7. Noncarbonated fruit juice drinks that contain any percentage of fruit juice;
      8. Coffee and tea drinks;
      9. Carbonated fruit drinks; and,
      10. Vegetable juice in beverage containers of 16 ounces or less.
   5. Specifies that “beverage” does not include:
      1. Any product sold in a container that is not aluminum, glass, plastic, or bimetal, as specified;
      2. Milk, medical food, and infant formula; and,
      3. 100% fruit juice sold in containers that are 46 ounces or more in volume.
   6. Defines “beverage container” as the individual, separate bottle, can, jar, carton, or other receptacle in which a beverage is sold, and which is constructed of metal, glass, plastic, or any other material, or any combination of these materials. Specifies that “beverage container” does not include cups or other similar open or loosely sealed receptacles.
   7. Requires plastic beverage containers subject to the Bottle Bill to contain the following percentages of postconsumer recycled plastic annually:
      1. From January 1, 2022 until December 31, 2024, no less than 15%;
      2. From January 1, 2025 until December 31, 2029, no less than 25%; and,
      3. On and after January 1, 2030, no less than 50%. (PRC § 14547)
2. Establishes quality incentive payments of up to $180/ton of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic from curbside recycling meeting certain criteria. Specifies that the Quality Incentive Payment (QIP) is intended to improve the quality and marketability of empty beverage containers collected for recycling in the state by curbside recycling programs and to divert thermoforms from landfills. (PRC §14548)
3. Defines thermoform plastic containers as a plastic container formed from sheets of extruded resin and used to package items such as fresh produce, baked goods, nuts, deli items, and nonbottle beverages, and includes products such as lids, clamshells, egg cartons, or similar rigid non-bottle packaging. (PRC §14548)

This bill:

1. Requires that beverage containers offered for sale in the State have a tethered cap by January 1, 2027.
   1. The bill would exempt:
      1. Until January 1, 2028, any type of beverage container with a recycling rate of better than 70% for calendar years 2022 and 2023.
      2. Beverage containers with a capacity of 3 liters or more from the scope of the bill.
      3. Beer and other malt beverages.
      4. Wine and distilled spirits.
      5. 100% fruit juice.
2. Removes the authorization for CalRecycle to pay a quality incentive payment (QIP) to recyclers of thermoform plastic containers.

Background

1. The Problem with Plastic. In 2021, global plastics production was estimated at 390.7 million metric tons: only nine percent of all plastic ever made has been recycled, according to a United Nations Environment Programme report. Plastics production and pollution have the potential to negatively impact human health, the environment, and ecosystems.

Plastics burdened communities. A new report by the UCLA Luskin Center focuses on creating a framework to evaluate which communities are overly burdened by plastic, considering plastic extraction, manufacturing, and pollution and waste.^[1] The report finds that plastic manufacturing emits air pollutants, including volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) emissions.^[2] Both air pollutants are linked to health risks including increased cancer risk.^[3] The report further notes that plastic can also adversely impact communities when crude oil is extracted to make plastic, when plastic substrate leaches from landfills, and when humans are exposed to microplastics that occur during the useable life of the plastic or when the plastic becomes litter in the environment.

Plastics as a climate pollutant. Plastic is also a potent contributor to climate change.  Ninety-nine percent of plastic is made from fossil fuels. The plastic industry is the fastest-growing source of industrial greenhouse gases in the world: plastic generates 4% of total global greenhouse emissions but could be responsible for as much as 19% of global greenhouse emissions by 2040, under a business-as-usual scenario (according to the United Nations Development Programme) The plastic industry’s greenhouse gas emissions are expected to surpass those of coal-fired power in the United States by 2030^[4]. 

