Legislation

June 30th, 2025

For over 15 years, PaintCare and the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) have worked together to support convenient paint recycling opportunities for households and businesses across 11 program states. PaintCare operates paint stewardship programs in CA, CT, CO, DC, ME, MN, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA. Two additional programs are currently being planned in Illinois and Maryland. To date, PaintCare has collected 82 million gallons of paint, keeping it out of the waste stream.

Q&A With PaintCare 

Q: For those newer to paint stewardship, can you give us a brief overview of PaintCare’s mission and how it operates within the framework of state-level extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws? 

A: PaintCare is the nonprofit organization that plans and operates paint stewardship programs in states that pass the paint stewardship law. In these program states, recycling paint is made more convenient for households, businesses, contractors, and others with unwanted, leftover paint. PaintCare operates a network of more than 2,500 drop-off sites to make it easy to responsibly manage leftover paint and keep it out of the waste stream. PaintCare currently collects more than 8 million gallons annually from 11 programs.   

The paint stewardship program is funded by a fee, called the PaintCare Fee, which is applied to the purchase price of each container of new paint sold in each state that has passed the paint stewardship law. The fee is paid to PaintCare by paint manufacturers and is then added to the wholesale and retail purchase price of paint, passing the cost of managing leftover paint to everyone who buys and uses it to ensure a level playing field.  

The fee funds all aspects of the paint stewardship program. This includes paint collection, transportation, recycling, public outreach, and program administration, as well as managing “legacy” paint—material that has been accumulating in homes and businesses since before the program began. There is no charge for dropping off paint at a PaintCare drop-off site.

Q: As more states consider EPR legislation, PaintCare is frequently referred to as a working model. What are the most important factors that have contributed to its long-term success, and what insights could be valuable for emerging EPR programs across other product categories? 

A: The PaintCare model has three key elements that contribute to its success: industry commitment, close coordination with stakeholders, and a clear vision for delivering a cost-effective and convenient program that maintains high standards.   

It cannot be overstated how important it has been to hold fast to the principles established during the PSI-structured dialogue between ACA and stakeholders in the early 2000s. It shaped the coatings industry’s commitment to making PaintCare what it is today. It established the need for industry to sustainably fund program operations through the PaintCare fee, dedicated to a public-purpose non-profit, and forged the premise for building on a foundation of state and local partnerships.   

Having a predictable, mutually agreed upon structure has allowed PaintCare to focus on details that matter, specifically considering what will make the program work best for each state. Being able to prioritize convenience and cost-effective service delivery should be a goal for every EPR program — and not merely for operational efficiency. For an emerging EPR program, the ability to maintain consistency and focus is critical. 

Q: EPR doesn’t stop at collection. What happens to the leftover paint once it enters your system—and how does PaintCare contribute to reuse, recycling, and proper end-of-life management?

A: Paint collected by PaintCare is managed according to a policy of highest, best use. This means that some of the better-quality paint is made available to consumers through reuse programs, and most of the paint is recycled.   

Water-based products (i.e., latex paint) make up 86% of the paint collected. Most of this paint is sent to processors and used to create recycled-content paint products. Last year 4% was reused, 79% was recycled into new paint, 4% was used as alternative daily landfill cover, 12% was landfilled, and less than 1% was sent to a waste-to-energy plant.  

Oil-based products (i.e., alkyd paint) make up 14% of the paint collected. Most of this paint is used as fuel at cement factories. Last year 5% was reused, 76% was used as fuel, 1% was recycled into new paint, and 18% was sent to a hazardous waste incinerator.

Q: What’s next for PaintCare? Are there new programs, state rollouts, or innovations on the horizon that PSI members and stakeholders should watch for? 

A: PaintCare is planning two additional paint stewardship programs in Illinois and Maryland. With the addition of Illinois and Maryland, PaintCare will be operating 13 programs in 12 states and the District of Columbia, bringing paint recycling to about one third of the US population. The Illinois Paint Stewardship Act was passed in 2023, and the program is expected to launch in December 2025. The Maryland Paint Stewardship Act was passed in 2024, and the program is expected to launch in April 2026.

