Circular Economy

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.

We used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. They include:

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 is part one in a multi-part series, which focuses on covered materials and products in each state.

WHAT’S COVERED IN MAINE?

Packaging:

Primary/Secondary
Residential and some commercial (no distribution packaging)
Reusables: covered; only charged at initial distribution
No packaging-like products.
No paper products.

Unique Exemptions:

Paint containers, if PaintCare demonstrates they are recycling at least 90% of collected containers (or 80% with Department approval)

WHAT’S COVERED IN OREGON?

Packaging:

Primary/Secondary
Residential and commercial
Reusables: exempt until ultimately disposed in state

Packaging-like products:

Food service ware

Paper products:

Printing and writing paper

Unique exemptions:

Commercial pkg that does not undergo separation from other materials at a processing facility, is collected outside the local government/Opportunity to Recycle framework and recycled at a responsible end market.

Specialty industrial packaging
On-farm packaging
Pallets

WHAT’S COVERED IN COLORADO?

Packaging:

Primary/Secondary
Single- or short-term use residential & most commercial (no B2B transport/distribution packaging; no exclusively industrial/manufacturing pkg)
Reusables: exempt

No packaging-like products

Paper products:

Printing & writing paper (see exemptions)

Unique exemptions:

Cannabis packaging – since it is regulated like federally regulated medications.
Printed financial/billing statements, medical docs & other vital docs required to be printed by law
Printed publications primarily covering news & current events

WHAT’S COVERED IN CALIFORNIA?

Packaging:

Primary/Secondary
Single-use residential & most commercial

Reusables:

Exempt

Packaging-like products:

Single-use food service ware and bags (no reusables/refillables)

No paper products

Unique exemptions:

Commercial pkg that does not undergo separation from other materials at a processing facility, is recycled at a responsible end market, and demonstrates high recycling rates (before 2027: >65% for 3 consecutive years; after 2027: > 70% annually)

COMMON EXEMPTIONS IN ALL OR MOST LEGISLATION

Architectural paint containers covered under other legislation – (see specific language for ME)
Beverage containers covered under other legislation – (see specific language in CO)
Medical packaging – see each law for variations in language – (except ME)
Packaging required or regulated by federal regulations – (in Maine, DEP will review)
Long-term storage packaging (usable for > 5 years) – (except OR)
Where paper is covered (OR/CO): Paper products that become unsafe or unsanitary to handle

by Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder of PSI

As of last year, more than 40 companies are working to develop or manage “chemical recycling” projects in the United States. This month, ExxonMobil announced 13 projects in the pipeline with the capacity to recycle 1.1 billion pounds of plastic by 2026. And as many as 20 states have enacted laws that allow chemical recycling plants to be permitted as manufacturing facilities. Yet government policy makers tasked with passing legislation or issuing permits for chemical recycling projects lack criteria to assess their economic, environmental, and human health impacts.

Our new report, “Making Sense of Chemical Recycling,” aims to fill that gap. The report will publish on November 17th, the same day that we will host an EPR Masterclass: Chemical Recycling presented by the Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA). The free webinar will feature a multi-stakeholder panel of experts from the United States and Europe, who will discuss which, if any, of these technologies can support a sustainable economy, prevent waste and pollution, and curb greenhouse gas emissions.

PSI works with state, local, and tribal government Members in 40 states; to write the report, we called on our Members to help draft a set of criteria through which governments might assess chemical recycling technology permits and legislation. The report also includes an overview of the types of technologies currently considered under the chemical recycling umbrella.

We recognize that this conversation is controversial. Producers claim that these projects leapfrog mechanical recycling by enabling infinite processing, while environmental groups allege that they undermine efforts to reduce plastic through upstream design and are simply another form of greenwashing. In July 2022, U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, along with U.S. Representatives Jared Huffman and Alan Lowenthal of California, published a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting that pyrolysis and gasification continue to be regulated as “municipal waste combustion units” rather than as a manufacturing plant under less stringent regulations. The letter was signed by 35 other members of Congress and endorsed by over 45 environmental organizations.