Plastics as litter. Each year, roughly 11 million tons of plastic enter the ocean, which has diverse and serious impacts on marine wildlife. If the litter is small, it may be ingested by animals, leading to plasticosis—where the rough edges of plastic cause internal injuries and scarring that reduces the ability of animals to break down nutrients^[5]. Seabirds are especially vulnerable to plastic pollution; a recent study found plastic in 90 percent of seabirds.^[6] Animals can also become entangled in plastic such as plastic bags or rings: marine mammals, birds, and turtles are commonly affected by entanglement, but terrestrial animals also can suffer entanglement or suffocate from ingesting plastic^[7][8]

Microplastics. Plastics also have concerning impacts on the environment and human health when they degrade into microplastics. Microplastics are defined as small plastic particles with a diameter of less than 5mm. Because microplastics are so small, they can travel in water, air, and the bodies of living organisms. As a result, microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are found in some of the most remote areas on earth, including arctic sea ice, the deep ocean, mountain peaks in national parks, and human embryos. Of particular concern for living organisms, microplastic’s small size allows them to bioaccumulate up the food chain. Plastics in water, for instance, can be consumed by fish and shellfish and become part of their tissue. The fish and shellfish can in turn be eaten by humans or other animals: with each step up the food web, the concentration of microplastics accumulates.

Microplastics can also act as vectors for pollutants such as pesticides and heavy metals, effectively “piggybacking” these harmful pollutants wherever the microplastics go, including into the living tissues of plants, animals, and humans. Current studies have found microplastics in human lungs, brains, and placentas. The effect of these microplastics on human health is still being studied, but numerous studies have shown that microplastics increase the risk of cancer and disrupt hormone pathways in lab rats.

1. Bottle Bill Background. The Beverage Container Recycling Program, or bottle bill was established through legislation in 1986 (AB 2020 Margolin, Chapter 1290, Statutes of 1986) with the joint goals of reducing litter and achieving an 80% recycling rate for all beverage containers in the program. While the program does not encompass all containers, it does encompass most beverage containers made from glass, plastic, aluminum, and bimetal (consisting of one or more metals). Containers for milk, fruit juices over 46 ounces, vegetable juice over 16 ounces, and soy drinks are not part of the program. Wine and distilled spirits were added to the bottle bill recently with the passage of SB 1013 (Atkins, 2022).

The bottle bill operates by adding a 5-25 cent CRV payment to beverage containers in the program. Beverage distributors pay CRV on all new beverage containers they sell in California into the bottle bill fund (BCRF). Distributors then pass the cost of the CRV on to retailers, who in turn pass that 5-25 cents per bottle on to consumers at checkout. Individuals and businesses are incentivized to return bottles to recycling centers where they can redeem the value of the CRV. Once a consumer is ready to dispose of a bottle, they can return bottles to a certified recycling center and redeem their CRV, or consumers can put their bottles in residential curbside recycling collection, wherein the curbside programs, not consumers, keep the CRV on these containers.

1. Recyclers and processors. Recycling centers accept bottles and cans and redeem CRV to consumers. They do not make money off that CRV—instead, their profit comes from selling bottles and cans for scrap value, which is supplemented by CalRecycle when the scrap value doesn’t cover the cost of recycling. Once material has been collected at a recycling center, it must be processed. Processors, sort, clean, and process the containers into materials ready to be recycled, such as glass cullet or plastic flake, which they are able to sell to manufacturers for use in new beverage containers or other types of products. Certified processors can be eligible for supplemental funding from CalRecycle including Plastic Market Development (PMD) Payments, which are awarded by CalRecycle to plastic processors and plastic product manufacturers for empty plastic beverage containers that are processed and recycled into new material in California.

Recycling Bottles and Caps. If caps are attached to bottles, then they may get recycled: however, loose plastic caps are often too small for recycling equipment to separate out and recycle with other hard plastics—meaning that when loose, caps go into landfills or the environment.^[9]

Bottle caps are also less recyclable than bottles because of the material they are made from. Bottle caps are generally made from polypropylene (PP), or high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Beverage bottles are generally made primarily from polyethylene terephthalate (PET). During recycling, the bottles are chopped into small pieces and sorted in a sink-float tank. Within the sink-float tank, the PP and HDPE will float, and the PET will sink.