—

For more information about PaintCare, please reach out to Abby Horick at ahorick@paint.org. 

June 16, 2025

The 2025 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum, held this June in Chicago, marked more than just a milestone anniversary for PSI—it reflected a sea change in how we manage materials in the United States. Over two packed days, leaders from state and federal environmental agencies, corporations, recycling organizations, and environmental groups came together to exchange lessons, ask tough questions, and celebrate the movement’s momentum. 

With 146 extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws for 21 product categories now in place across the country, the Forum struck a balance between celebration and reality check. If the past two decades was focused on passing policy, the next will be defined by how well we put it into practice.

The Shift from Policy to Practice 

Policy champions took the stage to reflect on what it takes to advance legislation. Maryland State Senator Malcolm Augustine said during his keynote, “Compromise is when good policy is also good for business, the environment and consumers.” 

Senator Heidi Campbell of Tennessee underscored the challenge of navigating political polarization: “Everything is very political right now. But I believe that EPR does not need to be political as it serves the interest of all Tennesseans.” 

The conversation has truly shifted from “if” to “how.” Oregon’s packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) program—under the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (SB 582) is just weeks away from launching. Cheryl Grabham of Oregon DEQ put it plainly: “We are ready for program launch, which is 27 days away.”

Minnesota, Colorado, Maryland, and California are also knee-deep in implementation work. And as more states follow, the urgency to coordinate, share resources, and reduce duplication is stronger than ever. “So much of what we were able to accomplish in such a short time was because of the partnerships we have with all of you,” noted Zoe Heller of CalRecycle. 

This matters because effective EPR doesn’t just depend on well-written laws—it depends on how many pe

ople understand them, engage with them, and feel supported as they adapt. 

Producer Readiness: Facing Complexity with Collaboration 

One of the most powerful throughlines across sessions was how producers are adapting to new obligations. Data collection, supply chain coordination, and program reporting have quickly emerged as make-or-break elements for compliance. “We’ve never had to compile, collect, and characterize packaging data this way,” said Ken Brown of Illinois Tool Works. 

But while the work is undeniably complex, it’s not being done in isolation. “Get a partner, and a good partner. It is too complex,” advised Nathalie Dunand-Zaloum of Bel Group, a client of forum sponsor and PSI partner EVNIA Environmental Compliance Group. Producer responsibility organizations (PROs), compliance organizations, consultants, and state agencies are stepping in to offer guidance. 

This matters because implementation doesn’t happen in silos. EPR will succeed only if producers, local governments, and PROs learn and iterate together.

Safety at Stake:
W hy Batteries Can’t Wait 

The Forum also spotlighted one of the most urgent gaps in U.S. product stewardship: battery safety. Lithium-ion batteries are causing thousands of fires at recycling facilities every year. “There are an estimated 5,000 battery fires at recycling facilities every year,” said Shannon Crawford Gay of Waste Management. “Approximately every facility is dealing with 18 fires a year.” 

With only a few states tackling battery EPR so far, panelists warned that the pace of legislation is not keeping up with the scale of the problem. Meanwhile, insurance concerns, transportation barriers, and fire hazards continue to mount. 

This matters because packaging and battery systems don’t operate in separate universes. The new infrastructure we’re building—MRFs, collection systems, education programs—must be protected from the growing risks posed by batteries. 

From left to right: Susan Fife-Ferris (Seattle Public Utilities), David Stitzhal (Full Circle Environmental), Heather Trim (Zero Waste Washington), Rep. Liz Berry, Sego Jackson (Founding Member of the NWPSC), Sen. Liz Lovelett, Kara Steward (Dept. of Ecology), McKenna Morrigan (Seattle Public Utilities), Janine Bogar (Dept. of Ecology), Hannah Scholes (King County Solid Waste Division)

May 23rd, 2025

On May 17, 2025, Governor Bob Ferguson signed SB 5284, known as the Recycling Reform Act, into law — calling it the “biggest overhaul of our recycling system in decades.” Washington is now the seventh U.S. state to adopt a packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law, following Maine, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, and Maryland.