Critics of chemical recycling point out that projects are typically situated in low-income communities of color and that they do not yet operate “at scale,” i.e., at the required size to solve the problem. However, many acknowledge that waste management facilities, including mechanical recycling plants, are also typically situated in low-income communities of color and are also not operating at a scale to solve the problem: In the United States, only about 30% of the nearly 300 million tons of municipal solid waste generated each year is mechanically recycled. While the best way to address this crisis – as well as the linked climate emergency – is to eliminate the overproduction of plastics by ramping up waste prevention systems such as reuse and refill, we must acknowledge that production might not stop in the near- or mid-term. Strong recycling and waste management policies are also necessary to achieve a sustainable circular economy.

In the four existing packaging EPR laws, the point is already decided: PSI’s model legislation for packaging EPR, which informed laws enacted in California, Colorado, Maine, and Oregon, specifies that incineration and “waste to fuel” or “waste to energy” technologies, which burn material for energy, should be considered disposal.

Since 2000, PSI has helped enact 130 EPR laws across 16 product categories in 33 states — and all of them began with a background paper, which established the foundation for dialogue. As such, the purpose of “Making Sense of Chemical Recycling” report is to provide baseline information for a robust multi-stakeholder dialogue that we hope to facilitate with governments, NGOs, and companies running or planning chemical recycling facilities. It is a first step in a desperately needed dialogue where all stakeholders can present their interests and perspectives. Only then can PSI develop specific recommendations for how EPR can be applied to emerging chemical recycling technologies.

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

Have you checked our EPR Laws Map lately? California just changed color! This month, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law battery EPR legislation, championed by the California Product Stewardship Council and Californians Against Waste, that includes strong collection convenience standards and performance goals, comprehensive education and outreach requirements, and aspects that seek to advance equity. The state now has 11 EPR laws in place – a national record.

Known as the Responsible Battery Recycling Act of 2022, AB 2440 requires producers to establish, fund, and operate a stewardship program to collect and recycle covered batteries and battery-containing products, including primary, rechargeable, and lithium-ion batteries, which can explode or cause fires.

Over a decade ago, PSI began hosting meetings with state and local governments and other key stakeholders from across the United States to develop an evolved model for EPR batteries legislation based on global best practices. These ongoing discussions and the updated model helped shape legislation introduced in multiple states, which led to Vermont’s first-in-the-country single-use household battery EPR law (2014) and the District of Columbia’s first-in-the-nation single-use and rechargeable battery law that also covers battery-containing products (2021).

Newsom also signed SB 1215, the AB 2240 companion bill, which was stripped of its EPR elements but still amends California’s existing electronics recycling law to include batteries that are “embedded” in products and not designed to be easily removed.

Written by the team at Covanta, a PSI Partner, this blog examines a concept foundational to EPR: The transition from a “linear” to a “circular” economy. Covanta recently published an article to help businesses move up the waste hierarchy.

In a linear economy, raw materials are turned into products that are then sold to consumers who hold the responsibility for disposal. And then the process repeats. This is sometimes called the “Take-Make-Waste” model. Take materials from the ground. Make products from them. And then eventually, products are discarded.

The problem with a linear economy, according to the World Wildlife Fund’s position paper is that it is unsustainable: 50% of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide are caused by the extraction of raw materials.

In contrast, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a circular economy is based on the elimination of waste and pollution, the circulation of products and materials, and the regeneration of nature: “It is underpinned by a transition to renewable energy and materials. A circular economy decouples economic activity from the consumption of finite resources. It is a resilient system that is good for business, people and the environment.”

So, how exactly does EPR fit into that definition?

The Elimination of Waste and Pollution

The primary concern of EPR is to help eliminate, or at the very least curb, waste and pollution. Much of today’s waste comes in the form of packaging designed with the single objective of getting a product into consumers’ hands. Instead, companies must seek out alternative approaches when designing the product packaging that solve for form and function, and potential reuse, as well. EPR is meant to incentivize such a shift.

