More than two dozen California Democrats want to hit pause on the fees at the heart of the state's landmark plastic law — an eleventh-hour retreat that arrives just as a private nonprofit begins telling producers what they owe, and industry warns the tab will land on Bay Area grocery bills.

SB 54, the 2022 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was sold as a way to move the cost of recycling off local ratepayers — the people who pay Recology and other haulers — and onto the companies that make the packaging. Four years later, as the fee machinery finally switches on, 23 Assemblymembers and a state senator are asking legislative leaders to delay collection. The fight is no longer about whether to cut plastic. It's about who pays, how much, and who gets to decide — a call that, so far, sits largely with an unelected nonprofit.

The retreat came in a Wednesday letter — sent to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón — carrying 23 Assembly signatures plus that of state Sen. Melissa Hurtado, CalMatters reported (external source, opens in a new tab) in a story syndicated statewide, including by LAist (external source, opens in a new tab). Their ask, per that reporting: freeze the fees through next year, promise a package of fixes when lawmakers reconvene, and hand the Legislature a firmer grip on the program. The timing is pointed — the request surfaced with the session's clock nearly run out.

That's a striking wobble on a law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed with fanfare. SB 54 (external source, opens in a new tab), authored by Sen. Ben Allen, was signed June 30, 2022 (external source, opens in a new tab) and billed as the most sweeping plastic-reduction measure in the country. It orders a 25% cut in single-use plastic packaging, 65% of it recycled, and every piece of single-use packaging recyclable or compostable — all by 2032.

The premise mattered for the Bay Area specifically. For decades, the cost of sorting mixed plastics at places like Recology's Recycle Central in San Francisco has fallen on ratepayers and cities. SB 54 flips that, making producers pay through an "extended producer responsibility" system. In a written statement to CalMatters, CalRecycle director Zoe Heller said the law puts consumers first by pushing producers to design packaging around recycling, and described the phase-in as a gradual "dial" rather than an abrupt "switch."

The dial is now turning, and that's the problem for the bill's nervous supporters. Producers had to join an approved Producer Responsibility Organization — or register to comply on their own — by June 1, 2026 (external source, opens in a new tab). The state anointed a single nonprofit, the Circular Action Alliance, to run the whole apparatus. It released its fee schedule in June, priced the job at $17.2 billion over five years, and has pushed to delay the source-reduction target by three years, according to CalMatters.

SB 54 flips that, making producers pay through an "extended producer responsibility" system.

Industry says the true cost runs far higher. A study commissioned by a coalition that includes the California Restaurant Association and the California League of Food Producers put implementation at $35 to $58 billion — well above CalRecycle's roughly $21 billion — and the annual household hit at $683 to $948, versus the state's $190. CalRecycle spokesperson Lance Klug told CalMatters those figures were only estimates: "The actual costs will be determined by producer choices."

The sharper question is accountability. The Circular Action Alliance is a private nonprofit, not a state agency — and that, critics say, lets it sidestep the guardrails that bind government. Katie Davey, who leads the Dairy Institute of California, told CalMatters the group faces no review by the state auditor, no open-meeting requirements, no public-records obligations, and no legislative sign-off on its budget, staffing, or fees. Shane Gusman, a Teamsters lobbyist whose union originally supported the law, echoed her, telling the outlet the organization operates with essentially no external check. CalMatters noted the caveat: the alliance itself isn't bound by open-records law, but the records it submits to CalRecycle can be, and the agency must approve its fees and can audit its performance.

The alliance casts its role as narrow. Its spokesperson, Larine Urbina, told CalMatters the group exists to carry out the structure SB 54 created, under CalRecycle's supervision — not to write state policy.

For shoppers, the stakes are concrete: groceries, shampoo, produce clamshells. For lawmakers, the letter is a tell. A pause plus a promised "reform package" is how Sacramento buys time when a signature law's costs arrive before its benefits — and when the entity mailing the invoices answers to almost no one voters can name.