With this move, the entire U.S. West Coast is now covered by packaging EPR programs.

WHAT THE LAW DOES
Spearheaded by Representative Liz Berry (D-Seattle) and Senator Liz Lovelett (D-Anacortes), the law establishes an EPR system for residential paper and packaging products. It includes the following key provisions:

• Requires producers to join a Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) by July 1, 2026.
• Charges PROs with developing, implementing, and financing the program with oversight from the Washington State Department of Ecology and an Advisory Council.
• Mandates a statewide recycling collection list and curbside recycling for all households that already have curbside garbage service, potentially expanding access to hundreds of thousands of residents.
• Phases in producer reimbursement of at least 90% of program costs to service providers:
  • 50% by Feb. 15, 2030
  • 75% by Feb. 15, 2031
  • 90% by Feb. 15, 2032
• Includes exemptions for certain food and medical packaging, and materials with a reuse/recycling rate of 65% for three consecutive years (increasing to 70% in 2030).
• Requires MRFs processing over 25,000 tons/year to pay workers a “minimum industry standard compensation” starting in 2028.

KEY IMPLEMENTATION DATES

• Jan 1, 2026– Producers must appoint a PRO; Ecology establishes an Advisory Council.
• July 1, 2026 – Producers must be members of a PRO.
• Dec 31, 2026 – Ecology completes a preliminary statewide recycling needs assessment.
• Dec 31, 2027 – Ecology completes a full needs assessment.
• Oct 1, 2028 – PRO submits plan to Ecology.
• Jan 1, 2030 – Full implementation of the approved program.
• 2032 – Equity study due to legislature; full reimbursement phase-in complete.

WHY IT MATTERS
Washington’s recycling system has struggled due to inconsistent acceptance lists, limited funding, and market challenges, with local governments and residents footing much of the bill. By shifting most of the financial and operational responsibility to producers, this law aims to make the system more efficient, equitable, and sustainable. It also creates a model that aligns with neighboring states’ EPR efforts, supporting regional harmonization.

QUOTES
“The passage of the Recycling Reform Act is a huge milestone for a more sustainable, responsible, and equitable recycling system in Washington,” said Adrian Tan, Co-Chair of the Northwest Product Stewardship Council. “We’ve spent years working on this policy – learning from best practices around the world and the other states that have passed EPR for packaging, and adapting it so that it would work for producers and the state’s waste management system.”

“We’re incredibly proud of the coalition that helped make this possible,” said McKenna Morrigan, Policy Advisor at Seattle Public Utilities “This legislation positions Washington as a leader in responsible materials management.”

“This landmark law marks another major victory for producer responsibility in the U.S.,” said Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder of the Product Stewardship Institute. “Washington’s leadership sends a clear message: the time has come for producers to take meaningful responsibility for the packaging they put into the marketplace. This policy is a smart, scalable solution that will improve recycling, reduce waste, and level the playing field nationwide.”

This blog post was prepared by Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), which supports policies that advance product stewardship and extended producer responsibility. 

May 22nd, 2025

Batteries are powering a fire problem—Nebraska just took action. 

Batteries are everywhere. But when tossed in the trash, they can spark fires in garbage trucks, endanger workers, and damage recycling facilities. 

On May 20, 2025, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen signed LB36 officially enacting the Safe Battery Collection and Recycling Act. The bill marks a major milestone for environmental protection, public safety, and extended producer responsibility (EPR) in the state. This new legislation tackles one of the fastest-growing, most valuable, and most dangerous waste streams in the country—lithium-ion and other household batteries. 

Championed by Senator Jana Hughes and developed through collaboration with Nebraska state  officials, local governments, and national partners–Including the Product Stewardship Institute–the new law establishes a statewide, producer-funded battery stewardship program for portable and medium-format batteries. It reflects years of policy development and incorporates best practices from states like Vermont, Washington, and Illinois. 

