Ongoing policy and legal discussions about the role of chemical recycling could shape how the industry and its investments move forward in coming years.
A high-profile set of lawsuits between California Attorney General Rob Bonta, environmental groups and ExxonMobil is still moving through court. Meanwhile, a battle over the potential role of chemical recycling in a New York EPR for packaging bill is playing out between lobbyists and activists.
Meanwhile, companies continue to invest in chemical recycling, also known as advanced or molecular recycling. Here are some recent developments in the sector.
California AG appeals judge’s ruling allowing ExxonMobil to continue defamation suit
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has appealed a federal judge’s ruling that ExxonMobil can continue with its defamation lawsuit against him. Bonta appealed the ruling on Feb. 18, just a few days after the judge rejected Bonta’s claim that he could not be sued for defamation because he criticized ExxonMobil and its chemical recycling activities in his official capacity as AG.
ExxonMobil and Bonta have been locked in dueling lawsuits for the last few years. Bonta initially sued ExxonMobil in September 2024, saying the company has known for years that chemical recycling “will never be able to process more than a tiny fraction of the plastic waste it produces,” he said in the complaint. Environmental groups Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay and San Francisco Baykeeper also filed a coordinated lawsuit at that time.
The combined suits further allege ExxonMobil either lied about or overstated the effectiveness of its chemical recycling operations and that its facilities have negatively impacted the environment and public health.
ExxonMobil later sued Bonta and the environmental groups in January 2025 over the issue, claiming defamation. In court documents, ExxonMobil claims Bonta and the environmental groups’ negative statements directly led to certain chemical recycling customers expressing hesitancy to work with ExxonMobil, and “a number of companies have backed out of proposed transactions with ExxonMobil for advanced recycling,” the company said in court documents.
Chemical recycling provisions could create impasse over New York EPR bill
A fight over the role of chemical recycling in a contentious New York extended producer responsibility for packaging bill could block the bill from moving forward this year.
The EPR bill, known as the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act, is back for another year after failing to make it to the Assembly floor last session. The bill had passed the state Senate both in 2024 and in 2025 but wasn’t able to make it across the finish line either time.
The bill would create an EPR program for most packaging materials, set specific recycling or reuse rates for plastic packaging and would restrict the state from counting chemical recycling technologies as recycling. It also calls for phasing out PFAS and certain other chemicals from packaging.
The current version of the bill specifically states that recycling does not include “any chemical conversion process” including pyrolysis, gasification or solvolysis— all types of chemical recycling.
A coalition of groups including the American Chemistry Council, Ameripen, The Carton Council, Foodservice Packaging Institute, Plastics Industry Association and numerous others have criticized the bill. They say the bill “inappropriately excludes the use of advanced recycling, such as material-to-material molecular recycling technologies, which can be employed in addition to mechanical recycling to increase material recovery and reducing waste disposal and carbon emissions.”
The Business Council of New York State renewed its criticism of the bill in January, saying the chemical and chemical recycling-related restrictions aren’t present in other EPR laws that have passed in other states.
The groups also claim the chemical restrictions could disrupt supply chains and pass high costs onto consumers.
Beyond Plastics, a major bill supporter, said the group is unwilling to compromise on those chemical-related provisions. The group has long maintained that chemical recycling technologies create pollution and do not deliver meaningful recycling results.
“A line in the sand for us is no chemical recycling,” said Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics, in an interview with New York State of Politics.
Beyond Plastics has also called out what it calls the bill’s “David and Goliath” lobbying efforts, noting that the majority of New Yorkers support the EPR bill because of its plastic pollution reduction efforts and taxpayer benefits.
Lawmakers expect negotiations to continue, which could generate a series of bill amendments, Spectrum News reported. The bill is currently making its way through a Senate committee.
Other chemical recycling news
- The Natural Resources Defense Council commissioned a study about life cycle analyses for chemical recycling projects. The authors remain “skeptical” of most LCAs, saying less than a third offer information about possible health impacts or reflect data from operational plants rather than “theoretical data.” NRDC says this information should be considered when states examine the impacts of different recycling technologies under new state EPR programs. (NRDC)
- Textile recycler Reju has partnered with Goodwill on its upcoming textile recycling hub in Rochester, New York. The $390 million chemical recycling project will take textile feedstock from 11 local Goodwill locations. The company says it will also build a similar facility in Lacq, France. (WHAM)
- Chemical recycler Aduro says it is starting up its pilot plant in London, Ontario, a few months after it announced it had finished it equipment installation process. (Aduro)
- PlasCred Circular Innovations says it has secured a $2.35 million loan to build its first commercial chemical recycling facility in Calgary, Alberta. The funding is under the Industrial Research Assistance Program administered by the National Research Council of Canada. (PlasCred)
