AB 973 lays out which plastic items fall under a new recycled-content regime and gives the state department authority to write and enforce implementation rules. The bill defines “covered product” to include rigid plastic containers and products plus several types of film plastic — explicitly naming packaging overwrap, lawn and garden film bags, heavy‑duty industrial film, and plastic trash bags — while carving out numerous exemptions (food packaging, many medical and hazardous‑materials uses, reusable or certified compostable containers, and others).
The measure also creates detailed legal definitions for manufacturer, portfolio, and postconsumer recycled content, establishes an annual registration fee (capped at $1,000 per manufacturer), requires third‑party certification procedures and a methodology that ties credited recycled content to physical content, and authorizes the department to grant waivers and to adjust recycled‑content requirements temporarily based on market and infrastructure conditions. For manufacturers, brand owners, recyclers, and certifiers doing business in California, the bill outlines the compliance architecture they would need to navigate — though it leaves the substantive recycled‑content percentages and many implementation details to forthcoming regulations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Defines covered plastic product categories (rigid containers/products and several film plastics, including trash bags), enumerates exemptions, and sets up a regulatory framework requiring manufacturers to register and comply with postconsumer recycled content rules. The department must adopt procedures for an annual registration fee, third‑party certification, calculation methodology, waiver processing, and temporary adjustments to content requirements.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers, licensees, and brand owners who make or sell rigid plastic items and specified plastic films into California; third‑party certifiers and testing labs; recyclers and processors that supply postconsumer recycled plastic; and the state department charged with implementing and enforcing the program.
Why It Matters
The bill centralizes the compliance mechanics for any future recycled‑content mandates by defining key terms and regulatory tools, shifting many details from statute to departmental rulemaking. That structure will determine how quickly manufacturers must change supply chains, how recycled‑plastic demand is created, and how the state balances ambition with material availability.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 973 is primarily a definitional and rulemaking bill: it tells the state which plastic items will be treated as “covered” and then instructs the responsible department to write the concrete compliance rules. The covered list is broad: rigid plastic containers and rigid plastic products, and three film categories, which the bill spells out to include packaging overwrap, lawn and garden film bags, heavy industrial film bags, and plastic trash bags (cross‑referencing the statutory definition of “plastic trash bag”).
That scope matters because it is the gatekeeper for any recycled‑content obligations that follow.
The bill crafts a multi‑layer definition of “manufacturer” that looks first to the entity that manufactures and owns the brand in the state, then to an owner or exclusive licensee if the manufacturer is out of state, and finally to the person who sells or distributes the product into California if neither of the prior categories apply. It explicitly excludes small on‑site agricultural packagers and defines “small manufacturer” by an in‑state gross sales threshold of under $1,000,000 for the most recent calendar year — a definition that can matter for later regulatory relief even though the statute does not itself create an exemption tied to that label.Key technical terms are defined to shape future compliance: “portfolio” and “portfolio standard” let manufacturers average postconsumer recycled content across a suite of products that share a primary resin, rather than meeting per‑product benchmarks; “postconsumer recycled content” is limited to material discarded after its intended use (including commercial, industrial, and institutional end‑use) and explicitly excludes manufacturing rework.
For implementation, the department must adopt regulations under the APA: it will set an annual registration charge (not to exceed $1,000), define third‑party certification procedures, adopt a methodology that ensures credited recycled content reflects physical inputs, and prescribe waiver procedures. The department also gains the explicit authority to review and temporarily adjust content requirements, but it must state the time limit and conditions for any adjustment and consider market supply, recycling rates, infrastructure capacity, manufacturer progress, and other factors when doing so.Finally, the bill prescribes stakeholder consultation during rule development, requiring the department to engage manufacturers, environmental groups, and other interested parties.
It leaves substantial substantive choices — including the actual recycled‑content percentages, waiver criteria, audit standards, and enforcement mechanisms — to the regulatory process, while building the statutory scaffolding that will govern those choices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
“Covered product” includes rigid plastic containers, rigid plastic products, and film plastic used as packaging overwrap, lawn and garden film bags, heavy‑duty industrial film bags, and plastic trash bags (per Section 42290).
The statute defines “manufacturer” with three fallback rules: the in‑state manufacturer who owns the brand, then an in‑state owner or exclusive licensee, and finally the person who sells or distributes the product into California if no other party qualifies; on‑site agricultural packagers are excluded.
The bill creates a ‘portfolio standard’ concept that lets manufacturers calculate average postconsumer recycled content across a suite of like‑resin products rather than on each individual item.
The department must adopt regulations including an annual registration charge (capped at $1,000 per manufacturer), third‑party certification procedures for recycled content, and a methodology ensuring credited recycled content matches the physical content in finished products.