WHAT THE LAW DOES
LB36 establishes a producer-funded battery stewardship program for portable and medium-format batteries sold in Nebraska. That means battery producers—not taxpayers—will now be responsible for the safe collection, recycling, and education programs needed to manage battery waste.

Key elements of the law include: 

• Producer responsibility: Beginning in 2028, producers must join a state-approved Battery Stewardship Organization (BSO) to sell batteries in Nebraska. 

• Free statewide collection: Convenient drop-off sites must be available across the state, including rural and underserved areas. 

• Safety protocols: Batteries can no longer be landfilled or incinerated, and new rules ensure proper handling of damaged or recalled batteries. 

• State oversight: The Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy will approve and monitor all program plans. 

• Clear performance goals: Programs must track consumer awareness, collection success, and recycling efficiency.

WHY IT MATTERS
Discarded batteries don’t just pose a fire risk—they also contain valuable materials like lithium, cobalt, and zinc that can be reused when collected properly. But right now, most of those batteries end up in the trash. LB36 shifts the burden away from local governments and toward the producers who profit from battery sales—creating a more sustainable, accountable system. 

“The Safe Battery Collection and Recycling Act is a big first step in addressing the ongoing public safety issue with the improper disposal of lithium batteries at the end of their useful life. This provides Nebraska with the ability to implement an industry led and industry funded solution to collect and recycle batteries instead of throwing them away or wish-cycling them. I am thankful for my colleagues’ overwhelming support and the battery industry’s willingness to help mitigate the increasing occurrence of devastating fires caused by these batteries being thrown away rather than recycled.” said Senator Jana Hughes. 

“This law is a major step forward in protecting public safety and the environment,” said Kent Holm, Director of Douglas County (Nebraska) Environmental Services. “By shifting responsibility to battery producers and ensuring convenient collection statewide, Nebraska is setting a strong example for how to manage battery waste responsibly and sustainably.” 

“This new law addresses critical public safety and environmental risks while promoting sustainable battery management,” said Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder of PSI. “It’s a pragmatic, well-structured solution that will reduce fires, protect workers, and conserve valuable materials.”

NEBRASKA JOINS A NATIONAL TREND 

With the passage of LB36, Nebraska becomes the latest in a growing list of states—alongside Vermont, Washington, Illinois, and Colorado—to adopt battery extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws 

PSI supported the development of Nebraska’s law by sharing model legislation, policy research, and lessons learned from other states. As implementation moves forward, PSI will continue to work with state leaders and local communities to ensure the program’s success.

WHAT’S NEXT? 

• 2026: Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy begins rulemaking 

• 2028: Battery producers must participate in a stewardship organization 

• Ongoing: Collection, education, and recycling programs launch across the state 

Want to dive deeper into what’s next for battery policy? Join us at the 2025 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum, June 3-5 in Chicago, for a featured session on battery extended producer responsibility (EPR), where government officials, recyclers, and producers will explore how to safely manage used batteries, prevent fires, and build systems that recover critical materials. This session will spotlight how stakeholders are shaping the future of battery stewardship across the U.S. 

This blog post was prepared by Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), which supports policies that advance product stewardship and extended producer responsibility. 

May 19, 2025

Batteries power our phones, laptops, tools, toys—and increasingly, our waste and recycling systems are paying the price. Fires sparked by discarded lithium-ion batteries have damaged trucks and facilities, endangered workers, and cost businesses and taxpayers millions. Now, Colorado is tackling the problem head-on. 

 On May 8, the Colorado Legislature passed Senate Bill 25-163 (SB 25-163), the Battery Stewardship Act. The bill, which successfully passed both chambers of the legislature this week, establishes a comprehensive framework for the responsible collection, transportation, processing, and recycling of batteries throughout the state. This legislation makes Colorado the latest in a growing wave of states embracing extended producer responsibility (EPR) to manage dangerous and hard-to-recycle products. It now awaits the governor’s signature.  

