The passage of AB 1158 modifies existing public resources codes, enhancing the requirements placed on manufacturers regarding carpet stewardship. It imposes a carpet stewardship assessment per unit sold, which the stewardship organization can use to fund various recycling initiatives. Furthermore, it introduces a structure for ongoing program evaluations and adjustments based on performance indicators outlined in the approved stewardship plans. This bill is significant in fostering a comprehensive approach towards sustainable production and waste reduction in the carpet industry.
Assembly Bill 1158, also known as the Carpet Recycling Bill, aims to enhance the recycling efforts for postconsumer carpet in California. The bill establishes specific targets, mandating manufacturers to reach a 24% recycling rate for carpets by January 1, 2020, and maintain that standard continually thereafter. It requires carpet stewardship organizations to create and implement comprehensive plans for recycling, which must include measurable five-year and annual goals. These plans are crafted to divert carpets from landfills and promote their transformation into secondary products, consistent with the state's waste management hierarchy.
Reactions to the bill have generally been supportive from environmental advocacy groups and public officials who prioritize waste management and sustainability. However, there is also criticism from some industry stakeholders who express concerns about the financial implications of the stewardship assessment and the operational burden it may impose on small manufacturers. The sentiment reflects a balance between promoting environmental responsibility and accommodating the economic realities of manufacturers within the industry.
Key points of contention surrounding AB 1158 include the feasibility of achieving the ambitious recycling targets set forth within the stipulated timeframe. There are also discussions regarding the financial frameworks that support such initiatives, particularly whether the assessment rates will be equitable and not disadvantage smaller manufacturers. Additionally, there are concerns about the definition of stewardship organizations and the accountability mechanisms necessary to ensure compliance and effectiveness of the stewardship plans instituted under the bill.