Recycling: beverage containers: tethered plastic caps.
The bill will reinforce recycling efforts in the state by addressing the relatively low recycling and high litter rates of plastic caps compared to beverage containers. With plastic caps often being found among the top sources of beach litter, the changes proposed by SB 45 aim to enhance the effectiveness of California’s recycling programs. The bill also aligns with similar international legislative efforts, notably from the European Union, which has already implemented tether requirements for plastic caps as part of wider single-use plastic regulations.
Senate Bill 45 aims to amend the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act by introducing requirements for tethered plastic caps on certain beverage containers. Set to take effect on January 1, 2027, the bill mandates that beverage manufacturers must ensure that their plastic beverage containers have caps that remain attached after the container is opened by the consumer. This provision aims to mitigate the issues of litter and marine wildlife injury caused by discarded plastic caps, which have been shown to contribute significantly to beach litter in California.
The general sentiment surrounding SB 45 appears to be positive among environmental advocates who recognize the need for improved waste management and litter reduction strategies. However, some concerns have been voiced about the feasibility and potential costs for manufacturers to transition to tethered caps. Advocates argue that the benefits of reducing litter and protecting marine wildlife outweigh any operational challenges businesses may face in adapting to these new regulations.
Notable points of contention include the exemptions in the legislation, which exclude beverages packaged in containers larger than two liters, certain alcoholic beverages, and some refillable containers. Critics may argue that these exemptions could limit the bill's effectiveness and that imposing more stringent requirements across the board would better serve environmental goals. Moreover, the bill does not require reimbursement for local agencies affected by the new mandates, which may lead to pushback from municipalities concerned about the financial implications of implementing these changes.