SB45 amends the Public Resources Code to require that, beginning January 1, 2027, plastic beverage containers sold in California have plastic caps that stay attached to the container when the consumer removes them (a “tethered” cap). The bill sets a limited one-year delay for container types that already achieved better-than-70% recycling for 2022–2023, and excludes large-format containers (2 liters or more), beer and other malt beverages, wine and distilled spirits, 100% fruit juice, refillable containers, and small manufacturers below a sales threshold.
The measure is explicitly grounded in litter and marine-wildlife concerns and cites the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive and voluntary industry moves as context. It creates a new requirement under the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, making violations prosecutable under that statute and establishing implementation and enforcement implications for manufacturers, packaging suppliers, and state agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires beverage manufacturers to sell plastic beverage containers with caps tethered to the container so the cap cannot separate when removed by the consumer. The requirement takes effect January 1, 2027, with compliance for certain high-recycling container types delayed until January 1, 2028.
Who It Affects
California beverage manufacturers and their packaging suppliers, plus distributors and retailers handling redesigned containers. The department will also play a role in identifying container types eligible for the one-year delay by determining whether 2022–2023 recycling rates exceeded 70 percent.
Why It Matters
SB45 shifts a product-design obligation onto producers rather than relying solely on consumer behavior or downstream sorting. That change can materially affect packaging engineering, supply chains, and recycling processes while targeting a commonly littered item—caps—that current recycling streams undercapture.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill opens with legislative findings that plastic bottle caps are disproportionately present in California beach litter and pose a specific hazard to marine wildlife; it also notes that caps often fail to be recycled even when collected with bottles because of size and resin differences. Those findings justify a design-for-reduction approach: require caps to remain attached to their bottles during normal consumer use so fewer caps separate and escape into the environment.
Operationally, SB45 repeals the current Section 14548 of the Public Resources Code and replaces it with a new provision that sets the tethered-cap standard. The statute describes a tethered cap functionally—“prevents the separation of the cap from the container when the cap is removed from the container by the consumer”—and ties applicability to the existing definitions for beverage and beverage containers in Sections 14504, 14505, and 14517.
The department is given the role of determining which container types met a higher recycling threshold for 2022–2023 and therefore qualify for the one-year compliance deferral.The bill enumerates specific exemptions: containers with capacity of 2 liters or more; containers for beer and other malt beverages, wine and distilled spirits, and 100% fruit juice; refillable plastic beverage containers; and beverage manufacturers that can show they sold or transferred 16,000,000 or fewer plastic beverage containers in California in the prior calendar year. These carve-outs shape which product lines and which companies must redesign caps and which can continue under current designs.
Finally, because the requirement is enacted under the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, noncompliance is treated as a violation within that statutory framework, and the act includes a provision about reimbursement tied to criminal provisions that affects how local costs are handled.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Effective dates: The tethered-cap requirement applies on January 1, 2027, but any container type that the department determines had a recycling rate above 70% for calendar years 2022 and 2023 gets a compliance delay until January 1, 2028.
Functional standard: A tethered cap must “prevent the separation of the cap from the container when the cap is removed by the consumer” — the bill sets a performance description rather than detailed engineering specifications.
Exemptions: The rule excludes containers of 2 liters or more and containers holding beer or other malt beverages, wine or distilled spirits, and 100% fruit juice from the tethering requirement.
Small-manufacturer carve-out: A beverage manufacturer that sold or transferred 16,000,000 or fewer plastic beverage containers in the previous calendar year is exempt from the requirement.
Enforcement and fiscal note: Because the mandate is created under the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, a violation is a statutory offense and the bill states no state reimbursement is required for local agencies because costs arise from creating a crime or infraction.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and legislative intent
This section lays out the empirical and policy basis for the tethered-cap rule: caps appear disproportionately in beach-litter surveys, pose documented risks to marine wildlife, and are often lost to material recovery facility residuals. The Legislature frames the rule as aligning with the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive and notes that several major brands already use tethered caps, signaling both an environmental rationale and existing commercial feasibility.
Technical repeal and replacement approach
This is a short mechanical step that repeals the existing Section 14548 and makes way for a new, substantively different provision. Repealing and replacing a single section keeps the change narrowly targeted to the tethered-cap requirement rather than restructuring larger parts of the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act.
