In a letter sent Wednesday to Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, 23 Assembly Democrats and state Sen. Melissa Hurtado asked for a two-year delay in assessing and collecting fees under Senate Bill 54, California’s sweeping plastic-reduction law. The lawmakers want time to negotiate a broader overhaul of the program next session and to build in more legislative oversight of how it’s carried out.

The request comes as the clock winds down on this year’s legislative session and as tension builds over how the law is being rolled out statewide — tension that could eventually be felt by shoppers across the Inland Empire and the rest of California.

Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom four years ago, SB 54 set an ambitious target: cutting non-recyclable, non-compostable plastic packaging by 25 percent by 2032. To get there, the state handed responsibility for designing an implementation plan to a nonprofit called the Circular Action Alliance. That group estimated the effort would cost roughly $17.2 billion over five years and has asked regulators for a three-year exemption from the law’s source-reduction deadline.

But as the rollout moves forward, a growing chorus of business groups is questioning both the price tag and the amount of scrutiny the alliance actually faces.

An industry-funded study suggests the true cost to Californians could run far higher than state estimates — as much as $683 to $948 per household annually, compared to the state’s original projection of about $190. That gap, if it holds up, could translate into higher shelf prices for everything from shampoo to salad greens.

The state’s recycling department, CalRecycle, declined to sit down for an interview but defended the law in a written statement, saying it’s designed with consumers in mind and pushes manufacturers to rethink how they package products in the first place.

“Californians are facing rising costs and pollution from increasingly complex packaging that wasn’t designed for the recycling systems local governments, ratepayers, and the state developed and funded over the past four decades,” said CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller. She described the law’s phase-in as “a dial, not a switch,” giving companies room to adjust packaging design, invest in recycling infrastructure and scale back single-use plastics over time.

Questions About Accountability

In June, the Circular Action Alliance released its fee schedule, laying out what individual companies will owe under the program. According to the Dairy Institute of California, a trade group representing milk processors and dairy manufacturers, those fees could top $10 million annually for some businesses.

Dairy Institute Executive Director Katie Davey argues the alliance operates with far less accountability than a typical government agency would.

“They do not have to go through an audit by the state auditor. They’re not subject to the (California open government law) Brown Act. They’re not subject to public records requests. The Legislature does not approve their budget and does not approve how many employees they need, or how many fees they can charge,” Davey said.

As a private nonprofit, the alliance is indeed exempt from the Brown Act and public records laws, though documents it files with CalRecycle or other government bodies could still be subject to disclosure. CalRecycle spokesperson Lance Klug said the agency must sign off on the group’s fee schedule and implementation plan and retains authority to audit its performance, adding that the law includes safeguards to ensure fees and budgets stay reasonable.

“Our role is to implement the framework established by SB 54 under CalRecycle’s oversight,” said Larine Urbina, a spokesperson for the Circular Action Alliance, adding that the group is not responsible for setting state policy.

Davey said the accountability gap extends into enforcement as well. Companies that fail to meet targets will be hit with so-called “malus fees,” which are then used to reward businesses that do comply — but the alliance has yet to disclose what those penalty fees will actually be.

Shane Gusman, a lobbyist for the Teamsters union, echoed the concern. “They’re a wholly independent nonprofit organization that has no oversight. That’s part of the problem,” he said. The Teamsters originally supported the plastics law in hopes it would create jobs, but Gusman said the union is now worried the fee structure could ultimately hurt workers instead.

Not long after the fee schedule was published, Davey joined a coalition that included the California Restaurant Association, the California League of Food Producers, the American Forest and Paper Association and the Print Creative Alliance to commission an independent study challenging CalRecycle’s cost projections. That analysis argued the state’s 2025 estimate of $21 billion in total implementation costs — about $190 per household annually — relied on “idealized assumptions that fail to capture real-world costs and complications the regulations will create.” The industry study instead pegs the cost between $35 billion and $58 billion, with expenses expected to climb further once the program is fully in place.

Klug countered that CalRecycle’s earlier figures were only estimates to begin with. “The actual costs will be determined by producer choices,” he said, noting that expenses will depend heavily on the materials and infrastructure companies choose to use.

