Extended Producer Responsibility

by Suna Bayrakal, Director, Policy & Programs

After Governor Jay Inslee signed Washington State’s new legislation on May 11th, it became the 10th state – plus Washington D.C. – to enact a battery EPR law. This law shows the strong and steady trend towards state battery EPR laws that include a broad scope of both single and rechargeable batteries, with best practices that are standards in all effective EPR laws – such as performance goals and convenience standards. Each passage of an EPR for batteries law has increased the types that are included: Washington is the first state to include e-mobility devices and to study the opportunities and challenges of managing large-format batteries and batteries that are embedded in products, such as electronics.

Vermont enacted the nation’s first single-use household battery EPR law in 2014, which PSI helped pass: In its first year of implementation, that state increased collection by more than 180 percent. More recently, PSI provided technical support to incorporate best practices from our model battery EPR legislation into the Washington DC law enacted in 2021, which is the first single-use and rechargeables battery EPR law in the nation that also addresses battery-containing products. PSI is currently working in New York State to amend the 2010 Rechargeable Battery Law so that it includes e-Mobility devices, in order to decrease the potential for fires that have been rampant in New York City because of lithium-ion batteries in e-bicycles. 

Last year, representatives from 10 states joined our battery stakeholder group to develop PSI’s next-generation battery EPR legislative model, elements of which were included in the California law enacted in 2022 that was championed by the California Product Stewardship Council and Californians Against Waste, which also covered single use and rechargeable batteries. 

Washington’s new law was spearheaded by Heather Trim at Zero Waste Washington and PSI’s state and local members including Megan Warfield at the Washington State Department of Ecology and McKenna Morrigan at Seattle Public Utilities. The law includes best practice elements of battery EPR legislation, which are also included in PSI’s model. This law will create a statewide battery stewardship program for Washington that is managed and sustainably funded by producers, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and removing toxic substances from the waste stream. It is consistent with EPR best practices as it includes: 

• Performance goals to drive program effectiveness. 
• Convenience standards to ensure that the program is accessible state-wide. 
• Education and outreach, including resources targeted at overburdened and vulnerable communities to raise public awareness about how to recycle batteries. 
• Annual reporting to monitor program implementation. 

The law also contains other elements of successful programs, including material fees that incentivize environmental performance, a stewardship plan, and opportunities to improve the plan as the program is implemented and matures. Local governments will have the opportunity to participate in the program and be reimbursed by producers for their costs of collection; they will also save money as transportation and processing costs are assumed by producers.  

By October 2027, the Department of Ecology must complete an assessment and submit findings to the legislature on the opportunities and challenges associated with the end-of-life management of batteries not covered by the legislation, including large-format batteries and those in battery-containing products that are embedded and/or not designed to be easily removed. The assessment must consider which criteria of the legislation should apply to these batteries and battery-containing products. By April 2024, the Department of Ecology must also submit a report to the legislature on policy recommendations for the collection and management of electric vehicle batteries.   

Large format batteries that weigh more than 25 pounds, such as those used in electric vehicles, solar power systems, and data centers, are expected to experience significant market growth in the coming years. If these batteries are not collected and recycled, they will increase in the waste stream. Similarly, battery-embedded products either end up in the waste stream or are sent to battery/electronics recycling centers, where they are expensive to dispose of. Leading EPR battery programs in British Columbia and the European Union have already taken a step toward including a broader product scope that covers larger batteries and battery-embedded products. Some battery producers have global markets and sell into these jurisdictions and will have to meet these requirements there.  

Washington already has significant experience passing and implementing EPR programs for electronics and mercury-containing lamps and has more recently enacted stewardship programs for solar panels, pharmaceuticals, and paint, all of which are based on the fundamental principles of EPR. These laws improve collection convenience, build better supply chains, protect the environment and human health, and create jobs – all while significantly reducing the financial and management burden on local governments. We look forward to similarly positive outcomes from this new battery law! 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing & Communications Director

A new survey commissioned by Covanta, a PSI partner, found that nearly half of Americans want to hold corporations more accountable for climate action — including 63% who believe companies should have strong sustainability platforms. With the global green technology and sustainability market expected to be worth $417 billion by 2030, companies are lining up their “green marketing” claims. As a result, “greenwashing” – marketing false or misleading claims about sustainability – is also on the rise.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides were established in 1992 to help marketers avoid making misleading environmental claims – these include guidance on how to message about what can be recycled. However, the types of packaging that brands now use have evolved significantly since the Guides were last updated, in 2012. So, when the FTC invited public comments regarding its review of the Green Guides, PSI – and the Pack Green Coalition, a PSI partner – submitted analysis.