The Circulation of Products and Materials

Utilizing products and their materials to their fullest at every lifecycle stage is the essence of the circular economy concept. A key aim of EPR is to extend the natural life of products and even create new avenues of value through intelligent design, allowing them to be repurposed, their salvageable parts to be resold, or their components to be recycled into new products or, as a very last resort, processed into recoverable energy.

The Regeneration of Nature

The ultimate goal of a circular economy is improving our natural environment and society’s relationship with it. The key to this pillar of a circular economy is a change in perspective. Instead of looking to do less damage to the environment, society should be seeking to actively improve the environment and prosper alongside it.

As it relates to EPR, this means designing products to be synergistic with the environment instead of simply “inoffensive” to it, so that when they do reenter ecosystems, they go beyond reducing pollution or conserving resources to reinvigorating natural cycles. A good example of what this may look like is designing fertilizers and pesticides to be less synthetic, but to also renew soil nutrients that will in turn help the carbon cycle and climate.

The Current State of EPR

EPR is a complex solution to a complex problem. In an effort to make the seemingly challenging shift toward its policies more appealing for companies, a number of European countries have employed programs in which the state provides incentives for businesses to proactively alter their production models. Germany, who embraced the strategy in 1991, saw packaging decrease by more than 13% in the first seven years. In 2009, Canada launched a nationwide EPR plan called the Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility (CAP-EPR) which has been enforced by nine of Canada’s 10 provinces. In the United States, California just enacted its 11th EPR law — for electronics. The European Union has set an ambitious target for deploying EPR. By 2024, all packaging in EU countries must be recyclable with a goal of, by 2030, having 75% of all packaging waste recycled.

Meeting EPR Head-On

Responding to EPR requires businesses to examine their entire manufacturing and marketing processes and identify practical ways in which they can re-tool to fit into a more circular economy—especially as public opinion and legislation bear down on them more aggressively. They must examine the whole of their production cycle to identify and act on ways to mitigate potential liabilities; capitalize on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) goals and shift toward systems—and ways of thinking—that prioritize strategic resource use, intelligent product design and responsible operational execution.

To see how stronger recycling efforts can help companies overcome the challenges of EPR, download Covanta’s recent article.

by Brendan Adamcyzk, Associate for Policy & Programs

PSI is a founding member of the International Paint Recycling Association, known as IPRA, and we’re proud of the impact numbers in their recent 2021 Annual Report. Three years ago, we developed the group in collaboration with recycled paint manufacturers and it is amazing to see how much it has accomplished in just two short years.

In 2021, IPRA members recycled or reused over 4.7 million gallons of paint, achieved a 71.4% paint-to-paint recycling rate, and supported more than 3,200 jobs in the recycling industry!

IPRA is the only organization dedicated to the recycled paint industry and works tirelessly to promote the essential role of recycled paint manufacturers in the circular economy. Nine North American recycled paint manufacturers make up the group — representing decades of experience in recycling post-consumer paint into high-quality paint and other recycled products.

Many industries were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on supply chains — and the recycled paint industry was no exception. Despite these challenges, member companies have actually expanded North American operations over the past few years, while also devoting time to testify in support of paint stewardship legislation in Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey.

In May, the latest paint stewardship program launched in New York, and IPRA joined forces with the paint industry’s American Coatings Association and the industry nonprofit PaintCare to promote the new program. According to Josh Wiwcharyk, President of IPRA and Loop Recycled Products, “IPRA remains proudly committed to advocating for increased recycling of paint and extended producer responsibility initiatives to ensure responsible end-of-life management for leftover paint.”

by Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder

We’re thrilled to announce our partnership with LANDBELL GROUP, which delivers chemical stewardship and risk assessment services in the United States and Canada through its consultancy, H2 Compliance. Established as a packaging compliance scheme in Germany in 1995, LANDBELL GROUP has since evolved into a global platform for EPR and regulatory compliance and is now a leading provider of environmental and chemical compliance solutions with local expertise and global presence. With its comprehensive core services – compliance, consulting and software – LANDBELL GROUP helps companies meet their EPR obligations worldwide. The company’s PROs have collected and treated more than 10 million tonnes of waste batteries, electronics, and packaging.