As battery-powered devices become more common—and dangerous when improperly discarded—Colorado’s legislation responds to urgent public safety and environmental needs. 

What’s in the Battery Stewardship Act? 

 Under the new law, battery producers must join a battery stewardship organization that will finance and operate a statewide collection system by 2027. The law requires these programs to submit detailed plans to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), outlining how they’ll ensure accessible drop-off options across the state—particularly in underserved communities. 

By 2029, retailers will no longer be allowed to sell batteries or battery-powered products from producers that aren’t part of an approved stewardship program. In 2030, disposal of covered batteries in landfills will be officially banned. 

Other key features include: 

• Collection and recycling targets that build accountability into the system 

• Consumer education to reduce improper disposal 

• Performance reporting to ensure transparency and progress 

• Landfill bans to protect the environment and spur recovery of critical materials 

Why It Matters 

Improper battery disposal creates serious risks—from fires at recycling centers to toxic chemicals in landfills. But batteries also contain valuable materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel that can be recovered and reused when collected properly. 

By shifting responsibility from taxpayers to battery producers, Colorado’s law: 

• Prevents costly fires and environmental damage 

• Keeps critical resources in the supply chain 

• Makes recycling easier and more accessible for residents 

• Reduces burdens on local governments 

Local Leaders Champion the Cause 

Shelly Fuller, Manager of Boulder County’s Hazardous Materials Management Facility (HMMF) and a member of the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), was instrumental in developing and advocating for the bill. 

“The passage of the Battery Stewardship Act represents years of collaborative work to address one of the fastest-growing waste streams in Colorado,” said Fuller. “Our facility has seen firsthand the dangers posed by improperly disposed batteries, from fires at materials recovery facilities to environmental contamination. This legislation creates a systematic approach to battery collection that will not only protect our waste management infrastructure but also recover valuable materials that would otherwise be lost to landfills.” 

Liz Chapman, Executive Director of Recycle Colorado and partner of PSI, also played a key role in building support for the legislation. 

“This bill is a win for consumers, businesses, and the environment,” Chapman said. “By establishing a producer-funded collection system, we’re removing the financial burden from local governments while making battery recycling more accessible to all Coloradans. The Battery Stewardship Act demonstrates how extended producer responsibility can create practical, sustainable solutions that benefit everyone involved in the product lifecycle.” 

The National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA) – Rocky Mountain Chapter, co-led the bill with Recycle Colorado. Together they worked with supportive champions eager to move this bill across the finish line.  Waste Connections of Colorado’s Barrett Jensen, the Rocky Mountain Chapter’s Chairperson, provided the following comment in support of the collaboration and the legislation. 

“The waste and recycling industry has experienced firsthand the impacts of battery fires in our facilities and collection vehicles,” Jensen said. “This legislation addresses a critical safety issue for our workers while creating a sustainable funding mechanism for proper battery management. By bringing producers to the table to develop solutions for this difficult to manage waste stream, we’re building a system that works for everyone – consumers have convenient recycling options, local governments save money, and our facilities face fewer hazards. The collaborative approach taken to develop this bill shows that when all stakeholders work together, we can create practical solutions to complex waste management challenges.” 

Rachel Setzke from Eco-Cycle, another PSI partner who championed the bill alongside Recycle Colorado, emphasized the importance of this legislation for Colorado’s circular economy goals.  

“The Battery Stewardship Act is a crucial step toward creating systems that keep valuable resources in circulation while protecting our communities from hazards,” said Setzke. “At Eco-Cycle, we’ve long advocated for producer responsibility as a cornerstone of sustainable materials management. This bill ensures that the companies profiting from battery sales will now help build and fund the infrastructure needed for their safe end-of-life management. It’s exactly the kind of forward-thinking policy Colorado needs as we work toward zero waste.” 

A National Shift Toward Battery EPR 

With this new law, Colorado joins the District of Columbia, Vermont, California, Illinois, and Washington in enacting statewide battery stewardship legislation. It’s part of a broader national movement to make producers more responsible for the full lifecycle of the products they create. 

The Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) supported the development of this law by sharing policy models and best practices from other states and countries. As Colorado moves toward implementation, PSI will continue to provide guidance and technical support to help local and state leaders build a safer, more circular battery economy. 

What’s next? 

 Colorado’s phased implementation timeline ensures time to build infrastructure and public awareness: 

• July 2027: Battery stewardship organizations must submit plans to the state 

• August 2027: Battery producers must participate in a stewardship organizations 

• July 2029: Retailers prohibited from selling batteries from non-participating producers 

• January 2030: Disposal of covered batteries in landfills is banned 

Join the Conversation at PSI’s June 2025 Forum in Chicago 

Want to dive deeper into what’s next for battery policy? Join us at the 2025 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum, June 3-5 in Chicago, for a featured session on battery extended producer responsibility (EPR), where government officials, recyclers, and producers will explore how to safely manage used batteries, prevent fires, and build systems that recover critical materials. This session will spotlight how stakeholders are shaping the future of battery stewardship across the U.S. For more information on the Battery Stewardship Act and how it may affect consumers and businesses, visit Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 

This blog post was prepared by Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), which supports policies that advance product stewardship and extended producer responsibility. 

By Kristina Benoist, Marketing & Communications Director

March 26, 2025

California’s Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) was designed to be a groundbreaking shift in how plastic waste is managed, requiring producers—not taxpayers—to take responsibility for packaging waste. However, less than two years after its enactment in 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered a revision, citing rising compliance costs, delays in implementation, and growing resistance from both industry and environmental groups.

While this decision has generated debate, it does not signal a reversal of producer responsibility in California or across the country. Instead, California is refining SB 54—making targeted adjustments to improve the feasibility of implementation while maintaining the law’s core objectives.

ADJUSTMENTS, NOT A ROLLBACK 

When SB 54 was signed into law in 2022, it introduced some of the most progressive plastic reduction and recycling targets in the country, including: 

• A 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging by 2032. 

• A requirement that 65% of covered materials be recycled and certified through an approved process by 2032. 

• A $5 billion producer-funded mitigation fund over a 10-year period, specifically $500 million annually from 2027 to 2037, to address the environmental impacts of plastic pollution and support affected communities.
  

As implementation began, producers raised financial and operational feasibility concerns. In response, Governor Newsom declined to approve the rules as drafted, acknowledging industry concerns and directing regulatory agencies to refine them before they could proceed to the California Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling for formal adoption. 

Rather than a rollback, California is expected to make targeted revisions that ease the transition for producers while preserving the law’s key goals. 

The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) review process, which is standard for regulatory changes, could take up to a year. However, to accelerate certain adjustments, an “urgency bill” could be introduced in the California Senate, allowing a limited number of critical revisions to be fast-tracked. 

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EPR IN OTHER STATES 

While California’s experience with SB 54 is being closely watched, this revision process is unlikely to slow momentum for EPR nationwide. States like Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, and Maine are continuing to quickly move forward with their own packaging EPR programs, each tailored to their specific regulatory and economic landscapes. 

WHAT ADJUSTMENTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED 

California Senator Ben Allen—the lead sponsor of SB 54—recently outlined proposed adjustments and clarifications in a letter to Jeff Fielkow, CEO of Circular Action Alliance (CAA). These proposals were part of a negotiation effort to encourage CAA’s support for the draft regulations. While not changes to the law, the suggestions emphasized collaboration, regulatory flexibility, and timeline adjustments to support smoother implementation. CAA ultimately declined to endorse the proposals.  

Key points included:
1. Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) Plan Adjustments

The deadline for the initial PRO plan submission is proposed to be moved to July 1, 2026, providing producers more time to develop their compliance strategies.

2. Financial and Reporting Adjustments

Temporary Simplified Eco-Modulation Fees – A simplified fee structure will be used until the end of 2029 to ease the transition for producers.

3. Annual Reports & Fee Schedules: 

Annual Budget and Fee Schedules – Producers must submit budget and fee schedules annually by October 1, 2026, separate from the full program report.