Once separated, the materials can then be cleaned and dried. PET is highly recyclable, and the PET flake can be baled and sent out for further processing depending on its intended end market. It may become a more highly refined PET pellet for new bottles or extruded into PET sheets for clamshells, trays, and cups. Recycled PET is also spun into fiber for carpet, clothing, fiber fill, or other materials^[10]. In contrast to PET, PP is not as easily recycled into new products: PP is sensitive to high heat, so it often loses significant chemical integrity, strength, and flexibility during the extrusion process of mechanical recycling.^[11]

The difference in recyclability impacts the recycling rate: the recycling rate for PET is 15%, HDPE is 10%, while PP’s recycling rate is just 3%. This lower grade recyclability and recycling rate is also reflected in the scrap value of these materials: in November 2024, the scrap value for PET plastic was $281.36/ ton, while PP was a mere $2.01/ ton.^[12]

1. What is a QIP? The Quality Incentive Payment (QIP) is designed to reduce contamination from thermoforms (which include bottles, lids, and many other items like clamshells and cartons) plastics like PP in bales of PET beverage containers. To incentivize cleaner bales of beverage container PET, CalRecycle is authorized to pay operators who take bottles collected from curbside up to $180/ton for PET bottle bales that have less than 2% thermoforms.
2. Plastic cap pollution. Despite their relatively minor volume, plastic caps punch above their weight in terms of litter pollution. In its annual ocean pollution report, the ocean conservancy cites bottle caps as the fourth most collected item of waste worldwide in 2023.^[13] Recent surveys of beach litter estimate that 139 billion bottle caps were found on US beaches in a given year, adding up to 218,639 tons of plastic pollution. Bottle caps were only second to cigarettes in the number of units of litter found on US beaches. Bottle caps have also held the position as the third most collected item on California Coastal Commission’s Cleanup Day since 1988. The consensus is clear: bottle caps are a major source of ocean litter.

Notably, caps seem to pose a higher risk of becoming litter than bottles: data from California’s Annual Beach Clean-up indicates that plastic beverage container caps are found in beach litter at roughly twice the rate of plastic beverage containers.

1. Tethered caps in Europe. To address the issue of plastic caps as litter, the EU announced a directive in 2018 (Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2019/904)^[14] to phase out loose plastic bottle caps. The directive specifies that single-use beverage containers of up to 3L in size “may be placed on the market only if the caps and lids remain attached to the containers during the products’ intended use stage.” As of July 2024, this Directive has entered into force and is legally mandated across the EU.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author:

• “Plastic bottle caps are one of the most ubiquitous and deadly sources of plastic pollution while at the same time being substantially preventable.
  • California generated more than 15 billion plastic beverage containers last year. And while 70 percent of PET plastic containers were recycled, the vast majority of plastic beverage container caps were not.
  • The best available data from California recyclers suggests that less than 40% of plastic beverage container caps generated are even collected for recycling, and because of their size and varying material types, only a fraction of collected plastic caps are ultimately recycled into new products.
  • Data for the last decade from California’s Annual Beach Clean-up indicates that plastic beverage container caps are found in beach litter at roughly twice the rate of associated plastic beverage containers—plastic beverage caps have consistently been found to be among the top 5 most littered items.
  • Plastic caps are known to imperil both terrestrial and marine wildlife, which often mistake the brightly-colored caps for food, leading to fatal ingestion and the bioaccumulation of toxins.
  • Detached caps frequently escape recycling machinery at both MRFs and Reclaimers due to their small size, resulting in ‘residuals’ that get disposed of due to being too difficult to recover and/or segregate.
  • We can do better.”

1. Tethering caps: more plastic, less litter? The tethers that hold the caps on to bottles are made of plastic. A study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the European soft drinks industry (UNESDA) and the European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW), found that tethering could consume between 50,000 and 200,000 more tons of plastic annually. This includes not only the plastic material for the tether but also the plastic necessary to thicken the bottle cap or bottle to allow the cap to twist off the bottle while remaining attached by the tether. Opponents of tethering caps note that this enhanced thickness to bottles and caps moves the industry away from the efforts they have taken to source reduce plastic.