Our shared key priority is packaging EPR legislation, which holds manufacturers – known as “producers” – responsible for waste management and recycling, and incentivizes the incorporation of environmental considerations into product design, while educating the public about what can actually be recycled. In British Columbia, where packaging EPR has been in place since 2014, 90% of packaging is recycled.

In 2016, PSI developed model packaging EPR legislation, then updated it in 2019 with input from industry and government. PSI’s model eventually informed state EPR for PPP legislation, either indirectly, as in Maine and California, or somewhat more directly as in Oregon and Colorado.

Formed in 2022, the Pack Green Coalition educates and advocates for meaningful policies and laws to advance the replacement of unnecessary plastic in packaging supply chains with sustainable alternatives, playing a critical role in advancing the global transition to a circular economy.

A critical component of EPR for PPP laws and programs is consumer education about what can and cannot be recycled. Because of this, accurate federal guidelines are critical. PSI and PGC urged the FTC to update the Green Guides with more concrete guidance to marketers to accurately represent the circularity of the materials they use and avoid disrupting the recycling system.

Specifically, we requested updated guidance on “recyclable” claims. Currently, the Guides do not prevent misleading recyclability claims, so revising the criteria is imperative. For example, under the current requirements in the Guides, marketers can use unqualified recyclable claims if the material is accepted by a “substantial majority” (60%) of recycling facilities where the product is sold. Polypropylene packaging had a recycling rate of only 2.7% in the U.S. in 2018, but more than 60% of consumers had access to recycling facilities that accepted polypropylene tubs, bottles, jugs, and jars. There is a stark disconnect between materials that qualify to be labeled as “recyclable” and materials that are recycled. Mere “availability” of recycling facilities for a particular material is an inadequate indicator for whether that material can be credibly claimed to be recyclable.

“Recyclable” presently does not mean a product is actually getting recycled. In addition, the recycling rate for a given material should be based not on the amount collected but, rather, on the material’s (1) actual reclamation at appropriate facilities that meet the requirements of the Basel Convention and (2) re-entry into the commerce stream. In addition, plastic items should meet the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ APR Design® Guide for recyclability.

We urged the FTC to revise the Guides to require that a product may only be labelled as “recyclable” (whether through text or symbol) if it meets the recyclability thresholds mentioned above and if the material type and form routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging, as California mandated through SB 343. These requirements will increase circularity of the U.S. economy and instill greater confidence and trust in the U.S. recycling system.

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

The fashion industry is one of the world’s worst polluters: It accounts for 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions and more than four percent of the waste stream. As textiles decompose in landfills, they emit high levels of methane gas, which is a primarily contributor to global warming; dyes and other additives can leach into soil and contaminate groundwater. Although 95% of these materials are either reusable or recyclable, only about 15% are used again. 

That’s the problem that California seeks to solve with SB 707, a first-in-the-nation textile Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law. Producers of textiles – as well as products made from textiles, such as accessories and furniture – will be required to implement and fund an EPR program to enhance recycling, increase reuse, and incentivize the design of products that are environmentally responsible – such as those made from recycled materials. Thrift stores, which have long served as second-hand markets for textiles, will also become collection sites, part of an integrated system for sorting and recycling used textiles that cannot be reused or resold. The program would be managed by the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).  

California is first – but it won’t be the last. In 2022, Massachusetts’ 2030 Solid Waste Master Plan updated regulations went into effect, adding textiles (and mattresses) to the list of materials banned from disposal or transport for disposal in another state. Clothing, curtains, towels, and other fabrics currently make up 6% of the waste that is incinerated or disposed of each year in landfills and waste-to-energy plants in the state, but analysis shows that 95% of the 230,000 tons of textiles discarded annually could be reused or recycled. The goal of the 2030 Solid Waste Master Plan is to reduce disposal by 30% over the next decade and by 90% by 2050, and strategies for reaching these objectives include these new bans. By promoting textile recycling, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has begun to build an infrastructure that could lay the groundwork for textiles EPR. 

