A Suite of New Environmental Laws for Selling and Distributing Products in California

New laws in California set requirements related to extended producer responsibility, PFAS, product registration and reporting, and warehouses. Below is a quick survey of the major new laws so you can assess whether any parts of your business operations have new compliance obligations.

Three New and Expanded California Extended Producer Responsibility Programs: Apparel/Textiles, Carpet, and Paint

1. PaintCare Expansion Act (SB 1143)

SB 1143 expands California’s existing PaintCare program from solely architectural paint to include all “paint products.”

Under the existing PaintCare program, managed by CalRecycle, a manufacturer of “architectural paint” must comply with the PaintCare architectural paint stewardship plan. The new program (SB 11433), called the Paint Product Recovery Program, broadens the types of products for which companies must comply to include architectural coatings, aerosol coating products, nonindustrial coatings, and coating-related products (but not health and beauty products).

Key Takeaways:

• Requires manufacturers to develop and implement a program to collect, transport, and process postconsumer paint.
• Expands the product definition to include sealants, paint removers, thinners, construction adhesives and caulks, aerosol coating products, and all nonindustrial paint including that used on boats, furniture, chalkboards, and more.
• Requires manufacturers to report annually to CalRecycle individually or through a stewardship organization.

The existing PaintCare regulations will remain in effect until CalRecycle issues new regulations. Aerosol coating or coating-related products will not be subject to the act until CalRecycle approves a new stewardship plan or January 1, 2028, whichever is sooner.

2. Carpet Recycling Program (AB 863)

AB 863 replaces the current carpet recycling program by creating new sorting and reporting requirements and changing who will be administering the program from the existing stewardship program to a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) framework.

The existing program (the Carpet Stewardship Program) is managed by CalRecycle and administered by Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE), the PRO charged with meeting the requirements for carpet recycling on behalf of producers (enacted following AB 2398 and last modified by AB 1158).

Key Takeaways:

• Requires carpets to contain 5% postconsumer recycled carpet by 2028 and allows CalRecycle to set the postconsumer recycled rate for every year after. This is distinct from the existing rates for recycling postconsumer carpets, which remain unchanged.
• Requires persons part of the carpet installation process to also be part of the removal and/or transport of the carpets to an approved collection site, which will then be moved to a PRO-designated recycling facility starting January 1, 2029.
• Requires a producer to publish online an “environmental product declaration” for covered products (i.e., carpets) that identifies the components and percentage of each component used in the covered product.

Once CalRecycle adopts implementing regulations, the PRO must establish a budget and proposed Producer Responsibility Plan within 12 months.

3. Responsible Textile Recovery Act (SB 707)

SB 707 establishes an extended producer responsibility program for the collection and recycling of apparel or other textile articles deemed unsuitable for reuse by consumers in their current condition. This is considered the first textile recycling program in the U.S.

Key Takeaways:

• Requires producers and other participants in the textile value chain to take responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products, including repair, recycling, and reuse of garments and fibers.
• Requires all manufactures to join a PRO. Applicants to be the PRO must apply by January 1, 2026, for CalRecycle to approve by March 1, 2026.
• Requires CalRecycle to adopt implementing regulations by July 1, 2028.

Once CalRecycle adopts implementing regulations, the PRO must establish a budget and proposed Producer Responsibility Plan within 12 months. Upon CalRecycle’s approval of a PRO Plan, or July 1, 2030, whichever is sooner, producers not participating in a PRO will be subject to civil penalties.

Products Containing PFAS

4. PFAS Product Testing (AB 347) and Menstrual Products (AB 2515)

AB 347 directs California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt regulations establishing “enforcement mechanisms” and publish testing methods for PFAS in juvenile products, textile articles, and food packaging. DTSC will publish a list of accepted methods for testing whether a covered product complies with the covered PFAS restrictions and appropriate third-party accreditations for laboratories by January 2029.

Product manufacturers then will have to register with DTSC, pay a fee, and provide certification of compliance with the restrictions, with enforcement beginning in July 2030. California has placed bans on products other than those listed as covered products under AB 347 — for example, the ban on PFAS in cosmetics products starting January 1, 2025 for both cosmetic (AB 2762) and menstrual (AB 2515) products. For now, those products are not subject to the same testing and compliance requirements as the juvenile products, textile articles, and food packaging named in AB 347.

Key Takeaways:

• Statement of Compliance. Manufacturers of a covered product will be required to register with the department and provide a description of each covered product and a statement of compliance certifying that each covered product is in compliance with the applicable covered PFAS restriction. Details on these requirements are expected in DTSC’s implementing regulations that will need to be prepared.
• Testing. DTSC must publish on its website a list of acceptable testing methods for whether a covered product complies with covered PFAS restrictions, by January 1, 2029. There is no existing method for determining compliance. The law mandates DTSC to establish this process.
• Costs. Manufacturers must pay a registration fee to DTSC and will also face implied costs for developing their own internal compliance and testing programs.
• Enforcement. Beginning July 1, 2030, DTSC is authorized to issue notices of violation if DTSC discovers that a product violates one or more PFAS restrictions through the registration process, labeling, or other means.
• Precedent. Given the developing nature of PFAS science and applicable laws and regulations, AB 347 will set an example for states across the country seeking to regulate PFAS within their borders. As such, this new law could have far-reaching effects outside of California.