As discussed above, plastic has impacts on the environment and human health at every stage of its life, not just when it becomes litter. In the case of bottle caps, the PwC analyses estimated that switching to tethering in the EU could generate up to 381 million more kilograms of CO₂ equivalent. The impacts of climate change, natural resource extraction, and industrial activity are felt disproportionately by low-income and disadvantaged communities.

The increased production of plastic must be weighed against the potential benefits of reducing litter and its associated impacts on wildlife and humans, particularly as a source of microplastics. Plastic caps are consistently among the top three most commonly found pollutants in state and national marine pollution surveys. At the same time, plastic caps constitute only a small fraction of the total plastic produced for use in California.

Given these factors, it is worth considering that targeting caps to reduce litter will likely have a disproportionally large impact on reducing litter, while targeting other products (or shifting plastic reduction policy) may be a more necessary approach to meaningfully reduce plastic production.

1. Caps off for recycling: is education better than tethers? Instead of tethering caps to bottles, could consumers simply be educated to put the caps back on the bottles before putting them in the recycle bin? If so, this would accomplish the goal of preventing caps from becoming litter without requiring increased use of plastic for the tethers themselves.

Historically, some recyclers were unable to process bottles with the caps on. Consumers were advised to take caps off before recycling their bottles. Now, however, the vast majority of recycling facilities accept bottles with the caps. The Association of Plastic Recyclers encourages consumers to recycle bottles with the caps on^[15]. Can education shift consumer habits to meet the new recycling reality?

While education can be an important component of any waste or litter reduction campaign, it also puts the burden of personal responsibility on the consumers. Since there have been numerous anti-littering campaigns and laws in place in California since the 1950s to reduce litter, and since litter still exists in California, it is clear that education is not a foolproof solution.

In addition, bottle caps were littered twice as often as beverage containers they are associated with, indicating that tethering caps to bottles may be one effective way to reduce the number of caps that become litter. In California, bottles that are part of the bottle bill program have a recycling rate between 65-80%. This recycling rate is so high because of the 5-25 cent CRV attached to bottles that create an incentive to recycle the bottles: tethering caps to bottles extends this incentive to caps in the consumer’s perspective.

1. Costs to tethering, costs to consumers. Opponents of SB 45 argue that tethering caps will require beverage manufacturers to switch out their manufacturing equipment –a costly process that could be passed along to consumers and increase the cost of beverages on the shelf. This increased expense comes at a time when Californians are still paying more for groceries (a household pulse survey from 2024 found that Californians spend 27% more than the average American on groceries).

However, while consumers may be shouldering more of a cost to pay for tethering, SB 45 could also drive down some of the costs that Californians currently pay to clean up litter. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program economic study published in 2014 examined the costs of marine debris to Californians.^[16] The study focused on Orange County and found that residents lose millions of dollars each year avoiding littered local beaches ---choosing instead to drive further to cleaner beaches. In one scenario, the study found that reducing marine debris by just 25% would save Orange County residents $32 million in June-August; eliminating marine debris entirely would save an estimated $148 million in 2014. A 2013 report produced for the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) by Keir Associates estimates that Californians are shouldering $428 million annually to try to prevent litter from becoming marine debris that damages the environment, tourism, and other economic activities^[17].

1. QIP – is the carrot working? In addition to requiring tethering, SB 45 also removes QIPs for curbside recyclers. QIPs are intended to enhance the quality of clean PET bales by incentivizing curbside operators to remove contamination from thermoforms (including caps). However, the contamination rate of 2% required to be eligible for the $180/ton subsidy is a challenging requirement, and the program did not have many takers when it first started. In the 2021-22 fiscal year, only 14 participants applied for and received QIPs, using only $1.06 million of the $10 million available for the program. According to CalRecycle, data provided to Plastics Recycling Update, these facilities produced only 5,900 short tons of PET bottle bales that qualified for QIP.

While the Budget Act of 2022 allocated $40 million to QIPs, the Budget Act of 2023, effective June 27, 2023, reverted these funds back to the Beverage Container Recycling Fund and reallocated them to the Plastic Market Development Payment Program. SB 45 takes the next step in affirming that the Legislature does not think that QIPs are the best use for money generated from the bottle bill CRV.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2779 (Stone, 2018) would have required that beverage containers offered for sale have a cap that is attached to the container on and after an unspecified date. The bill died on the inactive file.

