A formal ethics complaint has been lodged against Rachel Wagoner, formerly the director of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery who is now with producer responsibility organization Circular Action Alliance. The complaint alleges that she is lobbying her former agency in violation of a state “switching sides” ban.
The complaint is the latest development in the story of extended producer responsibility for packaging law SB 54, which a Feb. 15 LA Times article suggested was being undermined by several organizations.
The article quoted Wagoner, who was CalRecycle director from 2020 to 2024, later worked as a consultant for Eastman, and is now executive director for California at CAA.
Under California’s lobbying laws, former regulators are not allowed to receive compensation to work against the state on matters that were under their purview for at least one year or advise clients on regulations. The complaint alleges that Wagoner has advised clients on regulations in violation of the law.
A March 4 LA Times article delved into the anonymous whistleblower complaint, submitted Feb. 19 to California’s Fair Political Practices Commission.
The complaint asked the agency to investigate Wagoner for a violation of the ban.
The Fair Political Practices Commission has not yet determined whether they will conduct an investigation, the LA Times reported. Based on a Feb. 25 letter addressed to Wagoner, she has until March 11 to provide the agency with information to support her case. The agency will then decide how to proceed, the LA Times noted.
The Feb. 15 article was centered on CalRecycle’s silence on the PS foodware ban that is part of SB 54, but also flagged larger concerns that industry players were pressuring Gov. Gavin Newsom to delay or alter the larger EPR law. Members of CAA and of the state SB 54 advisory board fielded plenty of public comments on the topic at a Feb. 21 board meeting.
CAA Senior Vice President of Communications Larine Urbina said in an email that CAA is “fully dedicated to building and implementing a strong operating plan for SB 54. We have assembled a team of highly skilled experts, intimately familiar with the legislation, to lead these efforts.”
“The current draft regulations contain several elements that must be addressed to ensure success, and we welcome more time to get the regulations right,” she said. “We will continue to work with all interested parties to address these challenges and ensure a successful program that delivers on the intent of SB 54.”
Bigger picture concerns
Rulemaking on SB 54 has appeared to stall out in the governor’s office. By statute, the full permanent rulemaking package needs to be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law by March 7.
This has alarmed supporters of the law. On Feb. 28, three lawmakers – Congresswoman Luz Rivas, House Committee on Natural Resources Ranking Member Jared Huffman and Representative Laura Friedman – sent a letter to Newsom asking him to act.
“We understand implementation and the rulemaking process requires constant communication with stakeholders from the entire spectrum,” they wrote, adding that they’re pleased with CalRecycle’s “exhaustive efforts to conduct and review stakeholder input to ensure a transparent and public process.”
Over the past several years, multiple groups, including the chosen producer responsibility organization and CalRecycle, have spent hundreds of hours in meetings and reviewing comments on the proposed rules. CalRecycle received over 450 letters and 5,000 comments, and “held countless stakeholder meetings from industry, local governments, and advocacy groups,” the letter authors wrote, which “has clearly met the intentions of the legislation as written.”
“However, all this work may be for naught if regulations are not finalized by March 7, 2025,” the lawmakers wrote, urging Newsom to act.
“By promulgating the regulations and adhering to the timelines set in SB 54, you would further solidify California’s leadership in environmental sustainability and position our state as a model for the nation in addressing plastic pollution,” they wrote, adding that they wanted to get an update from the governor’s office before March 7.
Politico reported on Feb. 24 that the governor’s office and CalRecycle both said they were committed to meeting the statutory deadlines.
Advisory board fields complaints
At the Feb. 21 meeting, a CalRecycle representative said the agency had no updates to share on the rulemaking or the LA Times article.
Shane Buckingham, chief of staff at CAA, said at the meeting that he felt CAA’s response was clear and “definitely to support getting regulatory clarity and to make sure we have the certainty we require to build a plan and ensure it’s successful.”
“CAA has made many comments and we’ve had many discussions in this forum on how to strengthen the regulations, how to improve them so that the program can be delivered in a way that will ultimately achieve the goals and aims of the legislation,” he said. “I think that remains our intention in all of our commentary.”
Rachel Michelin, president and CEO of the California Retailers Association, is a nonvoting member of the advisory board. She said she wanted to “provide a counter narrative, given the LA Times article, because our position has always been that we want SB 54 to work.”
“So often in California, we tend to do these regulatory packages quickly and don’t take the time to make sure they can be implemented in the right way, that they actually work the way the statute was intended to work,” she said, emphasizing that she and her members want to take the time needed to do it right.
“I can tell you there are going to be unintended consequences if we don’t do this right,” she said. “Everyone is watching across the country to see how we do this in California and if we rush this through and don’t take the time to do it effectively and efficiently we’re going to all be facing the consequences of it going forward, not just for SB 54 – I know others of us work on other EPR programs that are building upon what’s in the regulatory package.”
Making a public comment, Anja Brandon, director of plastics policy at Ocean Conservancy, said delaying or undermining SB 54 would also have ripple effects on other EPR legislation.
“Right now we are in a moment where delays or any undermining of SB 54 risks broader stakeholder support for EPR across the United States,” she said, encouraging everyone to “move from theoretical concerns to actually implementing this law.”
She added that “this has not been a rushed process by any stretch of the imagination” based on the outreach CalRecycle and CAA have done, and that if this process fails and producers start to pull back from this style of EPR, which is more producer led, some stakeholders will revert to pushing for an earlier style of “command and control” like the 2022 ballot measure that they originally withdrew in favor of SB 54.
Board member Tedd Ward, director of Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority and representing a statewide rural county association, added that “delays are fundamentally dangerous and have potential to undermine the program.”
Fred Briones, CEO of Native American Fiber Program and board member representing a disadvantaged or low-income community or rural area told fellow board members “do not be afraid of going forward.”
“The economy always exists if people exist, but without people there is no economy,” he said, referencing the harmful health effects of plastic that SB 54 also seeks to address. “Full speed ahead. Let’s see what happens.”
Making a public comment, Michelle Fay, program manager at StopWaste.org, said the organization “would like to go on record to voice our support for the regulatory process that has been employed to date” and called the allegations in the LA Times article that CAA and the governor were working to block SB 54 “very concerning.”
“At this point there is too much at stake,” she said. “We acknowledge that drafting these regulations has been a monumental task and while we recognize they are not perfect – StopWaste has submitted many, many comments along with most of you all in the room about our concerns with the regulations – we do feel that they are in a place where they are workable and we can move forward.”
Buckingham responded to Fay, noting that CAA is actively moving forward on EPR plans in multiple states and has “no intention to derail anything.”
“It’s quite the opposite in fact,” he said, adding that “CAA’s mission is to advance producer responsibility in the United States.”