4. Compliance and Data Collection

Source Reduction Data – Producers must submit baseline source reduction data before the PRO plan submission deadline of July 1, 2026. CalRecycle will have the authority to update this baseline before 2027.

5. De Minimis Exemption

CalRecycle will clarify its current rules for small producers (de minimis criteria) through emergency regulations before the July 1, 2026 deadline for PRO plan submission.

6. Regulatory & Technological Considerations

• Chemical Recycling Review: Any company using chemical recycling technologies will need to fund and commission peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate compliance. 

• Reusable Packaging Standards: Durability standards for reusable food serviceware will be refined. 

• Life Sciences Exemption: Secondary and tertiary packaging used in life sciences (e.g., medical and pharmaceutical industries) are proposed to be explicitly exempted. 

7. Reporting Flexibility
Annual, not Monthly, Reporting: To reduce administrative burden, producers will submit data annually rather than in monthly increments. 

WHAT’S NEXT FOR SB 54? 

With the Governor signaling the need for refinements to SB 54, the next steps focus on how these adjustments will be implemented. The process will move forward through multiple avenues, each operating at a different pace: 

• Legislative Action – Lawmakers will introduce a bill to formally adopt revisions, incorporating stakeholder input to ensure the changes balance feasibility with the law’s original intent. 

• Regulatory Adjustments – CalRecycle and the advisory board will refine program rules, clarify compliance requirements, and establish updated guidelines for producers through the regulatory process. 

• Urgency Bill Option – If certain revisions require immediate implementation, an urgency bill could be introduced in the California Senate to fast-track specific changes, allowing them to take effect sooner than the standard legislative timeline. 

• Administrative Review – The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) will oversee regulatory refinements. While this review process can take up to a year, select revisions may be expedited depending on legislative and agency priorities. 

The combination of these pathways ensures that SB 54 moves forward with adjustments that improve feasibility while keeping California’s producer responsibility framework intact. 

LOOKING AHEAD 

Extended deadlines and regulatory flexibility ensure that producers and the PRO can better prepare for compliance. Clarity on financial obligations helps industries transition smoothly into the eco-modulation fee structure. More specific guidelines on exemptions, reporting, and technology provide clearer expectations for producers and regulators. The continued dialogue and adjustments reinforce the state’s commitment to a workable and effective EPR system under SB 54. 

California’s adjustments to SB 54 will shape how the state fine-tunes its approach to producer responsibility, but its unique economic and regulatory environment means that its experience will likely not dictate how other states implement their programs. These adjustments intend to make SB 54 more easily implementable while still advancing California’s ambitious waste reduction and recycling goals. 

PSI diligently monitors and tracks all legislative developments, stakeholder responses and the evolution of these laws, not only in California, but for all 50 states.

Stay connected with PSI for updates on California’s plastics EPR law, industry reactions, and the future of producer responsibility nationwide. Want to learn how this legislation—and similar efforts in other states—could impact your business? Reach out to Darla Arians at darla.arians@productstewardship.us to explore how we can work together.

September 5, 2024

This week, the California Legislature passed significant EPR bills to establish several new programs and strengthen existing ones. Now awaiting Governor Newsom’s signature, the bills include first-in-the-nation EPR programs for textiles and marine flares, the second EPR law for EV batteries in the country, and meaningful amendments to California’s carpet and paint stewardship programs. These bills incorporate best practices learned in the past 10 years and put on display the blossoming of the EPR movement in the U.S. They also exemplify the important state-based advocacy of the California Product Stewardship Council, Californians Against Waste, and the National Stewardship Action Council. The Governor has until September 30 to sign the bills.

Textiles (SB 707)
California is poised to be the first state to enact an EPR law for textiles. The law would require producers of clothing, footwear, and household textiles to participate in and fund a statewide reuse and recycling program for their products. The California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) sponsored the landmark legislation, which seeks to reduce the environmental impact of the fashion industry by increasing the reuse and recycling of textiles, which are major contributors to landfill waste and pollution. The bill garnered broad support from environmental organizations, municipal waste managers, and key players in the fashion and textile industries. California will join the European Union, which already has textiles recycling mandates.