SB 1013 (Atkins, Chapter 610, Statutes of 2022) adds wine and distilled spirits to the Bottle Bill) and, commencing January 1, 2025, authorizes dealers in unserved convenience zones to join a dealer cooperative to meet their redemption responsibilities.

AB 793 (Ting, Chapter 115, Statutes of 2020) establishes minimum postconsumer recycled content standards for plastic beverage containers subject to the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act (Bottle Bill).

AB 1628 (McKinnor, 2023) would have prohibited, on and after January 1, 2029, a new washing machine from being sold or offered for sale in the state for residential or state use unless the washing machine contains a microfiber filtration system with a mesh size not greater than 100 micrometers (µm). This measure was vetoed by the Governor.

SOURCE:

Californians Against Waste

SUPPORT:

350 Sacramento
5 Gyres Institute
7th Generation Advisors
Activesgv
Algalita Marine Research and Education
Alliance of Mission-based Recyclers
Association of Plastic Recyclers
Atrium 916
Azul
Ban Single Use Plastic (SUP)
Ban Sup (single Use Plastic)
California Environmental Voters
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
California Product Stewardship Council
California Water Association
Capital City Recycling
Center for Environmental Health
Chico Bag
City of Sunnyvale
Clean Water Action
Climate Action Campaign
Community Environmental Council
County of Santa Barbara
Courage California
Cr&r Environmental Services
Cr&r, INC.
Defend Our Health
Defenders of Wildlife
Ecology Center
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Heal the Bay
Ivan's Recycling
League to Save Lake Tahoe
Marin Sanitary Service
Mings Resources East Bay
Ming’s Recycling
Napa Recycling & Waste Services
National Stewardship Action Council
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern California Recycling Association
Ocean Conservation Society
Oceanic Preservation Society (OPS)
Pacific Environment
Planning and Conservation League
Plastic Free Future
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Plastic Pollution Coalition/ the Last Plastic Straw
Product Stewardship Institute
Recology
Regen Monterey
Republic Services INC.
Resource Recovery Coalition of California
Resource Renewal Institute
Rethink Disposable
Rethink Waste
Sacramento Splash
San Francisco Baykeeper
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
Save Our Shores
Save the Albatross Coalition
Sierra Club
Sierra Club California
Simply Recycle
Socal 350 Climate Action
Social Compassion in Legislation
Stop the Caps
Surfrider Foundation
Sustainable Mill Valley
Swana California Chapters Legislative Task Force
The 5 Gyres Institute
The Last Plastic Straw
The Story of Stuff Project
Tri-ced Community Recycling
Turn Climate Crisis Awareness & Action
U.s. Green Building Council
Upstream
Voices for Progress
Waste Connections, INC.
Wetap
Wilmington Recyclers
Zero Waste Marin Joint Powers Authority
Zero Waste San Diego
Zero Waste Sonoma
Zero Waste USA

OPPOSITION:

African American Chamber of Commerce of San Joaquin County
American Beverage Association
Asian Food Trade Association
Bizfed - Los Angeles County
Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce
Cal Chamber
Calasian Chamber of Commerce
California Automatic Vendor's Council
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Chamber of Commerce
California Food Producers
California Grocers Association
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Associaiton
Compton Latino Chamber of Commerce
Consumer Brands Association
Dairy Institute of California
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
International Bottled Water Association
Los Angeles County Business Federation (BIZ-FED)
National Automatic Merchandising Association
National Federation of Independent Business
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Pet Recycling Corporation of California
Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
San Deigo Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Vica

1 Individual

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

A large coalition of environmental, ocean protection and organizations promoting recycling and zero waste write in support of SB-45: “California generates over 15 billion plastic beverage containers annually, but while the recycling rate for PET plastic containers exceeds 70%, the recovery rate for plastic caps is significantly lower—estimated at less than 40%. This gap in recycling results in an enormous volume of plastic caps being discarded in landfills or entering the environment as litter.