The department may temporarily adjust postconsumer recycled content requirements, but any regulatory adjustment must specify a limited time period and consider market conditions, recycling rates, recycled‑material availability, infrastructure capacity, and manufacturer progress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
What counts as a covered product and who is exempt
These subdivisions enumerate the covered product categories and a long list of exemptions. Practically, the covered list captures a supply chain ranging from consumer rigid containers (bottles, tubs) and household rigid products to commercial film applications (overwrap, lawn/garden film, industrial bags, and trash bags). Exemptions are detailed and significant: food packaging, many medical and prescription‑drug containers, infant formula, fortified medical nutrition, packaging for hazardous materials, reusable/refillable packaging, Biodegradable Products Institute‑certified compostable containers, and several other items are carved out. That mix narrows where recycled‑content rules will bite and preserves regulatory space for health, safety, and transport standards.
Manufacturer definitions, portfolio concepts, and small‑manufacturer threshold
The bill defines ‘manufacturer’ with a sequence of look‑through rules that allocate legal responsibility to the brand owner or, failing that, the licensee or distributor who brings the product into California. It excludes on‑site agricultural packagers and creates a one‑million‑dollar in‑state sales cutoff to label someone a ‘small manufacturer.’ The portfolio and portfolio‑standard definitions let compliance be calculated across groups of products that share a primary resin, which will simplify administration for multi‑product manufacturers but also create choices about how to allocate recycled content across SKUs.
Definitions for ‘plastic’ and ‘postconsumer recycled content’ that limit crediting
The statute sets a technical definition of 'plastic' and excludes materials certified for composting under ASTM D6400/D6868. It narrowly defines postconsumer recycled content to materials discarded after end use (including commercial and institutional streams) and excludes manufacturing rework and byproducts reused within original fabrication. That line determines which material flows qualify for compliance credit and may exclude high volumes of manufacturing scrap from counting toward recycled‑content targets.
Rulemaking duties: fee, certification, waivers, and methodology
This subdivision directs the department to adopt implementing regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act. The regulations must include an annual registration charge to recover actual administrative costs (capped at $1,000 per manufacturer), procedures for third‑party certification of recycled content, procedures for considering and granting waivers, and a methodology that ties credited postconsumer recycled content to the physical amount of recycled content in finished products. Those four elements set the architecture for compliance: who pays, how content is audited, how exceptions are handled, and how credits are calculated.
Authority to adjust requirements and required consultations
The department may review and temporarily adjust the recycled‑content requirements and must specify the duration and conditions of any adjustment. In making adjustments, the department must consider market factors (supply and demand, bale availability), recycling rates, availability of suitable recycled material (including food‑grade PCR), processing capacity, and manufacturers’ progress. The statute also requires the department to consult with affected manufacturers, environmental organizations, and other interested parties when developing regulations, formalizing stakeholder input into the rulemaking process.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Manufacturers that already use high shares of postconsumer recycled material — the bill’s definitions and portfolio standard enable them to demonstrate compliance across product lines and potentially gain a market advantage.
- Brand owners and licensees with centralized control — the multi‑tier manufacturer definition gives brand owners a clear compliance target and the portfolio approach reduces per‑SKU reporting complexity.
- Third‑party certifiers and testing labs — the mandatory certification procedures create demand for auditing, testing, and verification services.
- Recyclers and sorters producing high‑quality postconsumer bales (including food‑grade PCR) — explicit recognition of material quality in the methodology and adjustment factors increases the value of higher‑quality outputs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Manufacturers and brand owners that must register, secure third‑party certification, and possibly reformulate products or change suppliers — they face administrative fees (up to $1,000) plus certification and material costs.
- Processors and converters who need to supply higher‑quality PCR or adapt operations to produce food‑grade or application‑specific recycled resin — those investments may be substantial.
- The implementing department — while it can recover costs through registration fees, the agency bears the burdens of tight timelines, complex methodology development, waiver adjudication, and enforcement, which may exceed fee revenues.
- Smaller manufacturers and importers — even if not expressly exempted, they may lack buying power to source PCR, face fixed compliance costs, and will need to navigate the portfolio accounting and certification system.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals — driving demand for postconsumer recycled plastic to spur market and infrastructure investment, and avoiding impossible mandates where high‑quality PCR and processing capacity are lacking — but it leaves the hard choice to regulators: set strict content requirements that pressure supply chains and risk noncompliance, or set looser, adjustable standards that protect businesses but dilute the law’s environmental ambition.
AB 973 sets an administrative framework without specifying the recycled‑content percentages, compliance deadlines, or detailed waiver criteria — those will come from the regulations the department must write. That design concentrates decisive power in rulemaking: the substance of obligations will depend heavily on how the department defines certification standards, allocates credits under the portfolio standard, and applies temporary adjustments.
Each of those choices has practical consequences for compliance cost, enforcement feasibility, and environmental outcomes.
Implementation raises several operational risks. First, the bill’s exclusion of manufacturing rework from postconsumer recycled content narrows the pool of eligible recycled material and may increase demand for postconsumer resin beyond current supply.
Second, the portfolio standard simplifies averaging but creates allocation choices that could be gamed unless the department prescribes clear accounting rules. Third, reliance on third‑party certifiers requires the department to standardize accreditation and audit frequency to prevent inconsistent verification regimes.
Finally, although the statute authorizes a registration fee up to $1,000, the department’s actual administrative burden (rule drafting, monitoring, enforcement, waiver processing) could exceed fee revenue, creating a funding shortfall or incentivizing higher fees later.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.