LANDBELL GROUP is a recognised expert for waste portable battery compliance and takeback, having collected and treated over 100,000 tonnes of waste portable batteries; with an established reverse supply chain in over 40 countries, LANDBELL GROUP also has more than 10 years’ experience managing international takeback activities for lithium batteries. The company will present our forthcoming “Powering Up for Battery EPR” webinar, with panelist Martin Tobin, CEO of European Recycling Platform (ERP) in Ireland. ERP, a LANDBELL GROUP company, is the only multi-national organisation operating producer responsibility organisations (PROs) for batteries, packaging and WEEE in 16 countries for over 38,000 companies, and Martin is a key member of LANDBELL GROUP’s global leadership team. ERP is actively involved in the proposed revision of the European Union’s Battery Directive, contributing its experience and expertise to the ongoing discussions.

Recently, LANDBELL GROUP began a takeback program in the USA and Canada for ICT equipment; it also delivers environmental compliance services, such as registration and reporting, to ensure producers meet their extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations in the relevant US and Canadian states and provinces. With LANDBELL GROUP’s Knowledge Database (KDB), the company offers a web-based regulatory information service, which provides relevant information on EPR globally. The KDB covers more than 180 jurisdictions, including 28 states in the USA, and all Canadian provinces and territories.

In the United States and Canada, H2 Compliance supports North American and pharmaceutical businesses with chemical services, providing technical and strategic support for global chemical control regulations; for example, TSCA and EU REACH, and hazard communication services such as Safety Data Sheets. Last month, the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority in Ontario, Canada registered H2 Compliance as a producer responsibility organization, which will provide collection, management and administrative services to help producers meet their regulatory obligations under the EEE and Batteries Regulations.

For more information, please visit: www.landbell-group.com

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

Nearly 600 stakeholders registered for our recent “Legislators Changing the Game on Packaging EPR” webinar with Colorado State Representative Lisa Cutter, Washington State Senator Mona Das, Maine State Senator Nicole Grohoski, and Maryland State Delegate Sara Love.

Although many questions were addressed during the Q&A, we felt that a few deserved additional follow up. (If you are a PSI Member or Partner and missed the conversation, please click here to view the webinar recording.) Our answers represent PSI’s perspective:

What are the greatest challenges faced by states to implement EPR legislation for packaging – and how can industry stakeholders play a role? 

Since the infrastructure for collecting and recycling packaging has evolved over the past 60 years, there is a greater reluctance to change the system. Producers and recyclers are concerned with spending time and money on issues that distract them from their core businesses, and don’t want to lose market share. These businesses need to learn that they can compete the same under EPR as they do under the current system. Other stakeholders, such as environmental groups, are concerned that EPR policies might not meet their expectations for health and environmental protection and see an opportunity to introduce their key interests into EPR bills. State and local governments see great opportunities to save money and reduce their financial and staffing burden but also need to learn that they can still have influence on the recycling system and be confident that it will work better than before.

The greatest challenges to introducing, passing, and implementing packaging any EPR legislation are:  

Lack of understanding of EPR policy across key stakeholder groups – including legislators, but also businesses, NGOs, municipalities, waste management companies, and more.

Lack of support from diverse stakeholder coalitions – this is critical to passing EPR laws; facilitated processes like PSI’s can be fundamental to ensuring that diverse needs are not only met by the bill, but that all stakeholders are ready to support it.

Fear of change/reluctance to give up the status quo – there are always some who resist systemic changes like the transition to an EPR system; we believe that robust dialogue is the way forward.

