Producers of batteries used in e-bikes, lawn equipment and portable power systems must now fund the collection and recycling of those batteries in California.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 501 on Sept. 20, adding medium-format batteries to the state’s Responsible Battery Recycling Act of 2022.
The same day, he vetoed SB 1180, a second bill from Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica) that would have set spending rules for the $5 billion Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund created under SB 54.
Newsom signed a third bill, SB 936, on Sept. 18. It restricts sales of large nitrous oxide canisters.
SB 501: Medium-format batteries
SB 501, now Chapter 414, Statutes of 2026, sorts all covered batteries into small-format and medium-format categories. The law defines a medium-format rechargeable battery as one “that weighs more than 11 pounds or that has a rating of more than 300 watthours, or both, but that does not weigh more than 25 pounds or have a rating of more than 2,000 watthours.”
Nonrechargeable batteries weighing between 4.4 and 25 pounds also qualify.
Collection requirements differ by format. Counties with 50,000 or more residents need at least five medium-format collection sites or one per 30,000 people, whichever is greater. Counties with 18,001 to 50,000 residents need two. Smaller counties need one.
Retailers with five or more California locations must still collect small-format batteries. A retailer that isn’t a designated collection site “is not required to collect medium format batteries,” according to the bill text.
Program operators must “annually demonstrate achievement of a minimum recycling efficiency rate of 60 percent for rechargeable batteries and 70 percent for nonrechargeable and primary batteries.”
Stewardship plans must show “adequate financial responsibility and financial controls in place to ensure proper management of funds,” and annual audits must follow the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification.
Record retention rises from three years to five. Program operators must provide collection sites with fire prevention, detection and response guidance at no cost. Stewardship plans are due within 12 months of CalRecycle’s implementing regulations taking effect.
The bill passed the Assembly 62-14 on Aug. 24. The National Stewardship Action Council (NSAC) co-sponsored the bill with the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) and the Resource Recovery Coalition of California.
Redwood Materials opposed the measure, arguing lithium-ion batteries shouldn’t be covered and that the bill favors a single third-party collection entity over established e-waste and metals recyclers.
“First, stop the fires,” NSAC CEO Heidi Sanborn said in a statement.
SB 936: Nitrous oxide canisters
SB 936, authored by Sen. Catherine Blakespear and now Chapter 317, makes it unlawful “to sell, offer to sell, or distribute a nitrous oxide container that is capable of holding more than eight grams of nitrous oxide.” The law also bans flavored nitrous oxide and inhalation devices.
Exemptions cover denatured product, manufacturing and industrial use, vehicle performance, medical, veterinary and dental use and food propellant under nine grams.
Violators are liable for “all reasonable costs incurred by a public agency in the investigation, inspection, seizure, storage, transportation, handling, venting, abatement, disposal, or destruction” of the products involved. That provision allows local agencies and household hazardous waste programs to recover handling costs.
Violations are infractions carrying fines of $500, $1,000 and $2,000 for first, second and subsequent offenses. Tobacco retailers found with prohibited nitrous oxide face civil penalties of up to $10,000 and license revocation on a third violation. Cities and counties may adopt stricter rules.
The bill passed the Assembly 78-0, and the Senate concurred 39-0. NSAC co-sponsored it with RCRC, San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan and the County of Orange.
SB 1180: Mitigation fund veto
Under SB 54, the producer responsibility organization (PRO) must pay $500 million a year into the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund (PPMF) from Jan. 1, 2027, through Jan. 1, 2037. The PRO may collect up to $150 million of that from plastic manufacturers.
Sixty percent of the fund goes to reducing the public health impacts of plastics, with 75% of that share required to directly and primarily benefit residents of disadvantaged or low-income communities.
The remaining 40% goes to natural resource agencies to reduce plastics’ environmental impacts, with half of that share required to benefit residents of disadvantaged or low-income communities or rural areas.
Eligible grantees include tribes, nongovernmental organizations, community-based organizations, local jurisdictions and, for natural resource grants, land trusts.
“While existing statute establishes general goals for the PPMF, additional operational specificity is crucial for successful implementation,” Allen, who also authored SB 54, said in the Senate floor analysis.
SB 1180 would have required every expenditure to prioritize projects benefiting communities most burdened by plastic pollution. Assembly amendments added California Native American tribes as a priority. Each expenditure would have had to meet at least one listed objective, such as sustained mitigation of plastics’ health impacts or cleanup of lands and waterways harmed by plastic pollution.
Agencies running grant programs would have had to provide technical assistance, use a single standardized application and make advance payments. They also would have had to reimburse grantees’ indirect costs, capped at 35% of the total award, and require applicants to show a nexus between their project and plastic pollution mitigation.
The bill capped state administrative and program support costs, excluding technical assistance, at 10% of funds allocated in any fiscal year. Fund money could not have covered PRO obligations. CalEPA would have had to publish an annual, downloadable spreadsheet of every expenditure.
SB 1180 also would have expanded grant eligibility to public agencies, nonprofits, special districts, joint powers authorities, public utilities, local publicly owned utilities, mutual water companies, universities, school districts and community colleges. Projects would have needed a “primary and direct purpose” of plastic pollution mitigation, prevention or remediation.
The floor analysis noted mutual water companies could be essential to removing microplastics from water systems. It also said large entities “could also be more prepared to apply for grant funding than smaller organizations.” The Assembly Appropriations Committee projected “unknown, potentially significant ongoing cost pressures” from the expanded eligibility.
More than 60 organizations supported the bill. Local government and solid waste supporters included the California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities and StopWaste, along with Californians Against Waste, Oceana, Surfrider Foundation and The Nature Conservancy.
Plastics, packaging, consumer brands, retail, manufacturing and agriculture groups opposed it, among them the American Chemistry Council, Plastics Industry Association, Flexible Packaging Association and CalChamber. RCRC, which co-sponsored SB 501 and SB 936, also opposed SB 1180.
The bill passed the Senate 29-5 in May and the Assembly 41-24 on Aug. 30. The Senate concurred in Assembly amendments 28-10 the next day.
In his veto message, Newsom said “much of the work to ensure the funding reaches the most appropriate entities is already underway” and that SB 1180 “risks complicating implementation” of both SB 54 and the fund.
Oceana and Californians Against Waste, both SB 1180 supporters, sued CalRecycle with NRDC on June 2 over the final SB 54 regulations.
Newsom has until Sept. 30 to act on the remaining bills from the session, including AB 2253, the Californians Against Waste-sponsored recycled-content claims bill Resource Recycling previously covered.
