Packaging

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.    

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 first in a multi-part blog series, which will analyze the four packaging EPR laws.

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 Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder 

The Product Stewardship Institute was the only nonprofit focused on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) to join a stakeholder consultation meeting organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Washington D.C. PSI was invited to the meeting, which also included national nonprofits Ocean Conservancy and Surfrider, among others, at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and was recommended by OECD, which works closely with PSI and had previously invited the organization to present on U.S EPR activity at an OECD event in Tokyo.  

With 38 member countries, the OECD works to establish international standards to help solve social, environmental, and economic problems. The focus of the September meeting, which included environmental nonprofits and waste management experts, was to assess the performance of the United States in regards to the environmental — and, especially, environmental justice — impacts of “marine litter.” (Also known as “marine debris,” this refers to waste discharged into a coastal or marine environment; the majority is plastic.)

Participants assessed national and international commitments and contributed recommendations for improvement. Scott Cassel, PSI’s CEO and Founder, presented on how state packaging EPR laws will reduce plastic pollution, especially when considered with other legislative measures such as single-use plastic bans, post-recycled content (PCR) mandates, and enhanced deposit return systems. Over the past two years, packaging EPR laws influenced by PSI’s model EPR legislation were enacted in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California; in 2023, nine state bills are expected to be introduced (or re-introduced). 

Cassel pointed out that the nation’s fragmented recycling infrastructure and policies, lack of a consistent materials management policy, and depleted technical capabilities are challenges to the implementation of statewide packaging EPR policies. He noted that although waste management is delegated to the states, there is a critical need for greater state harmonization or a national solution that could be found in the federal Break Free From Plastic Act, which may be re-introduced in 2023 (PSI’s model also informed that bill’s EPR component).  

Although it is unclear what authority the United States EPA has to promote policy that is not directly delegated by Congress, Cassel highlighted that it does have the ability to 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. He also asked EPA to support national efforts driven by state and local governments.  

PSI’s own experience bears this out: Beginning in 2003, the organization worked with the EPA to facilitate a multi-stakeholder dialogue — which included industry, government, and recycled paint manufacturers — and develop a legislative model for paint EPR. In 2009, Oregon used the PSI model to enact the country’s first EPR law; since then, PSI has helped enact paint EPR laws built on the same model in 10 states and the district of Columbia. Paint EPR programs have collected more than 51 gallons of paint, recycled over 72% of all latex paint collected, saved governments and taxpayers nearly $300 million, and established more than 2,000 collection sites, over 70% of which are at voluntary retail locations.  

Cassel recommended that the EPA replicate this model and help solve the marine litter problem through a national packaging EPR strategy. The OECD report generated from the meeting will be discussed at a joint meeting of the OECD Working Party on Environmental Performance (WPEP) in 2023. 

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:   

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

2. 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.  

3. 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.  

by Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder 

Yesterday, California became the fourth state in the nation to enact a packaging EPR law, which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. After more than three years of negotiations and the threat of a ballot initiative taxing plastic pollution, California stakeholders successfully negotiated SB54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which was sponsored by Senator Ben Allen. The law covers single-use packaging and food serviceware and includes enforceable recycling targets that will increase over time, reaching 65% by 2032. 

In keeping with PSI’s packaging EPR model legislation, which was drafted in 2018 and informed similar legislation this year in Colorado and last year in Maine and Oregon, California’s law will create a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to manage the program, with government oversight.  

The law also includes specific targets for source reduction, which producers can meet by establishing reuse or refill systems or eliminating single-use packaging and serviceware, and bans expanded polystyrene food serviceware unless it can demonstrate increasingly high recycling rates: from 25% by 2025 to 65% by 2032. It also includes parameters for eco-modulated fees to incentivize the use of more sustainable, recyclable or compostable, renewable, and non-toxic materials.  

On the controversial topic of “chemical recycling,” the law leaves open the possibility for advanced plastics-to-plastics technologies but does not allow combustion, incineration, waste-to-energy, or waste-to-fuel production (except for anaerobic digestion) to count as “recycling.” Under the law, CalRecycle will adopt regulations to verify that packaging intended for export meets processing and contamination standards and can prohibit any technologies that produce “significant amounts of hazardous waste.” 

The law also requires producers to pay $500 million per year for 10 years, beginning in 2027, into a new California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund, which will be managed by the state to restore the environment and mitigate past, present, and future environmental justice and public health impacts created by the manufacturing, litter, or disposal of plastic packaging. Like all packaging EPR laws, producers will be required to internalize the costs of the program and will not be permitted to pass their EPR fees on to consumers as a separate item on receipts or invoices. 

Written by the team at Flexible Packaging Association, a PSI Partner, this blog examines a flexible packaging through an EPR lens. 

Our global society continues to face environmental challenges that are complex and simply too threatening to ignore. Collectively, we’re responsible for undoing—and preventing more of—the damage that lifetimes of pollution and waste mismanagement have caused to our planet, an almost overwhelming task that can feel far out of our grasp. Several methods have been tried—and ultimately failed— leading many of us to wonder if there’s a better way. California is set to try two right now. First, a product ban on plastic e-commerce packaging (AB2026), which is a band-aid that has been tried before (think, plastic bags and straws) and did not solve the problem. Not only do bans not solve the problem, it leads to other negative environmental consequences; in this case increased greenhouse gas emissions from the transport of heavier e-commerce packaging materials and increased waste from breakage and returns of items that were shipped in alternative packaging types that cannot protect the product. Another is SB54, which would be a holistic extended producer responsibility program, covering all packaging types, investing in the modernization of California’s collection, recycling and composting infrastructure, and enabling circularity for packaging. FPA believes the latter is the solution.

Flexible packaging is more durable, light, and protective than many alternative packaging options, which are the hallmarks of sustainability. Flexible packaging is more resource-efficient than many other packaging options because production requires less water and energy, and production and transportation result in less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While other packaging types may be more readily accepted at recycling centers, they offer fewer protections for consumer products, especially food, while ultimately being more expensive and less sustainable to produce. Flexible packaging helps to extend the shelf life of food products—the number one contributor to landfills and GHG emissions—through protection from sunlight, bacteria, odors, moisture, damage from the transportation process, and more. Additionally, flexible packaging optimizes volume and weight to maximize storage and transportation efficiency while reducing the amount of packaging waste in need of end-of-life management. Increasing efficiency and reducing packaging waste results in source reduction—the most effective, environmentally preferred method of addressing excess waste.

Still, there remains a problem—what do we do with flexible packaging waste? A solution does already exist with an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approach, a policy in which producers’ shoulder some of the financial and operational responsibility to modernize our current recycling and composting systems. A well-crafted EPR system would provide the investment needed to expanded curbside recycling options for families looking to act more sustainably and more packaging material would be collected, processed and available for manufacturers use to incorporate post-consumer recycled content into new packaging. Consumers would also benefit from harmonization of programs across the state and region, instead of the myriad of different local recycling programs that currently exist. Finally, everyone would benefit from fewer carbon emissions and the use of natural resources as we work together to reduce packaging and plastic pollution and preserve our planet for future generations.

Many features of a well-crafted EPR plan are set for inclusion in California’s SB54, which will be debated in the state legislature in the coming weeks. Should SB 54 be signed into law by Governor Newsom, it would represent a significant leap towards responsible, effective plastic waste management while allowing producers and consumers to continue using and not ban an important packaging format—flexible packaging.

This blog represents the views of the Flexible Packaging Association, a Product
Stewardship Institute partner.