PRODUCT REGULATION
Broad Bans on PFAS Will Drive Up Costs For Almost Every Major California Sector
California’s ongoing legislative efforts to impose sweeping bans on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) risk creating far-reaching economic, regulatory, and environmental consequences in the state.
Current proposed legislation, SB 682 (Allen; D-Malibu), would prohibit all products containing PFAS unless a “currently unavoidable use” determination is granted by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
This harmful policy would affect clean energy, aerospace, agriculture, medical devices, computers, semiconductors, manufacturing, building materials and much more, driving up costs for California businesses and consumers who are already facing an affordability crisis.
A similar bill, SB 903 (Skinner; D-Berkeley), was rejected by the Legislature last year due to these fatal flaws.
Major Sectors at Risk of Economic Harm
The economic stakes of this legislation are enormous. According to a national economic impact analysis conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in partnership with FTI Consulting, banning essential fluorochemistries would result in significant economic losses across multiple sectors. The study estimates that approximately 6.1 million jobs are supported by just seven key industries that depend on these chemistries—jobs that would be at risk if PFAS were no longer available.
In total, these sectors contribute:
- over $2.4 trillion in national economic output,
- nearly $1 trillion to the national GDP,
- over $550 billion in national labor income, and
- more than $200 billion in combined federal, state, and local tax revenues.
And this is only seven key sectors analyzed, with total impacts being even larger. California’s share of these impacts would be substantial, threatening the competitiveness of key industries and the state’s fiscal base.
U.S. Chamber References:
Overgeneralization of PFAS Chemistry
PFAS are not a singular chemical but a diverse family of compounds with unique properties and applications. These substances play vital roles in industries ranging from medical devices and clean energy to electronics and aerospace. Fluoropolymers, a critical subset of PFAS, are indispensable for products like electric vehicle batteries, solar panels, conduits and surgical devices. SB 682 treats all PFAS as equally harmful, ignoring differences in their health and environmental profiles. This sweeping ban disregards scientific distinctions and fails to recognize the essentiality of certain PFAS in supporting California’s economic and environmental goals.
Further, relying upon a state agency to process tens if not hundreds of thousands of petitions seeking an exemption is not an implementable or efficient solution. Policies that ban products in California unless DTSC timely analyzes and grants an exemption for hundreds of thousands of products will severely disrupt the California economy. The Legislature should take a closer look at which PFAS chemistries are actually contaminating drinking water supplies and then direct DTSC to prioritize regulatory action for those chemistries.
Impact on California’s Climate Goals
A blanket PFAS ban would directly conflict with California’s climate policies. PFAS materials are critical for the performance and reliability of clean energy technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicle components. Eliminating these materials without adequate substitutes would jeopardize the state’s ability to transition to renewable energy and electrify its transportation sector.
Moreover, such a policy could stifle innovation and economic growth in green industries where California is a national leader. For example, PFAS are essential in manufacturing hydrogen fuel cells, a key technology in decarbonizing heavy industries. PFAS is also being used in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) in the United States to substantially lower the global warming potential (GWP) of refrigerants, which in turn reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while also maintaining energy efficiency. The most used refrigerants today, known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), have a much higher GWP and need to be replaced if the state is serious about addressing climate change.
By imposing unnecessary barriers to these applications through bans, California would undermine the state’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and advancing a net zero carbon economy.
Regulatory Uncertainty and Economic Risks
Proponents of SB 682 outline a petition process requiring manufacturers to prove that PFAS use in their products is “unavoidable,” but provide no clear criteria or timelines for DTSC’s determinations. This vagueness risks inconsistent enforcement, exposing businesses to regulatory uncertainty and litigation. In addition, the sheer volume of products affected — spanning medical devices, electronics, and industrial applications — will overwhelm DTSC under vague guidelines to process tens if not hundreds of thousands of exemption applications, not to mention impose significant compliance costs on industries as products are forced out of the market pending approval.
California already possesses robust tools under its Safer Consumer Products Program and can leverage recent federal PFAS reporting requirements to regulate these substances in a more targeted and effective manner.
Implementation Challenges in Other Jurisdictions
Attempts to enforce similar bans in other regions underscore the practical difficulties of such broad legislative policies. In Maine, for example, a 2021 PFAS ban triggered significant implementation setbacks across industries. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has issued more than 2,400 compliance extensions, overwhelming the state’s regulatory system, due to challenges such as complex global supply chains, limited laboratory testing capacity, and inadequate protections for confidential business information. A number of companies also announced that without exemptions or flexibility, they would be forced to leave the state altogether. These logistical hurdles have resulted in suspended rulemaking and multiple legislative amendments to address the policy’s shortcomings.
The European Union has faced similar obstacles. A broad PFAS restriction proposal sparked thousands of industry comments highlighting the lack of viable alternatives and the potential for significant economic and sustainability disruptions for key priorities like clean energy deployment. Delays in implementation across jurisdictions, both domestically and abroad, reflect the complexity of regulating such a diverse group of chemicals and the unintended consequences of overly broad bans where its application is vital.
CalChamber Position
While the responsible management of PFAS is essential, California should pursue policies grounded in science and practicality. Instead of an indiscriminate ban, the state should focus on targeted measures that address specific risks, prioritize high-exposure applications, and encourage the development of safer alternatives. Leveraging existing federal and state programs would ensure a more efficient and scientifically sound approach to regulating PFAS without undermining economic and environmental priorities for California.