In 2008, France became the first country to enact a textile EPR law; by 2020, 39% of products were being collected. Programs like these incentivize the design of more sustainable products and build supply chains for those made with recycled materials, which are the building blocks of an emerging circular economy that protects our environment and builds a better future. 

Although PSI did not work on California’s legislation, in 2016 we facilitated a multi-stakeholder working group in New York to develop the first standards for used textile collection, which were adopted by Goodwill and the Salvation Army, among others. The following year, we partnered again with the New York State Association of Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling and the New York Product Stewardship Council to host a broad group of stakeholders – including manufacturers, retailers, recycling/reuse organizations, fashion industry representatives, state and local government, researchers, nonprofits, and consumers – at an interactive summit at the Fashion Institute of Technology to discuss innovations in textiles production, recovery, recycling, and policy –including EPR.  

We are thrilled to see California consider this bold step – and look forward to its global impact when the legislation becomes law.  

by Will Grassle, Associate Policy & Programs

We’ve come a long way from Woodsy the owl’s “give a hoot don’t pollute” campaign. Here’s a brief overview of how litter laws work with EPR in the United States – from enacted laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California, to Washington’s Recycling and Packaging (WRAP) Act, which recently failed; it which would have established an EPR program and bottle bill in the state.

OREGON 

Section 26a, Chapter 681, Oregon Laws 2021: “Requires DEQ to conduct a statewide needs assessment to identify where litter prevention and cleanup is needed and report to the Legislature. The report is due no later than September 15, 2026. The legislative report may include recommendations for adding litter and marine debris obligations to the PRO’s responsibilities, and recommendations for funding such responsibilities.”

CALIFORNIA

“The bill would require a PRO, commencing in the 2027 calendar year, and until January 1, 2037, to remit a $500,000,000 surcharge each year, as provided, to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to be deposited into the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund, which the bill would create, and would outline requirements applicable to the collection and administration of the surcharge.”

“(j) (1) Upon appropriation by the Legislature, 40 percent of the moneys in the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund shall be expended by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Wildlife Conservation Board, the State Coastal Conservancy, the California Coastal Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Natural Resources Agency, and the California Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and reduce the environmental impacts of plastics on terrestrial, aquatic, and marine life and human health, including to restore, recover, and protect the natural environment”

“(k) (1) Upon appropriation by the Legislature, 60 percent of the moneys in the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund shall be expended by the Strategic Growth Council, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Natural Resources Agency, and the Department of Justice to monitor and reduce the historical and current environmental justice and public health impacts of plastics, including to mitigate the historical and current impact of plastics on disadvantaged or low-income communities or rural areas.

MAINE 

“The stewardship organization shall annually disburse to participating municipalities from the packaging stewardship fund established under subsection 12 reimbursement payments for the median per-ton cost of managing packaging material that is readily recyclable and reimbursement payments for the median per-ton cost of managing packaging material that is not readily recyclable. For the purposes of this subsection, the cost to a municipality of managing packaging material may include, but is not limited to, the costs associated with the collection, transportation and processing of packaging material, whether readily recyclable or not readily recyclable.”

COLORADO 

“‘Recycling services costs’ means the costs of recycling programs to provide recycling services, including applicable costs related to:

(e) disposal of nonrecyclable collected covered materials.

(j) include reimbursement rates for one hundred percent of the net recycling services costs of the recycling services provided by service providers under the program consistent with the requirements of section 25-17-706.

The educational and outreach program must include “(c) how to prevent littering in the process of providing recycling services for covered materials.”

WASHINGTON 

Washington State has a tax on frequently littered items, which is used in part to clean up and prevent litter; this was not a primary focus of WA’s EPR for PPP Bill, known as the WRAP Act, which recently failed to pass the House.  However, it did include a study of litter and marine debris in the needs assessment in section 105: “(i) Evaluate the extent to which covered products contribute to litter and marine debris for the purpose of informing how a producer responsibility organization implementing a plan can support litter and marine debris prevention as it relates to activities required under this chapter. The assessment should draw on available data, assess gaps, and identify strategies for improving prevention and cleanup of litter and marine debris from covered products.”

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

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

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

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

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

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

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

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

MAINE 

KEY DEFINITIONS 

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

• 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 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 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.