Packaging

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 Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

2023 legislative sessions are now underway and many extended producer responsibility (EPR) bills were first out of the gate! There is an unprecedented momentum for these bills. Both Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont and New York Governor Kathy Hochul have indicated their backing, representing an unprecedented level of support for the passage of packaging EPR legislation in these states.  

During legislative session, we monitor activity on bills requiring new EPR programs or amending existing EPR laws in the United States; this information is shared with our Members and Partners through emailed Legislative Updates and is also available to them in our Legislation Library. At press time, these are the bills that had been introduced: 

• Battery EPR in New York and Washington; on January 17th, the District of Columbia enacted their Batteries and Electronics amendment. Our model EPR legislation informed the first EPR law for all single-use household batteries, enacted in Vermont, as well as battery bills introduced in states across the country from 2015 to 2020, and, in 2021, the first battery EPR law for single-use and rechargeable batteries, as well as battery-containing products, which was enacted in Washington, D.C. Learn more about our perspective on battery EPR by clicking here. 
• Household hazardous waste (HHW) EPR in Vermont. Although no HHW EPR program currently exists in the United States, they have operated successfully in Canada since the 1990s: In Manitoba, collection volumes increased four-fold in the first five years of program implementation. PSI’s research fueled the introduction of HHW EPR bills in both Oregon and Vermont. Learn more about our perspective on HHW EPR by clicking here.
• Packaging EPR in Maryland, New York, Washington, and New Jersey (originally introduced in 2022 and still active). In 2016, we developed our model packaging EPR legislation, then updated it in 2019 with input from industry and government. Maine and Oregon used our model to enact packaging EPR laws in 2021, Colorado followed suit in 2022 and, that same year, California also enacted legislation that was informed by our model. Learn more about our perspective on packaging EPR by clicking here.
• Paint EPR in Missouri, which, if passed, would be the state’s first EPR law. Beginning in 2003, PSI convened and facilitated a multi-stakeholder dialogue that included participation and support from the paint industry, state and local governments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and recycled paint manufacturers to develop a consensus model for paint EPR legislation. In 2009, Oregon used our model to enact the country’s first paint EPR law; since then, we have helped pass paint EPR legislation built on the same model. Today, there are paint EPR laws in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Learn more about our perspective on paint EPR by clicking here.
• Mercury-containing lighting EPR in Washington. In 2007, PSI initiated a dialogue on fluorescent lighting that resulted in a national action plan on lamp recycling and contributed to the enactment of EPR laws in five states; we also partnered with rural governments in 13 other states to boost collection of lamps and other mercury-containing products. Learn more about our perspective on lighting EPR by clicking here. 
• Pharmaceuticals law EPR amendment in Oregon. In 2010, PSI led a national coalition to pass the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act and change related regulations that made it possible for retail pharmacies to host drug take-back programs for unwanted medicines, including controlled substances. That year, we developed model pharmaceuticals EPR legislation with our national coalition; by 2012, PSI Member Alameda County had used our model to establish the first pharmaceuticals EPR ordinance in the country, which was upheld by the courts despite industry appeals. Since then, our work has helped pass pharmaceuticals EPR laws in eight states and 23 local jurisdictions. Learn more about our perspective on pharmaceuticals EPR by clicking here. 
• Refrigerant-containing appliances EPR in Washington. In 2014, PSI provided research and policy analysis to New York City, which passed the first-ever law to safely manage refrigerant-containing appliances; since its passage, manufacturers collected more than 90,000 products and saved the city more than $1.3 million. PSI also helped defend New York City’s law against a legal challenge from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, and we contributed to the hydrofluorocarbons emissions reduction law enacted by Washington State in 2021. Learn more about our perspective on refrigerant-containing appliance EPR by clicking here. 
• Solar panel EPR in Minnesota. Washington state passed the first state solar panels EPR law in 2017. In 2021, PSI helped develop the solar panels EPR law enacted by Niagara County, New York – the first such local law in the country. Learn more about our perspective on solar panel EPR by clicking here. 

We also expect to see introductions of additional battery, carpet, electronics, mattress, packaging, paint, and pharmaceuticals EPR bills and amendments in additional states. We appreciate the leadership of legislators and stakeholders who are leading the charge, and look forward to celebrating with our community when these bills become law. 

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. 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

In December, we celebrated our 22nd anniversary by representing the United States at conferences and events that furthered the international conversation about EPR. When this organization was founded by Scott Cassel in 2000, producer responsibility was in place in Europe and Canada, but had barely made a mark in the United States. Now, U.S. EPR is snowballing: In 2022 alone, legislators in 18 states considered 62 unique EPR bills covering 15 different product categories – and five became law. We welcomed the opportunities to celebrate with our national and international colleagues at these recent events: 

In October, we joined a virtual NGO stakeholder meeting on plastics hosted by Monica Medina, the Assistant Secretary at the Department of State’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Medina had called the meeting in preparation for the first session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC-1) on plastic pollution, which was to take place a month later in Punta del Este, Uruguay. The meeting kicked off with Medina announcing the “north star goal” of zero plastic pollution by 2040, and confirming that “EPR will one hundred percent be part of the solution.”  

The following month, we joined a panel that explored how Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and other key regulations impact recycling in North America at the Plastics Recycling World Expo in Cleveland and presented to legislators from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia at a Chesapeake Bay Commission meeting on how to address plastic pollution through EPR legislation.

Then in December, PSI presented on EPR at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Recycling Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. and the National Conference of State Legislatures Private-Public Partnership on Recycling as part of a roundtable discussion on “Unpacking the Elements of Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation.”

Later that month, our CEO and founder Scott Cassel traveled to Paris to present on U.S. pharmaceuticals and medical sharps EPR as part of the 10 year anniversary celebration for DASTRI, the PRO responsible for sharps EPR management in France. Amanda Nicholson, our COO, discussed EPR and product stewardship as the concepts relate to manufacturing at a webinar hosted by ASSEMBLY magazine.

All in all, it was a busy and impactful quarter and a wonderful way to celebrate our 22nd year. We look forward to good things to come in 2023! 

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 third in a multi-part blog series, which analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.  

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. 

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 second in a multi-part blog series, which analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.  

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.