Data from California’s Annual Beach Cleanup further underscores the severity of the problem. Plastic beverage container caps consistently rank among the top five most littered items on the state’s beaches, being found at nearly twice the rate of plastic beverage containers themselves. These caps pose a deadly risk to wildlife, as they are frequently ingested by birds, fish, and marine mammals, leading to starvation, digestive blockages, and bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

“Requiring bottle caps to remain tethered to their containers is a simple yet highly effective solution to this issue….This policy is not without precedent. The European Union adopted a similar requirement in 2019, with implementation beginning in July 2024….The technology for tethered caps is readily available and already used on some plastic beverage containers in California. Implementing this requirement would not necessitate major changes in manufacturing capabilities, as many beverage producers have already begun transitioning to this design in response to international regulations. Furthermore, while education campaigns can promote cap recycling, they cannot guarantee that caps are effectively processed. Tethered caps, however, provide a structural solution that ensures caps are not lost in the recovery and recycling process.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

A large coalition of chambers of commerce, retailers, and manufacturers write in opposition to the bill: “At a time when Californians are grappling with one of the highest costs of living in the nation, this legislation would unnecessarily increase costs for consumers and businesses, placing an additional burden on families and industries across the state.

Transitioning to this new standard would require substantial retooling of production lines, leading to increased manufacturing costs. These costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers, further straining household budgets in an already challenging economic environment.

“This bill could have a detrimental impact on California’s economy –thousands of companies that manufacture and distribute beverage products within the state would be affected. The ripple effects of these changes would extend beyond the beverage industry, impacting small businesses, retailers, and local economies.

Plastic beverage bottles are highly recyclable and highly recycled. The established role of PET bottles in California’s recycling system is precisely why they were exempt from California’s landmark circular economy bill, SB 54 (Allen). SB 45 introduces new requirements that would disrupt the existing framework and recycling systems without demonstrating clear environmental gains.”

-- END –

1. HERRERA, V., & COFFEE, D. (2024). What Defines a Plastic-Burdened Community?. ↑

2. (Adekanmbi et al., 2024, p. 233; Lu et al., 2020, p. 1; Ren et al., 2024, pp. 3–5) ↑

3. (Lu et al., 2020, p. 1; Ren et al., 2024, p. 5). ↑

4. Vallette, J. (2021). The New Coal: Plastics and Climate Change. ↑

5. Marine Debris Impacts | U.S. Department of the Interior (doi.gov) ↑

6. Wilcox, C., E. V. Sebille, and B. D. Hardesty. 2015. Plastic in seabirds is pervasive and increasing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 201502108; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1502108112. ↑

7. Alshawafi, A., Analla, M., Alwashali, E., et al., 2017.. Assessment of marine debris on the coastal wetland of Martil in the North-East of Morocco. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 117(1–2), 302–10. ↑

8. Thrift, E., Nouvellet, P., Mathews, F., 2023. Plastic entanglement poses a potential hazard to European hedgehogs erinaceus europaeus in Great Britain. Animals. 13(15), 2448 ↑

9. https://eurekarecycling.org/caps-on-for-pet-recycling/#:~:text=The%20main%20reason%20is%20for,our%20equipment%20to%20handle%20it. ↑

10. https://bottledwater.org/rpet-facts/ ↑

11. Why is Polypropylene (PP) So Difficult to Recycle. Cleantech Insights, Waste & Recycling | 28 August 2024

    ↑

12. Statewide Average Monthly Scrap Value Notice - CalRecycle Home Page ↑

13. Sea the change 2023 report ↑

14. Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. ↑

15. https://plasticsrecycling.org/resources/caps-on-please-answering-your-most-frequently-asked-questions-on-recycling-right/ ↑

16. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/research/economic-study-shows-marine-debris-costs-california-residents-millions-dollars ↑

17. Waste in Our Waterways Unveiling the Hidden Costs to Californians of Litter Clean-Up NRDC Issue brief august 2013 ib:13-08-a. ↑