New Restrictions on Warehouse Zoning, Warehouses, and Truck Traffic

5. Warehouse Bill (AB 98)

AB 98 sets planning and building restrictions and requirements for warehouse facilities and related truck traffic. Generally, the bill does not affect existing warehouses but does affect new developments and expansions. The bill seeks to create a buffer between warehouses and “sensitive receptors” — broadly defined as including private residences, schools, daycare facilities, public parks, nursing homes, and hospitals. AB 98 also sets requirements for the South Coast Air Basin area (i.e., within South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) jurisdiction), including for the local jurisdiction to install mobile air monitoring systems in Riverside and San Bernadino counties, subject to appropriations, and for SCAQMD to study community effects of logistics uses and receive community input.

Key Requirements:

• New or expanded logistics use developments with a loading bay within 900 feet of a sensitive receptor must follow certain design elements, which include providing light-, medium-, and heavy-duty charging capability or readiness, providing electrical hookups for all loading bays serving cold storage, using zero-emissions forklifts on site, and meeting certain building efficiency standards. The facility must also have truck loading bays and truck travel routes oriented to minimize effects on sensitive receptors, follow proscribed minimum feet stacking depth and signage, and include specific buffers and screens (e.g., mitigate for light and noise, and plant tree cover around the perimeter). The requirements vary depending on the development’s size (more or less than 250,000 square feet) and whether already zoned industrial.
• New logistics use developments must only be sited on certain roadways, namely arterial roads, collector roads, major thoroughfares, and local roads that predominantly serve commercial uses.
• Local jurisdictions must condition the approval of a new logistics use on two-to-one replacement of certain housing units that have been demolished for new developments; affordable housing may need to be funded in replacement.
• A facility operator must submit a “truck routing plan to and from the state highway system” prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the facility.
• Local jurisdictions must update the circulation element of their general plan by identifying and establishing specific travel routes for the transport of goods, materials, or freight on preferred highways by avoiding residential areas and concentrations of sensitive receptors. This includes making truck routes publicly available in GIS format sharing GIS maps of the truck routes with warehouse operators, fleet operators, and truck drivers.

Key Dates: Most of the bill’s restrictions will take effect beginning January 1, 2026; however, exemptions are provided for developments already in a local entitlement process by September 30, 2024. Local jurisdictions would be required to update their general plans to identify specified truck travel routes by January 1, 2028.

Enforcement: The Attorney General may enforce the bill’s provisions against local jurisdictions that fail to implement the requirements, including by imposing a fine of up to $50,000 every six months of noncompliance. Although enforcement is not specifically provided against private parties, officials and plaintiffs will likely cite other provisions of law to enforce AB 98 requirements against private parties.

California Climate Disclosures

6. Amendments to Climate Disclosure Law (SB 219)

Senate Bill 219 enacts several amendments to the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate‐Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261), both of which are summarized in this previous Sidley Update. The amendments in SB 219 center around providing additional time for the promulgation of related regulations while by and large maintaining the same reporting deadlines. Consequently, this will likely reduce the amount of time subject companies will have to prepare these disclosures with the benefit of interpretative regulations.

As discussed originally in a recent Sidley Update, SB 219 does the following:

• Provides an additional six-month delay for the publication of regulations for scope emissions disclosures. SB 219 extends the rulemaking deadline for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions by an additional six months, from January 1 to July 1, 2025.
• Changes the timeline of scope 3 emissions disclosure. SB 219 permits CARB to prepare a schedule for disclosure of scope 3 emissions rather than the previous timeline requiring scope 3 emissions disclosure no later than 180 days after scopes 1 and 2 emissions disclosure.
• Provides CARB with greater permissive authority. SB 219 provides CARB with far greater permissive authority. For example, under both SB 253 and SB 261, CARB was required to engage a “climate reporting organization” to perform certain responsibilities, such as receiving greenhouse-gas emissions disclosures. SB 219 now permits CARB, at its option, to assume these duties rather than engaging a third party to perform them.
• Permits consolidated reporting at the parent level for scope emissions. The law clarifies that for purposes of the scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions disclosures, consolidated reports at the parent-company level would be acceptable, which in effect relieves a subsidiary from having to generate a separate report. This change aligns SB 253 with SB 261, the latter of which already permitted entities to rely on consolidated parent-level reporting.
• Eliminates the payment at filing requirements. SB 219 eliminates the requirement that reporting entities pay a filing fee when filing their disclosure reports for SB 253 and SB 261. This means that while the time period for when an entity pays the fee has changed, the fee itself has not.

While not enacted in 2024, it is worthwhile to note that the 2023 bill (AB 1305 — see Sidley advisory) to require website disclosures of any company — no threshold as to revenue size — that makes certain environmental claims in its marketing materials or sustainability reports, or sells or uses voluntary carbon offsets, has a compliance date of January 1, 2025.