Growers Warn of Unintended Consequences

For agricultural producers, the toughest part of the law may be the requirement to cut plastic use by a quarter by 2032 — a mandate that could force a shift toward reusable dishware in restaurants and paper-based packaging for fresh produce.

Business groups say they support the underlying goals but argue the timeline is unrealistic. Casey Creamer, president of the California Fresh Fruit Association, pointed to food safety as a major concern. Paper-based containers for items like berries, he said, don’t allow for the same airflow as plastic clamshells, which can cause produce to spoil faster. Switching to heavier materials like glass or cardboard also adds transportation costs.

“We just don’t want to force something out and not be able to deliver a fresh, healthy commodity, or create a situation that has more significant or adverse environmental concerns just because we look at plastics and packaging in a silo,” Creamer said.

Environmental advocates, however, are firmly opposed to any delay. “All of us pay for plastic pollution through higher garbage bills and clean-ups of polluted beaches and waterways, not to mention the damage to our environment and our health,” said Nick Lapis, advocacy director for Californians Against Waste.

State Sen. Ben Allen, the Los Angeles County Democrat who authored the original legislation, was blunt in his response to the push for delay. “This 11th-hour Hail Mary is only trying to maintain status quo and avoid due responsibility, throwing years of good-faith negotiations, and affordability and sustainability improvements out the window,” he said in a statement.

Will Grocery Prices Actually Rise?

Whether the law is already nudging up grocery prices is difficult to prove. Creamer suggested some businesses may already be building anticipated fees into their pricing. Federal data show grocery prices dipped slightly in July compared to June, though year-over-year prices continue to climb — and that climb appears to be picking up speed, according to Richard Volpe, a consumer-price expert at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Neither the USDA nor the Bureau of Labor Statistics has released August figures yet, and no current data separates the plastics law’s specific impact from broader inflation trends.

Volpe said grocers, who typically operate on razor-thin profit margins, will likely pass added costs on to shoppers eventually — but probably not all at once. “It will not happen overnight,” he said. “And it will still be relatively small, mostly on the order of pennies on the dollar.”

Industry representatives argue those small increases will add up over time. “If someone’s even on the cusp of food insecurity and they’re looking at $1,000 more a year, that’s pushing them over the food cliff,” said Nate Rose, a spokesperson for the California Grocers Association.

For the Teamsters, the concern isn’t just about consumer prices — it’s about jobs, too. “It has been morphed into something that is going to cost California consumers a substantial amount of money at a time when I don’t know if we need to spend thousands more on groceries,” Gusman said. “That also has an impact on the workforce.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Push to Cut Plastic Packaging Could Raise Prices for Consumers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Gasoline prices are climbing, and many people will find some of the most immediate economic pain at the pump.

But you don’t have to drive a car to be affected. Nearly all goods — including food — that are bought and sold must travel from where they’re produced. Those costs will climb with higher gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices.

And the spike in oil prices will likely be a big factor for U.S. inflation. As the war continues, some experts say the price of, well, everything could be affected.

“The longer this lasts, the more significant the shock would be,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at consulting firm EY-Parthenon.

Here’s how the growing cost of oil and gas could impact consumers as the war continues.

At the pump: Gas prices are likely to continue climbing

Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel are made from crude oil. As the cost of crude climbs, so do the prices of those widely used products, which keep equipment, cars, buses, delivery trucks and airplanes running.

Across the U.S., drivers were paying an average of $3.48 for a gallon of regular gasoline Monday, compared with $2.98 before the war started. Prices have increased about 17% since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran.

Prices vary across states. In California, drivers were paying $5.20, up 12% from a week ago. Some of California’s refineries have shut down in recent years, so the massive state relies on imports of gasoline and other refined products from Asia.

By contrast, the average price in Louisiana, which has oil production and refineries, was $3.04.

The spike in oil prices is likely to further push up gasoline prices, and could be felt more significantly in Asia and Europe, which are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil and gas than the United States.

