TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Amanda Griffis, Supervising Environmental Resource Specialist
REPORT BY: Amanda Griffis, Supervising Environmental Resource Specialist
SUBJECT: Approval of AB 1812 Support Letter and Authorization for Chair to Sign
RECOMMENDATION
title
APPROVAL OF AB 1812 SUPPORT LETTER AND AUTHORIZATION FOR CHAIR TO SIGN
DISCUSSION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Agency Manager requests approval of a letter in support of AB 1812 (Aguiar-Curry) Solid waste: compostable products and authorization for the Chair to sign the letter.
body
BACKGROUND
Local governments have been working in good faith to implement the sweeping requirements of SB 1383 which mandates the collection and processing of organic materials at an unprecedented scale. Cities and counties have invested substantial public resources to establish new or expand existing collection programs, amend contracts, secure responsible end markets, educate residents and businesses, and conduct enforcement.
California’s organics recycling system processes approximately 12 million tons of yard trimmings and food scraps (organic waste) annually, but this system depends on uncontaminated organic waste streams. These efforts are undermined when non-compostable materials enter the system. Plastic and “compostable plastic” contamination in the compost stream increases processing costs, degrades compost quality, leads to rejected loads and landfilling, and jeopardizes the ability to meet procurement requirements, threatening the viability of organic waste recycling programs and the markets that depend on high-quality finished compost. Removing contamination from composting streams already accounts for over 20% of compost production costs, and compostable plastics exacerbate this problem. Because they are indistinguishable from conventional plastics in a high-volume setting, “compostable” plastics cannot be reliably sorted by hand or mechanically. Instead, all plastics are removed to protect the quality of the end product - compost. Therefore, addressing problematic plastics and misleading “compostable” claims is essential to ensure that SB 1383 implementation remains feasible, cost-effective, and capable of delivering the environmental benefits the Legislature intended.
Previously, the State and local jurisdictions had little control over the design and labeling of “compostable plastics” products entering the stream of commerce that ultimately contaminate the organic waste systems they have invested heavily to develop. AB 1201 (Chapter 504, Statutes of 2021) sought to remedy this issue by setting standards for products to be able to be considered compostable. Under AB 1201, products labeled as “compostable” must meet multiple criteria: they must comply with USDA National Organic Program (NOP) standards for allowable compost feedstocks, pass recognized ASTM composability tests, and be free of persistent contaminants such as PFAS, ensuring that certified compostable products are truly compatible with organic recycling systems and safe for end markets.
In August 2023, the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI), a North American trade organization representing manufacturers of compostable products, petitioned NOP to allow certified “compostable plastics” in organic production. While this petition was under consideration, CalRecycle extended the implementation deadline for AB 1201 requirements from January 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. In January 2026, the USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) unanimously voted against adding broad classes of synthetic compostable materials to the National List of allowed compost feedstocks under the NOP. While the NOSB concluded that those products do not currently meet the criteria for organic labeling, it kept open the possibility for future review of individual substances on a case-by-case basis. As a result, compost that contains plastics of any kind, including “compostable” bioplastics, are not eligible to be labeled organic. Farmers purchase two-thirds of the compost produced in California and rely on NOP certification to guarantee quality and purity. Organic farmers rely on NOP certification to protect their status as Certified Organic growers.
Beyond the NOP requirements, compostable plastics generally do not fully decompose in California’s composting facilities. While some bioplastics may meet ASTM standards, those ASTM standards do not reflect real world composting conditions and timeframes in California’s facilities. Even if compostable plastics were able to fully decompose in California’s compost facilities, the federal bar on labeling the end product as organic would eliminate much of the market for finished compost, thereby leaving public and private facilities awash in unwanted compost.
All of the increased costs from contamination removal are passed on to everyday solid waste ratepayers, as well as municipalities. A significant part of composters’ revenue comes from charging a fee to take ratepayers’ organic waste. If the composters must spend more to sort out this plastic contamination, that cost is passed to the generators - everyone that pays a trash bill, including local governments.
Consumers who opt for compostable products are willing to pay a premium for the peace of mind that the product is being composted. However, when they purchase bioplastics labeled as compostable, they are simultaneously contributing to a contamination issue that they also pay to address via solid waste rates.
AB 1812 clarifies which products can be labeled compostable, reducing contamination and consumer confusion while protecting the integrity and growth of California’s organics recycling system. By keeping bioplastics out of the composting stream, this bill improves system efficiency, lowers costs for ratepayers, and increases the availability of high-quality compost for farmers.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
Is it currently budgeted? |
No |
|
Where is it budgeted? |
N/A |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Discretionary |
|
Discretionary Justification: |
AB 1812 will help to ensure the organic waste stream remains uncontaminated, costs are kept down for rate payers and compost produced has an end market. |
|
Is the general fund affected? |
No |
|
Future fiscal impact: |
None |
|
Consequences if not approved: |
UVWMA will not support AB 1812 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California code of Regulations 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable.