Circular Economy

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

Consumers use one trillion single-use food and beverage packaging items in the United States each year – which make up nearly seventy percent of the litter found in the environment. According to Upstream, an environmental nonprofit, resources to manufacture these products include 10% of harvested wood, 20% of mined aluminum, 40% of plastic, and 50% of glass.

That’s the problem that the burgeoning reuse economy seeks to solve by establishing systems for consumers to purchase products in reusable packaging and then return for refill at stores, restaurants, or entertainment venues. But how does Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fit in? This question was explored on a recent webinar moderated by Upstream’s new policy director, Sydney Harris (formerly of PSI) where Will Grassle, PSI’s Associate for Policy & Programs, was one of four panelists.

Panelist Jennifer Navarra of Zero Waste Hawai’i described how the state was able to prioritize reuse in their packaging EPR bill because of the lack of existing recycling infrastructure. “It doesn’t make sense to invest in the recycling system because we don’t have it,” she said. “It makes sense for us to start with reuse and reduction.”

McKenna Morrigan of Seattle Public Utilities agreed that reuse should be included in packaging EPR legislation, as it was in Washington’s bill. “Some of the arguments against making reusables subject to fees is that they are a small part of the packaging universe,” she said. “But if the future of reuse goes where we want it to, we need to make sure that it is part of the EPR program. If it is left out, there will be a structural problem with how the program will operate in the future.”

PSI has long advocated for reuse. In late 2022, we hosted a series of stakeholder meetings to discuss how EPR could introduce and strengthen reuse, which are being implemented into PSI’s framework policy elements for packaging EPR. We recommend that:

Reusables should be defined as products that are reused for their original purpose in their original form.
Reusables should be a covered material if a robust recycling program is in place in the state.
If a robust recycling program is not in place, covered materials should not initially include reusables; however, they should be considered in the future as recycling infrastructures evolve.
If reusables are covered, funding allocation should cover reuse infrastructure and services.
A needs assessment should be required to analyze existing reuse operators and infrastructure and determine opportunities and gaps to expand reuse throughout the state.
Eco-modulated fees should be lower for reusables than other covered materials.
Outreach and education requirements should include materials that identify which covered materials are reusable and how to reuse them.
The annual report should analyze reusable displacement – the amount of reusables returned and/or refilled versus the amount entering the market.
If reusables are covered, a reuse operator should be included on the advisory council.
When reusables are covered, manufacturers should only pay when they enter the market.
The same metrics that are used for other packaging materials should be used for reusables.
The state should have the ability to adjust reuse targets over time.

“There are really two paths,” Grassle summarized. “In states with robust recycling systems, reusable packaging should be a covered material at the start, and therefore, the program should cover costs relating to improvements in reuse infrastructure and services. In states without robust recycling, the state should consider leaving reusables out of covered materials for the first plan cycle and focus on improving their recycling system but should consider including reusables in future plan cycles. In either case, the statute should clarify that expanding reuse is a priority and one of the program’s ultimate goals.”

Most of these recommendations align with Upstream’s recently launched Principles for Reuse/Refill in EPR and DRS (deposit return systems). And they make their way into legislation recently introduced in several states.

However, David Allaway of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality cautioned that statutes must include specific targets to hold PROs accountable. “We can’t repeat the mistake that the recycling community has made for the past 30 years…treating recycling like magic fairy dust,” he said. “There are cases where reuse does not make environmental sense.” He cited the example of the aluminum container that Loop designed for Häagen-Dazs, which is reusable but also has a high negative environmental impact.

Upstream’s stated goal is to reimagine packaging as a service rather than a product to facilitate 30% of consumable goods sold in reusable formats in the U.S. and Canada by 2030. As states increasingly consider legislation to address packaging waste, it just makes sense to build principles of reuse into EPR laws.

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the eighth and final part of our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on key definitions and additional components, which refers to additional sections of the bill that do not fit into the other elements. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. To read about design for environment and performance standards, please read part five. For information on outreach and education requirements, and equity and environmental justice, take a look at part six; part seven covers the implementation timeline.

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:

covered materials/products

covered entities

collection and convenience

responsible party (i.e. “producer”)

governance, funding inputs

funding allocation

design for environment

performance standards

outreach and education requirements

equity and environmental justice

implementation timeline

key definitions

additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.

MAINE

KEY DEFINITIONS

“Recycling” means the transforming or remanufacturing of an unwanted product into usable or marketable materials.
“Recycling” does not include landfill disposal, incineration; energy recovery or generation by means of combustion with or without other waste.
“Reuse” means a change in ownership of a product for use in the same manner for which it was originally made.

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS

No additional components are included.

OREGON

KEY DEFINITIONS

“Mechanical Recycling”: does not change the basic molecular structure of material being recycled.
“Commingled recycling” means the recycling or recovery of two or more materials that are mixed and would be separated into individual materials at a facility for marketing.
“Recycling” means any process by which solid waste materials are transformed into new products in a manner that the original products may lose their identity.
“Compost” means the controlled biological decomposition of organic material, or the product made by this process.

“Reuse” means the return of a commodity into the economic stream for use in the same kind of application as before without alteration.
Act changed the definition of “Recyclable Material” to include any material named by the commission and assigned to either acceptance list.

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS

Waste Prevention and Reuse: Producers pay into fund that provides state-run grants or loans for projects that reduce the environmental impacts of covered materials through means beyond recycling/recovery.
Truth-in-Labeling Task Force: State convenes a multi-stakeholder Truth in Labeling task force to study misleading claims of recyclability. Task Force submits report and recommendations to the legislature by June 1, 2022.
Additional State Agency Tasks: State charged with developing a permitting and certification process for MRFs and assessing the impacts of a potential state procurement policy for recycled products, plastic, and other materials.
Repeals statewide requirement to place resin identification code with chasing arrows on plastic containers (ORS 459A.680).

COLORADO

KEY DEFINITIONS

“Mechanical Recycling”: does not change the basic molecular structure of material being recycled.

“Recycling” does not include energy recovery or energy generation thru combustion; use as a fuel; alternative daily cover; landfill disposal.
Recycling rate measured when materials are prepared for sale or delivery to reclaimers or end markets.
“Compostable”: covered material associated with organic waste streams, capable of undergoing aerobic biological decomposition in controlled composting system (ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868, or successor standards).
“Reuse” or “refill” means returning covered materials to the marketplace that have already been used in same manner as originally intended without change in purpose and was intended to be used for original purpose >5 times.

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS

Starting in 2028, CDPHE must review consumer cost impacts from the program, including the prices of goods, local government expenditures, and consumer spending on recycling and trash services. Must repeat this review every three years.

CALIFORNIA

KEY DEFINITIONS

“Recycling” means collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise be disposed of. Materials must be sent to responsible end markets; state may establish regulations to define these markets.
“Recycling” does not include combustion; incineration; energy generation; fuel production (except for organic materials); landfill disposal.
Recycling rate measured by dividing amount of materials recycled by total amount of materials disposed of and recycled.
“Reuse” or “refill” means using materials that are designed for multiple uses/durability; supported by adequate infrastructure to facilitate reuse/refilling; frequently reissued into supply chain.

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS

California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund: Producers pay $500 million annually into a fund that is used by the state to pay for programs that monitor and reduce the environmental, public health, and environmental justice impacts of plastics. 40% goes to environmental funds and 60% goes to environmental justice funds. Producers may collect up to 30% of this payment ($150 million) from plastic resin manufacturers.

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the seventh in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on the implementation timeline. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. To read about design for environment and performance standards, please read part five. For information on outreach and education requirements, and equity and environmental justice, take a look at part six.

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:

covered materials/products

covered entities

collection and convenience

responsible party (i.e. “producer”)

governance, funding inputs

funding allocation

design for environment

performance standards

outreach and education requirements

equity and environmental justice

implementation timeline

key definitions

additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.

MAINE

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

July 2022: Administration funds available to ME DEP
December 2023: Rulemaking process initiated. Rules adopted by Spring/Summer 2025.
Anticipated by Fall 2025: RFP issued for SO by ME DEP.
Anticipated by 2026: SO selected; implementation begins.
Plan & Contract with DEP renewed every 10 years.

OREGON

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

2022: Advisory Council appointed by OR DEQ – began meeting May 2022.
July 1, 2023: OR DEQ completes first needs assessment.
Stewardship plan(s) due by March 31, 2024.
Implementation begins July 1, 2025.
Initial stewardship plan(s) cover 3 years. After 2027, plan(s) cover 5 years.

COLORADO

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

December 31, 2022: Advisory Board appointed by CDPHE.
June 1, 2023: PRO formed.
September 1, 2023: Needs assessment work must begin.
March 2024: Needs assessment must be sent to legislature for approval.
Stewardship plan due by February 1, 2025 (to Advisory Board);
Producers must join PRO by July 1, 2025 and pay fees after plan is approved by state.
Stewardship plans cover 5 years.

CALIFORNIA

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

July 1, 2023: Advisory Board appointed by CalRecycle.
January 1, 2024: PRO formed; CalRecycle to publish a list of recyclable & compostable materials and covered material categories.
January 1, 2025: Regulations adopted.
Implementation begins January 1, 2027.
Stewardship plan renewed every 5 years.

by the team at Covanta, a PSI Partner

In the United States, we still bury more than half of our waste in landfills, losing valuable resources and harming the environment in the process as those materials release exorbitant amounts of methane into the atmosphere and contaminants into our soil and waterways.

On the surface, sending waste to landfills may seem to be the easiest and most economical route to waste disposal. But aside from the hidden liabilities and harmful effects, the upfront cost of landfill disposal is steadily rising as landfill space becomes ever more scarce. According to the Environmental Research & Education Foundation, landfill tipping fees increased annually on average between 5% and 7% — measurements taken before the sharp rise in supply chain issues and inflation.

By adopting zero waste-to-landfill processes and policies in order to divert waste away from landfills, companies can do more to preserve the environment and bolster their bottom lines: They can reduce logistics expenses and landfill fees, improve environmental compliance and reap positive public relations benefits.

This can all be accomplished by reducing the amount of waste your business generates, amplifying your recycling efforts, and finding sustainable solutions that extract value from the materials that remain.

Visit Covanta’s blog to learn the four steps that can help companies create an effective zero waste-to-landfill plan.

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the sixth in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on outreach and education requirements, and equity and environmental justice. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. To read about design for environment and performance standards, please read part five.

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:

covered materials/products

covered entities

collection and convenience

responsible party (i.e. “producer”)

governance, funding inputs

funding allocation

design for environment

performance standards

outreach and education requirements

equity and environmental justice

implementation timeline

key definitions

additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.

MAINE

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

SO may fund outreach and education campaigns as needed after municipal reimbursements and administrative costs are covered.

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

No additional equity components are included.

OREGON

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

PRO(s) fund and coordinate outreach and education. Municipalities continue local education programs.
Outreach materials must be culturally responsive to non-English speakers and disabled residents.

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Processors must provide living wages and benefits to workers and ensure worker health, safety, and wellbeing to receive a permit or certification from the state
Local governments must ensure access to collection for non-English speakers and disabled residents.
State must conduct studies on equity within the recycling system and access to collection for multifamily housing and recommend improvements to the program. The equity study repeats periodically.
PRO(s), in conjunction with processors, must ensure products go to responsible end markets.

COLORADO

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

PRO funds and implements statewide outreach program to increase recycling and reuse of covered materials. May contract with service providers, NGOs, or local government to conduct local outreach.
Required to work with existing education and outreach programs in the state.

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

“Responsible End Market”: a materials market in which recycling, or disposal of contaminants benefits the environment and minimizes risks to public health and worker health and safety.
PRO must give preference to service providers with strong labor standards and worker safety practices.
Any chemical recycling process must be used for food-grade applications and meet environmental standards.
One seat on AB designated for representative of a group focused on Environmental Justice. AB members compensated for travel and time to ensure they are not precluded from participation by lack of funds.

CALIFORNIA

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

PRO funds and implements outreach and education campaigns in coordination with existing outreach campaigns. Municipalities continue to implement local education programs and receive reimbursements for these expenses.

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

All regulations established by the state must consider environmental justice impacts.
60% of the overall funds from the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund go to environmental justice initiatives (see Element #13: Extra Initiatives).

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

PSI CEO and Founder Scott Cassel recently joined two expert panelists for a webinar discussion of EPR that was hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Trash Free Waters program.

PSI and US EPA have a long history. Beginning in 2003, we worked together to facilitate a multi-stakeholder dialogue — which included industry, government, and recycled paint manufacturers — and to develop a legislative model for paint EPR.

The mission of the Trash Free Waters program is to protect human health, aquatic ecosystems, and the economy by partnering on collaborative solutions to reduce the volume of trash — especially plastic materials — polluting our rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans. Because of this, the focus of the discussion was packaging EPR. Scott was joined by Kelly McBee, Circular Economy Senior Coordinator at As You Sow, and Maine State Senator Nicole Grohoski, in a discussion moderated by Kathleen Brady, Vice President of ERG.

Romell Nandi, an Environmental Protection Specialist at US EPA, introduced the discussion of EPR, which was positioned in the webinar description as a powerful tool to realize the mission of Trash Free Waters: “Positively changing consumer behavior, expanding recycling infrastructure, installing trash capture devices in waterways or as part of stormwater conveyance systems and more constitute parts of the solution space – but in and of themselves, these solutions may not be adequate to keep waterways clean. A potentially impactful step that is now being considered and increasingly implemented throughout the United States is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).”

The power of packaging EPR was echoed by all three speakers including McBee, who recommended pursuit of a national packaging EPR system — a call to action that Cassel has proposed to US EPA, most recently at a 2022 stakeholder consultation meeting organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Panelists were also in agreement on the need for eco-modulated fees to level the playing field. “Those that choose to use better products are ahead of the game,” Cassel said. “Those they are dragging are going to find themselves at a disadvantage.” And Cassel and Grohoski warned that the cost increase argument is a red herring — there is no evidence from Europe or Canada that consumer prices go up under packaging EPR.

Similarly, the three panelists all cited the need for agreed-upon term definitions, which are currently fragmented both within the U.S. and globally: “Definitions will be crucial,” McBee said, ” as companies set goals and achieve them.” This is an area where the agency may be able to help: As Cassel shared at the OECD meeting, US EPA can provide guidance and technical support on issues such as packaging labeling; a standard definition of recycling; and goals for source reduction, reuse, recycling, and post-consumer recycled content.

The webinar will be archived in the Trash Free Waters Webinar Library.

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the fifth in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on design for environment and performance standards. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent.

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:

covered materials/products

covered entities

collection and convenience

responsible party (i.e. “producer”)

governance, funding inputs

funding allocation

design for environment

performance standards

outreach and education requirements

equity and environmental justice

implementation timeline

key definitions

additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.

MAINE

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

None beyond eco-modulated fee criteria.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Program targets for reuse, recycling, and collection rates to be set through rulemaking.

OREGON

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

Large producers must perform a life cycle evaluation on 1% of their in-state covered materials and publish results.
State conducts studies on contamination, composting, and litter/marine debris. Must recommend changes to the program based on results of composting and litter/marine debris studies.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Statute includes plastics recycling goals:
- 25% by 2028;
- 50% by 2040;
- 70% by 2050.
In 2038, OR DEQ may adjust plastics recycling rates by rule (no less than 35% and no more than 70%).
Program targets for contamination to be set through rulemaking.
Convenience standards, collection targets and performance standards for PRO-collected materials to be set through rulemaking.

COLORADO

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

None beyond eco-modulated fee criteria.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Needs assessment will create three scenarios with proposed goals; Advisory Board and state agency will make recommendations on preferred scenario and legislature will designate 2030 goals to move forward; PRO will then design plan to meet goals by 2030, and 2035 for collection, recycling, and PCR content rates (for certain covered materials).

CALIFORNIA

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

All covered materials must be recyclable or compostable by 2032.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Plastic covered material must be source reduced (reusable, refillable, or with virgin plastic components eliminated) by 25% by weight and number of plastic components:
- 10% by 2027;
- 20% by 2030;
- 25% by 2032.
- At least 10 percentage points must be achieved by elimination without substitution; at least 4 percentage points must be achieved by shifting to reuse or refill.
Plastic covered material must meet increasing recycling rates:
- 30% by 2028
- 40% by 2030
- 65% by 2032
Polystyrene food service ware banned unless it meets increasing recycling rates:
- 25% by 2025
- 30% by 2028
- 50% by 2030
CalRecycle may adjust recycling rates (up or down) and source reduction targets (up)

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the fourth in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on funding inputs and allocations, i.e. how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement.

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:

covered materials/products

covered entities

collection and convenience

responsible party (i.e. “producer”)

governance, funding inputs

funding allocation

design for environment

performance standards

outreach and education requirements

equity and environmental justice

implementation timeline

key definitions

additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.

MAINE: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS

INPUTS

Eco-modulated fees set through rulemaking and based on the median per ton cost for municipalities to manage each material.
Weight or volume-based metrics
Incentivizes recyclability, post-consumer content, reuse, reduction of materials, reduced toxicity and litter, and clear labeling.

ALLOCATIONS

Needs Assessment: SO conducts & funds. Results submitted to DEP.
Municipal reimbursement: all municipalities that recycle readily recyclable covered materials and meet reporting requirements receive reimbursement.
Reimbursement mechanism: to be determined through rulemaking.
Recycling funding covers: median net cost of municipal collection, transportation, sorting, and processing; program administration; and investments in education and infrastructure as funds allow (see Element #10 –Outreach & Education requirements).

OREGON: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS

INPUTS

Eco-modulated fees proposed by PRO/s and based on the PRO/s’ costs to manage covered materials.
Metrics/units not specified (“total amount”)
Incentivizes recyclability, post-consumer content, life cycle impact reduction, evaluation and disclosure, and product-to-package ratio.

ALLOCATIONS

Needs Assessment: Limited to local governments expansion. State conducts, PRO/s fund.
Shared-Cost municipal reimbursement: PRO/s reimburse municipalities – or provide funding in advance – for most transportation costs to commingled processing facilities or end markets based on distance, provision of generator-facing contamination reduction programming (e.g., cart tagging), and expansion of collection and recycling infrastructure based on the needs assessment.
PRO/s pay processors directly to cover costs of removing contaminants in the waste stream (“contamination management fee”) and a separate “processor commodity risk fee” designed to protect ratepayers from volatility in commodity revenues, and to cover most processing costs, including increased costs from implementing the law.
Reimbursement mechanism: principles prescribed in statute, details to be determined through rulemaking.
Recycling funding covers: transportation, sorting, processing, public education.
- Funding does not include local government collection costs (roughly 70% of system costs).

COLORADO: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS

INPUTS

Eco-modulated fees proposed by PRO and based on type of material, recyclability, and net recycling services costs.
Fees based on net costs for recycling; must be reported by weight
Incentivizes reduced packaging material, enhanced recyclability, PCR content, design for reuse/refill, high recycling and refill rates.

ALLOCATIONS

Needs Assessment: PRO funds state-approved third-party to conduct. Results submitted to Advisory Board and agency.
- PRO must work with agency, Advisory Board, and legislative budget committee to agree on scenario for increasing collection & recycling.
Full EPR: PRO contracts with haulers, depots & MRFs, including local governments.
Reimbursement formula: Must cover 100% of net recycling services using objective cost formula/s proposed in stewardship plan; Advisory Board input required.
Recycling funding covers: capital improvements, collection, transportation, sorting, processing, public education, disposal of contamination (nonrecyclable collected covered materials).
Funding to compost facilities goes to reduce contamination and improve processing of compostable packaging.
Caps PRO expenditures on administration at 5% and prohibits spending producer fees on employee bonuses.
Reimburses state agency for program-related expense.

CALIFORNIA: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS

INPUTS

Eco-modulated fees proposed by PRO and based on the PROs costs to manage covered materials.
Weight and unit-based metrics
Incentivizes recyclability, post-consumer content, reuse, source reduction, reduced toxicity and litter, and clear labeling.

ALLOCATIONS

Needs Assessment: State conducts, PRO funds.
Shared-Cost municipal reimbursement: all municipalities that recycle readily recyclable covered materials and meet reporting requirements receive reimbursement.
Reimbursement mechanism: proposed by PRO in program plan; state approval required.
Recycling funding covers: capital improvements, transportation from remote/rural areas to centralized sorting facilities or end markets, sorting, processing, public education, expanding curbside collection, drop-off & public space recycling access, improving end markets.
- Funding does not include ongoing operational costs for recycling programs in place before the Act took effect, but does include enhancements to existing infrastructure through quality incentive payments, grants, or other means to improve processing or reduce contamination

ALL OR MOST: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS

INPUTS

Eco-modulated fees

ALLOCATIONS

Statewide Needs Assessment
Recycling funding always covers administrative costs
Shared-Cost reimbursement states (OR & CA): Include provisions to protect ratepayers from increased costs.

We used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:

covered materials/products

covered entities

collection and convenience

responsible party (i.e. “producer”)

governance, funding inputs

funding allocation

design for environment

performance standards

outreach and education requirements

equity and environmental justice

implementation timeline

key definitions

additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.

This blog is part three in our multi-part series. It focuses on whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement.

For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two.

MAINE: ARE THERE UNIQUE PROVISIONS AND/OR EXEMPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS AND WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE?

UNIQUE PROVISION

An entity that re-packages a product for resale is the producer of the added packaging.

PRODUCER EXEMPTIONS

Small businesses (<1 ton pkg or <$2m gross revenue) are exempt.
Mid-sized businesses (<$5 million gross revenue/year) are exempt for first three years.
Producers of perishable food with <15 tons of packaging are exempt.

Businesses with at least >50% revenue from salvage, closeouts, bankruptcies, and/or liquidations are exempt.

GOVERNANCE CRITERIA

One Stewardship Org (SO): Potential SOs – can be for- or non-profit – submit bids to DEP that include program plans; DEP selects and contracts with one SO and approves its plan.
SO Board(s) not dictated in statute.

Advisory Council: Another shorter option – There is no Advisory Council. SO administers program, but rulemaking does call for various mechanisms to allow for ongoing stakeholder involvement.
Plan Oversight: SO is a contractor to Maine DEP, must get approval for all program expenditures.

OREGON: ARE THERE UNIQUE PROVISIONS AND/OR EXEMPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS AND WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE?

UNIQUE PROVISIONS

Un-branded packaging: The producer is the manufacturer of the packaged item (the product inside the packaging).
Shipping packaging: The producer is the person that packages or ships a product to a consumer.
“All other packaging”: The producer is the first distributor into the state.
Printed publications: The producer is the publisher; newspapers and magazines can provide in-kind advertising in lieu of some or all fees.

Food service ware: The producer is the person that first sells in or into the state.

PRODUCER EXEMPTIONS

Small businesses (<1 ton covered materials or <$5m gross revenue) are exempt.

Restaurants, food carts, and similar food service businesses, if they do not produce branded food service ware, are exempt.
Producers whose products are covered under the bottle bill and distribute less than five tons of other packaging into the state are exempt.

GOVERNANCE CRITERIA

One or more PRO(s), must be 501 (c)(3) nonprofit/s; each submits stewardship plan(s) to the state.
PRO Board(s) not dictated in statute.
Advisory Council: Seventeen voting members appointed by the Governor and two non-voting legislators.
Plan Oversight: Oregon DEQ may suspend plan approval if major violations occur.

COLORADO: ARE THERE UNIQUE PROVISIONS AND/OR EXEMPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS AND WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE?

UNIQUE PROVISIONS

Un-branded packaging: The producer is the manufacturer of the packaged item (the product inside the packaging).

Shipping packaging: The producer is the person that packages or ships a product to a consumer.
“All other packaging”: The producer is the first distributor into the state.
International Imports: The first company that imports into the U.S. is the producer.
Printed publications: The producer is the publisher; newspapers and magazines/periodicals can provide in-kind advertising in lieu of some or all fees.

PRODUCER EXEMPTIONS

Small businesses (< 1 ton covered materials or <$5m gross revenue not including on-premises alcohol sales) are exempt; rulemaking to adjust dollar threshold in 2023 & annually thereafter.
State & local governments are exempt.
Nonprofits are exempt.

Agricultural employers with <$5m gross revenue from in-state consumer sales are exempt.
Individual businesses operating physical retail food establishment are exempt.
Builders, construction companies, and construction contractors are exempt.

GOVERNANCE CRITERIA

One PRO to start – CDPHE may approve another in 2029; must be 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit.
PRO Board must include non-voting members from trade associations, membership must reflect diversity in size and type, and board meetings are subject to public notice.
The Advisory Board will be created by CDPHE and will be comprised of 13 voting members plus two nonvoting liaisons from CDPHE and the PRO.
Plan Oversight: State approves plan after input from advisory board; legislative budget committee must approve program goals recommended by needs assessment before initial plan is developed.

CALIFORNIA: ARE THERE UNIQUE PROVISIONS AND/OR EXEMPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS AND WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE?

There are no unique provisions in California’s law.

PRODUCER EXEMPTIONS

Small businesses (<$1m gross revenue) are exempt.
Producers of agricultural commodities are exempt.

GOVERNANCE CRITERIA

One PRO to start: Must be 501(c)(3) nonprofit; CalRecycle may approve additional PROs in 2031.
PRO Board must include non-voting members from material trade associations and companies.
Advisory Board is appointed by CalRecycle with 13 voting and three non-voting members.

Plan Oversight: State may withdraw PRO approval if requirements are not met.

COMMONALITIES IN PRODUCER DEFINITIONS

Producers are primarily the brand owners of products that use covered materials (i.e., the brand owner of the product inside the packaging). For products whose brand owner has no physical presence in the U.S., the producer is the importer, such as:

Manufacturers selling packaged products or covered paper products under their own brands, or unbranded.
Licensees of brands or trademarks if the product manufacturer is not the brand–owner (except Maine).
First importer of a packaged product or covered paper product using covered materials that sells or distributes it into the state .

COMMON ELEMENTS OF GOVERNANCE ACROSS ALL LAWS

Except in Oregon, producers may comply individually if they choose, rather than joining a PRO/SO, although there are specific requirements related to this in Colorado and California laws. In Maine, producers may also comply individually subject to a state-approved alternative collection program.
Except in Maine, an Advisory Council or Board provides input to the state and PRO/s on stewardship plans, annual reports, covered materials lists, needs assessments, and other elements.
The SO/PRO submits stewardship plan to the state for review and approval.
The state conducts enforcement and may issue civil penalties for noncompliance.

