EPR

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

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

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

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

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

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

MAINE 

KEY DEFINITIONS 

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

• No additional components are included.

OREGON

KEY DEFINITIONS 

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

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

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

COLORADO

KEY DEFINITIONS 

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

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

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS

CALIFORNIA

KEY DEFINITIONS 

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

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

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

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

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

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

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

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

MAINE 

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

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

OREGON

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

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

COLORADO

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

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

CALIFORNIA

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

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

by the team at Covanta, a PSI Partner

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

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

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

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

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

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

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

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

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

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

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

MAINE 

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

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

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• No additional equity components are included.

OREGON

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

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

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

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

COLORADO

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

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

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

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

CALIFORNIA

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

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

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

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

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

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

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

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

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

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

MAINE 

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

• None beyond eco-modulated fee criteria. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

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

OREGON

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

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

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

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

COLORADO

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

• None beyond eco-modulated fee criteria. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

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

CALIFORNIA

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

• All covered materials must be recyclable or compostable by 2032. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

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

by 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 Lelande Rehard, MPA
Senior Associate, Policy & Programs

There are electronics EPR laws in 23 states and the District of Columbia, but some are out of date and PSI is working to update these laws in many states. This month, legislative and regulatory changes to New York’s program will go into effect – the culmination of a decade’s worth of work and well worth it, as they set an example for other states. 

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.