Public comments will close Nov 13th for the revised Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) Program Plan submitted by Circular Action Alliance (CAA) to CalRecycle under California’s implementation of the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54).
How to Submit Comments:
- November 13, 2026 deadline to submit comments to CalRecycle on the CAA California Program Plan.
- Comments may be submitted via email to [email protected] with the subject line “PRO Plan Comments.”
Resources
- Review the revised Program Plan submitted by CAA here.
- Comments can include suggestions as it pertains to your operation, for example:
- The draft requires payment of a separate administrative fee that may cover estimated operating costs, legal costs, or other costs CAA considers appropriate and expressly distinguishes this fee from Plan implementation revenues and CalRecycle’s administrative fee. A defined list of allowable expenses, a published budget and allocation methodology, advance notice, annual reconciliation, and credits for excess collections must be provided. Duplicate recovery and disclosure of national/shared-service allocations must be prohibited.
- Section 11.5 requires implementation of ISR Plan actions as required by law or the Plan, and section 11.11 requires revisions when reasonably requested by CAA to enable the program to meet legal requirements. For fresh produce, a planned packaging change may later fail testing or prove unavailable commercially. The Plan must expressly state that Collective targets do not automatically become identical percentage obligations for every producer and that:
- Forecasts and proposed trials are distinguished from binding implementation commitments.
- Producers may revise plans when testing demonstrates food-safety, shelf-life, structural, sanitation, or commercial-feasibility problems.
- CAA must consider documented packaging constraints before requiring additional actions.
- A producer does not contractually guarantee CAA’s collective performance.
- The current Plan as written appears to allow for enforcement of proposed requirements throughout the review process by CalRecycle. The updated Plan must require notice and reasonable implementation time for subsequent changes.
- In the opening definition of Company, page 1; recital, page 2; sections 1.3 and 2.1, pages 2–4, the recital says the company has determined it is obligated as a California Producer. The opening also includes its subsidiaries within “Company.” Signing must not concede that every subsidiary, field-packing activity, packaging application, or component is covered.
- In Sections 2.5, 3.6, and 5.7, pages 4–8, the draft allows retroactive fees following an unsuccessful exemption claim, with potential additional charges. Correcting a report does not suspend payment of an existing invoice until CAA accepts the correction. Section 5.7.2 also authorizes inaccurate-reporting liquidated damages using a formula involving $5,000 or the associated fees, whichever is greater. It does provide protection for self-identified inaccuracies corrected within 60 days. A notice, substantiation, and an opportunity to contest additional charges must be provided. CAA must also have a deadline to accept or reject corrections and issue resulting refunds or credits.
- In Sections 3.6, 5.2.1, 5.6–5.7, and 7.2, pages 5–9, the distinction outlined in Section 5.2.1 already refers to undisputed overdue payments when describing bonus eligibility. That distinction should carry through the agreement. Producers should be allowed to pay undisputed amounts while a timely, documented dispute is reviewed. During that review, suspend contractual late charges, collection action, and termination based solely on the disputed amount. Specify decision deadlines and preserve earned bonuses.
- In Section 8, page 10, The arbitration clause extends to disputes over the extent of the parties’ obligations under California EPR law. Provide an affordable process for smaller billing disputes and reconsider mandatory equal sharing of arbitration costs.
Next Steps
The updated plan includes revisions related to environmental justice, reimbursement mechanisms, responsible end markets, materials management strategies, budget development, and fee-setting methodologies. The proposed plan outlines how producers will meet SB 54 requirements through investments in recycling and reuse infrastructure, support for local jurisdictions, increased transparency for recycled materials, and strategies to advance source reduction and recycled content goals across California.
CalRecycle is currently reviewing the submission and has up to 75 days to determine whether to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the plan. Public comments submitted during this review period may help inform that decision.
For further questions on SB54, please contact Melissa Koshlaychuk, Gail Delihant or Jeana Cadby.