We used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:

covered materials/products

covered entities

collection and convenience

responsible party (i.e. “producer”)

governance, funding inputs

funding allocation

design for environment

performance standards

outreach and education requirements

equity and environmental justice

implementation timeline

key definitions

additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.

This blog is part two in our multi-part series. It focuses on covered entities, and collection and convenience standards in each state. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one.

MAINE: WHAT ENTITIES ARE COVERED? WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF COLLECTION CONVENIENCE THAT A STEWARDSHIP PLAN MUST PROVIDE TO COVERED ENTITIES?

All entities served by local governments (residential and commercial), including schools and public places, are covered.

EPR model: Municipal Reimbursement

Infrastructure: Stewardship organization (SO) may expand collection infrastructure as needed using funds leftover after municipal reimbursements and administrative costs are covered.

Convenience standards: N/A

Statewide List: Develop statewide list. Municipalities will have to provide for collection of the full suite of materials identified as “readily recyclable” to participate in program. The process for creating the statewide list will be developed during rulemaking.

Alternative Collection Programs: Allows for the establishment of “alternative collection program/s” for covered materials, as approved by DEP. Producers may establish their own collection and processing systems for covered materials and do not have to pay fees into the state program for any material collected through their own programs.

OREGON: WHAT ENTITIES ARE COVERED? WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF COLLECTION CONVENIENCE THAT A STEWARDSHIP PLAN MUST PROVIDE TO COVERED ENTITIES?

All entities served by local government provided or overseen (e.g., franchised) service (residential and commercial; on-route and drop-off) are covered, though most collection costs are not covered by the PRO. Producers provide collection for additional materials that are designated in the rule.

EPR model: Shared responsibility with municipal reimbursement.

Convenience standards: OR DEQ to establish through rulemaking for producer-collected materials.

Statewide Lists: EQC to develop two lists in consultation with PROs and Advisory Council: a “uniform statewide collection list” of materials that local governments must collect and “specifically identified materials” that PROs must collect.

Alternative Collection Programs: Not applicable, although PROs have some latitude in how they collect materials on their list.

COLORADO: WHAT ENTITIES ARE COVERED? WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF COLLECTION CONVENIENCE THAT A STEWARDSHIP PLAN MUST PROVIDE TO COVERED ENTITIES?

For the first five years, only residential (single and multi-family) are covered; future plans expand to public places, small businesses, schools, hospitality locations, state and local government buildings.

EPR model: Full EPR

Convenience standards: Collection of recyclables must be as convenient as collection of trash.

Statewide List: PRO and Advisory Board develop statewide list of readily recyclable covered materials based on needs assessment; CDPHE reviews & approves. Updated annually.

Alternative Collection Programs: Producers may submit individual program plans beginning in 2025 and must notify CDPHE of intent one year in advance.

CALIFORNIA: WHAT ENTITIES ARE COVERED? WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF COLLECTION CONVENIENCE THAT A STEWARDSHIP PLAN MUST PROVIDE TO COVERED ENTITIES?

All entities served by local governments (residential and commercial are covered.

EPR model: Shared responsibility with municipal reimbursement.

Convenience standards: Not applicable.

Statewide Lists: CalRecycle to publish lists of covered material categories that are recyclable and compostable as of Jan 1, 2024. Updated every two years.

All municipalities must collect all recyclable covered materials (from statewide list).

Alternative Collection Programs: For covered materials not collected through a curbside program, PRO shall collect and recycle these materials.

COMMON EXEMPTIONS IN ALL OR MOST LEGISLATION

PROs must expand collection infrastructure as needed based on results of the statewide needs assessment and any relevant rulemaking – see distinct language in Maine.