The cost of shipping and goods increases alongside the price of diesel

The price of diesel — which powers 18-wheeler trucks — climbed Monday, too: to $4.65 a gallon in the U.S., a 23% jump since the war started.

“Can’t underscore what a massive jolt this is to the logistics, trucking, (agriculture) sectors,” Patrick De Haan, a petroleum analyst at GasBuddy, wrote on X Monday.

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway that carries a fifth of the world’s crude oil and liquified natural gas, already has caused problems for the shipping industry. Quickly rising oil and gas prices will add to the burden.

Fuel prices account for 50% to 60% of the total operating cost of shipping goods by ship, according to Patrick Penfield, professor of supply chain practice at Syracuse University, so higher fuel prices have a huge effect on the industry.

“When fuel prices start to go up, everything starts to slow down,” Penfield said. “So your ships slow down, your trucks slow down. People are less apt to ship things via air. And it really kind of causes a drag on the economy when fuel price go up.”

Fuel surcharges will also rise — as shipping companies aim to pass along higher costs to their customers, ultimately making goods more expensive.

Home energy bills will probably rise, and items made from plastic could cost more

Heating your home and cooking food with natural gas are also likely to cost more as the war grinds on.

Europe’s benchmark natural gas rose 75% since the war began, according to data from the Intercontinental Exchange.

That could also affect the cost of products made from natural gas, such as petrochemical feedstock. It’s used to make plastic and rubber, as well as nitrogen fertilizer.

Eventually, groceries might be more expensive, too

The spike in oil prices likely won’t be felt immediately at U.S. grocery stores, said David Ortega, a professor of food economics and policy at Michigan State University. But if oil prices remain high for a month or more, he said, “we’re in different territory.”

Higher oil prices impact the agricultural sector in two ways, Ortega said. They raise the cost of inputs such as fuel for farm equipment and the fertilizer, which is derived from natural gas. They also raise demand for soybean oil, palm oil and other vegetable oils that can be used as replacements for petroleum-based fuel.

But Ortega said on-farm costs are only a small part of what consumers pay at the supermarket. A larger share comes from the cost of processing and transporting food, which uses a lot of energy.

“Food gets to the grocery store on diesel, whether it’s on a truck or on a boat,” Ortega said.

If oil prices remain elevated, fresh foods that must be transported quickly could see price hikes more quickly than packaged foods, which are less perishable, Ortega said.

If inflation rises, everything gets more expensive

With U.S. oil prices increasing by roughly 42% from their pre-war levels, to roughly $95 a barrel from about $67 before the conflict, that could push up inflation in the United States from 2.4% in January to 3% or higher in the coming months, according to a rough estimate by economists at JPMorgan.

Economist Daco, of EY-Parthenon, estimated that the bump in gas prices could push monthly inflation to as high as 1% in March, which would be the highest monthly increase in four years. Yearly inflation would near 3% in that case.

“That’s a significant shock in and of itself,” Daco said.

Some experts say consumer spending will decrease

Mark Mathews, chief economist and executive director of research at the National Retail Federation, said higher gas prices would likely affect consumer spending, particularly lower-income shoppers.

U.S. households pay on average $2,500 a year, or nearly $50 a week, to fill up their tank, he said. If consumers are paying, say, $10 more per week, he said, their budgets are certainly affected.

“How do they offset that?” he said. “Going out to a movie theater or going to a theme park or going out to eat — all those areas would be … more likely see cuts.”

Some see hope that prices stay down — for now

Mathews expects that retailers will absorb higher transportation costs for a while — as many did with higher tariff s — before they increase prices.

Italian Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti warned against passing along higher energy costs to consumers, recalling the lessons learned after Russia invaded Ukraine.

“We must act immediately to stop energy prices from spreading to all consumer goods, as happened in 2022,” he told a Monday G7 meeting in Brussels, according to a statement from his office.

Ed Anderson, a professor of supply chain and operations management for the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas, said shippers won’t immediately pass on costs to customers.

“If the conflict is only in the short run, companies will eat it,” he said.

The post How the Iran war and surging oil prices are affecting consumers at the gas pump and beyond appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.