Core requirement — manufacturers must supply tethered caps
Subsection (a) imposes the central legal obligation: beverage manufacturers must ensure that plastic beverage containers sold in California have caps that remain attached when consumers remove them. The statute uses a functional description instead of prescribing a specific tether design, so compliance can be met through multiple engineering approaches, but the statutory test turns on a consumer-use event (cap removal).
Delays, exclusions, and sales-based exemptions
These subsections create the operational boundaries of the mandate. Subsection (b) postpones compliance until January 1, 2028 for container types with a demonstrated recycling rate above 70% in 2022–2023, and subsections (c)–(e) list categorical exemptions (2-liter+ containers; beer/malt, wine/distilled spirit, and 100% fruit juice containers), plus carve-outs for refillable containers and smaller manufacturers (≤16,000,000 containers sold/transferred the prior year). The department is charged with determining recycling-rate eligibility for the delay, which introduces an administrative measurement task.
Fiscal and enforcement framing
Section 4 addresses state reimbursement under Article XIII B, explaining that no reimbursement is required because the act creates or changes a crime or infraction. Practically, that signals the Legislature intends criminal or statutory enforcement pathways within existing beverage-container law rather than creating a separately funded regulatory enforcement program.
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
- Coastal and marine ecosystems and wildlife — fewer detached caps in the environment should reduce ingestion and entanglement risks documented in beach-litter studies.
- Material recovery facilities and municipal litter-management programs — fewer loose caps in the stream may decrease small-item contamination and reduce manual litter collection costs.
- Beverage brands that have already adopted tethered caps (for example, brands noted in the bill) — these companies avoid redesign costs and gain a competitive advantage as others transition.
- Environmental and conservation NGOs — the rule provides a clear, enforceable design change aimed at a specific litter source, which can translate into measurable reductions that advocacy groups can track.
Who Bears the Cost
- Beverage manufacturers required to redesign closures — engineering, tooling, testing, and supply-chain changes will create direct compliance costs, especially for high-volume SKU lines that are not currently tethered.
- Packaging suppliers and closure manufacturers — the market must scale tethered-cap production and may need new equipment or materials, with associated capital investment and lead times.
- Retailers and distributors holding existing inventory — SKU turnover and backward-compatibility issues could create lost-sales or logistical costs if older, untethered inventory cannot be sold after compliance dates in certain categories.
- Local law enforcement and agencies tasked with enforcement — treating noncompliance as a statutory offense may shift enforcement and prosecutorial burdens to local authorities without additional state reimbursement.
- Consumers — manufacturers may pass transition costs through to prices, and some tether designs could reduce perceived convenience or aesthetic preferences for certain product lines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a straightforward environmental objective—keep small, wildlife-harmful caps attached to bottles—against the realities of manufacturing and enforcement: whether to impose a prescriptive, immediate product-design mandate (with potentially high redesign costs and ambiguous technical rules) or to pursue alternatives like performance-based recovery targets, subsidies for redesign, or voluntary corporate commitments that might be slower but less disruptive. There is no clean choice: each approach trades speed and clarity for cost, flexibility, or enforcement complexity.
The bill adopts a functional standard—caps must “prevent the separation” when removed—but it leaves almost all technical details to implementation. The absence of testing protocols, minimum tether strength, material specifications, or standardized laboratory procedures means manufacturers and regulators must agree on what proof of compliance looks like.
That gap creates uncertainty for supply-chain investment decisions and for the department when it evaluates whether a manufacturer’s design meets the statutory test.
Exemptions and the 70% recycling-rate deferral introduce measurement and equity questions. The department must calculate recycling rates for 2022–2023 by container type; data gaps or methodological disputes could delay determinations and create uneven competitive effects.
The categorical exemptions for alcoholic beverages and 2-liter containers are practical (packaging form factors differ) but produce a patchwork regulation that may blunt environmental benefits in certain litter-prone categories. Finally, using the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act to create a product-design criminal offense is an unusual enforcement tool for a technical packaging standard and raises questions about prosecutorial priorities, the availability of civil enforcement alternatives, and proportionality of penalties relative to design noncompliance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.