The Carpet & Rug Institute (CRI), together with California flooring retailers, joined others in vehemently opposing California recycling bill AB 863, saying the proposed legislation could “threaten the entire flooring industry” if it becomes law.
Initially intended to modify the state’s carpet recycling program, AB 863 was dramatically amended a few weeks ago to create an alternative program that would impact multiple flooring categories, including resilient flooring.
If passed, the bill would jettison the existing California Carpet Stewardship Program, which was established in 2010 and administered through the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE). The CARE program has seen significant progress and continues to increase and advance carpet recycling and sustainability efforts in California annually.
Sponsored by State Assembly member Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, AB 863 would establish an industry-funded producer responsibility organization (PRO) to oversee the collection, transportation and recycling of multiple flooring products—broadloom carpet, carpet tile, carpet cushion, resilient (linoleum, luxury vinyl tile, sheet vinyl, vinyl composite flooring, cork and rubber) and artificial turf.
Critics say the amended version has not been properly vetted and will add significant costs to flooring sold in California.
Russ DeLozier, CRI president, told Floor Covering News the timing of the changes does not allow for the appropriate legislative review and debate necessary for a bill with such sweeping ramifications. “AB 863 is unnecessary and destructive legislation for the current California carpet recycling program, which has increased the carpet recycling rate in California from 4% in 2011 to 41% in 1Q 2024,” DeLozier noted. “The bill would introduce enormous complexity to California’s carpet industry and other flooring products.”
The California recycling bill makes flooring manufacturers responsible for paying the initial costs of the recycling program, but observers say those costs will eventually ripple through the system, reaching California consumers and costing many hundreds of millions of dollars over 10 years. The California Building Industry Association, for example, warned that AB 863 will raise the cost of construction for government-supported, low-income and affordable housing as the state considers major reductions to state housing programs.
Supporters of the California recycling bill include the National Stewardship Action Council, which argued other flooring types must do their part to reduce waste in the state. “To me, this is an equity issue,” said Heidi Sanborn, NSAC’s executive director. “Why are we putting all this responsibility on the carpet industry alone without looking at the carpet padding, the turf and these resilient floor coverings?”
The California recycling bill would require CalRecycle to conduct a needs assessment for resilient flooring by Jan. 1, 2026. That assessment would need to determine the state’s current collection, hauling and recycling systems for such flooring products, as well as the infrastructure and investment needed to improve recycling.
The bill awaits a third reading in the California Senate.
Retailers react
California flooring retailers who by now are accustomed to the state’s propensity for business regulations and oversight were aghast at what they called a clear-cut case of taxing small business.
“Ridiculous!” decried Brett Hemphill, owner of Hemphill’s Rugs & Carpets, Costa Mesa, Calif., who objected to the recycling requirements. “Synthetic turf and some vinyl flooring cannot be recycled. There is no transparency for the consumer with this, and suppliers would have to make a different price list for California retailers. The whole thing makes me furious. Simply stated, it is a tax.”
Dan Mandel, owner of Sterling Flooring in Anaheim, Calif., agreed. “It’s a totally unnecessary tax. We recycle all of our pull-up carpet and get zero incentive to do so. So, on top of already recycling material, we have to pay another tax. Very typical of California to tax businesses dry.”
That begs the question: Who will do the recycling? And who is the end user at the end of the recycling process? Dealers like Janice Clifton, owner of Napa-based Abbey Carpets Unlimited, would like to know. “I am a recycling person, very pro-environment, but you are just charging businesses here, and no one is recycling. This is not a well-thought-out recycling effort.”
Clifton added that the bill, if enacted, would be a major headache for resilient suppliers on how to price the various products that would be subject to the tax. “It’s a headache for everybody,” she said. “We have so many rules and regulations; this is just one more thing. I have a fairly large store. I have a lot of assets here to make it work. But I feel really bad for the hundreds of small stores that don’t have the ability to make these [pricing] changes so easily.”
Rick Oderio, president of San Jose-based Conklin Bros. Flooring, was even more blunt in his assessment, saying: “It is nothing more than another money grab.”