All stakeholders can help by getting involved! If you’re a business, academic institution, environmental nonprofit, or international government leader, you can join PSI as a Partner, engage constructively in bill negotiations, and testify in support of bills before the legislature.

You can also provide information to help support EPR bills. For example, data showing how consumer goods are priced – including all factors from the water and electricity used to make the product to marketing costs to the transportation and fuel required to get it to market – is extremely valuable, as these real costs can then be compared to the costs of EPR fees in order to refute the misleading argument that EPR will raise the cost of consumer goods. This data is especially relevant when it is shared by multinational corporations who have been complying with these laws for over 30 years in Europe and two decades in Canada.

And, of course, companies that manufacture consumer packaged goods or paper products that are covered by EPR programs should commit publicly to reducing their environmental footprint and make good on those commitments.

Do the legislators’ packaging EPR bills and laws require waste prevention?

All of the packaging EPR bills and laws proposed or enacted by our panelists began with robust discussions on waste prevention, as this is the absolute top priority in all states’ sustainable materials management hierarchies.

PSI has monitored this trend in packaging EPR laws and bills – and updated our national policy model accordingly – to include strong incentives for reuse and other waste prevention mechanisms:

The four packaging EPR laws that were enacted over the past two years all include incentives for reusable packaging formats; three of these laws (in ME, CO, and CA) bake the incentives into the “eco-modulated fee” structure so that producers selling goods in reusable packaging will pay lower fees into the program.
In Maine, the Department of Environmental Protection will set targets for reuse rates across covered materials through a rulemaking process, which producers will then be required to meet.
In Oregon, reusable packaging is not covered at all under the program: Producers do not pay fees on reusable packaging until it is disposed of, ideally through recycling. There, producers must also establish a dedicated Waste Prevention and Reuse fund, which will be managed by the state, to provide grants or loans for waste reduction efforts upstream – before recycling or disposal are necessary.

In California, plastic must be source-reduced by 25% by 2032 – this means that producers must either switch from disposable to reusable/refillable plastics or eliminate unnecessary plastics entirely; this impact will be measured both by weight and by number of items (to prevent lightweighting).

Most packaging EPR bills include similar incentives and requirements for producers to invest in and choose more sustainable packaging – including reducing or eliminating packaging entirely and switching to reusable or refillable formats.  

Do you see a future harmonization of laws across states or a federal EPR bill – why or why not?

Through PSI’s experience with EPR in other product areas, we have seen firsthand how national harmonization can streamline and simplify programs. A great example of this is paint where all 11 laws are based on a similar model; a counter-example is electronics, where fragmentation has led to ineffective programs (although we are working to update many of them).

Although PSI has worked with our members and partners to develop a national packaging EPR policy model, which has informed state bills across the country – as well as the federal Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act – we do not yet see full harmonization in this space. The primary drivers for this are lack of industry harmonization – when producers are not on the same page, they cause fragmentation in bill negotiations – and lack of state-to-state recycling harmonization.

Our current recycling system is inconsistent across communities at the local level; as a result, states have wildly divergent on-the-ground realities when it comes to recycling, which changes the types of EPR programs that may be applicable.

For example, Maine is a largely rural state with many small, community-run recycling programs where a municipal reimbursement program made sense, especially with Quebec across the border. California is in a similar situation but on a larger scale – municipalities want to run their programs and receive reimbursement. On the other hand, Colorado has very few municipally-run programs, so a full EPR approach made the most sense for them. As long as discussions continue to occur on a state-by-state basis, EPR programs will continue to be tailored to each state’s unique reality.  

But most importantly, the United States lacks a national forum for dialogue on this issue. The field is awash in EPR efforts: Producers, trade groups and associations, and NGOs coalitions all take positions on EPR and engage in legislative efforts, but they are not harmonized, or even coordinated. PSI laid the groundwork for a national forum through our mediated dialogue with governments and the Flexible Packaging Association. But much more is needed: To achieve true harmonization on packaging EPR – especially if the goal is a federal bill – we need everyone to come to the same table. 