EV Batteries (SB 615)
This EPR law would be the second in the nation (after New Jersey) to require suppliers of electric vehicle traction batteries to ensure the collection and management of those batteries at end-of-life. The bill establishes a “battery management hierarchy” that prioritizes reuse, repair, and remanufacturing and requires that each battery have a unique identifier so that it can be tracked for responsible management. As the largest U.S. market for electric vehicles, California’s law could “fuel” the growth of EV battery recycling in the U.S., providing essential materials for renewable energy manufacturing in the U.S. Californians Against Waste led bill advocacy with support from recycler Redwood Materials and others. 

Marine Flares (SB1066) 
This bill, if enacted, would be another first-in-the-nation EPR law. It would require any manufacturer (currently just Orion) of marine flares  – pyrotechnic devices used to signal distress in boating – to establish and fund a program for collection and proper disposal. Additionally, the bill bans perchlorate from marine flares sold to California consumers. The chemical is increasingly found in groundwater, surface water, and soil and is known to damage human thyroid functions that are essential to mental function, metabolism, and fetal development. This bill was championed by the National Stewardship Action Council and Zero Waste Sonoma. 

Carpet Amendment (AB 863)  
This amendment to California’s carpet stewardship program – the latest of three to improve the original carpet industry program – adds several elements to boost recycling, including a requirement for 5% carpet-to-carpet recycled content by 2028; mandatory sorting at approved collection sites by 2029, including proper storage and transportation of recyclable carpet to a recycler; standardized backstamping of carpet to support more efficient material sorting; and components of carpets published on the manufacturer website for better recycling. The amendment also includes nonvoting representation on the CARE board for a retailer, a circular economy NGO, and labor; funding for workforce development; audit transparency; and higher enforcement penalties. The original bill, which has since been amended, pushed even further, calling for a needs assessment to determine if the scope of the program should include other flooring such as luxury vinyl tile, sheet vinyl, and linoleum, which compete with carpet in the marketplace. This provision was intended to address a key carpet industry concern about leveling the playing field for all flooring. The original bill also contained higher targets for recycling and recycled content. This amendment was championed by the National Stewardship Action Council. 

Paint Amendment (SB 1143) 
PaintCare, the California paint stewardship program, added aerosol paints in 2023 to the original program established in 2007 by PSI, the American Coatings Association, and numerous government and private sector stakeholders. If enacted, this amendment would further expand the scope of the program to include furniture paint, marine paint, and other related products. Since adding aerosols to the California program, PaintCare has expressed interest in adding additional paint products to its programs in the other 12 jurisdictions with laws – yet another sign of the growing influence of EPR on materials management. This amendment, as well as the 2023 amendment, were championed by the National Stewardship Action Council.

Gas Cylinders (SB 1280) 
Although not EPR, this CPSC-sponsored bill would prohibit the sale of non-reusable or non-refillable propane cylinders. The bill would effectually require that all 1lb cylinders be reusable, just as 20lb barbeque tanks currently are.  

by the team at PaintCare, a PSI Partner

For more than a decade, PaintCare has operated manufacturer-led paint stewardship programs in states across the country that make paint recycling convenient. PaintCare is the nonprofit organization created by the paint industry through the American Coatings Association (ACA) to manage the end of life of architectural paint products in states that pass paint stewardship laws. The organization currently operates programs in California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. A new program in Illinois is currently being planned. 

PaintCare organizes year-round drop-off sites conveniently located throughout these states, where households and businesses can bring leftover house paints, stains, and varnishes for recycling. These drop-off sites serve a community need for easier recycling opportunities and keep paint out of the waste stream. The program currently provides a network of over 2,400 drop-off sites in the states where it operates. 

While convenient drop-off sites serve the public day-to-day, PaintCare also alleviates the burden of recycling larger quantities of paint – something that particularly impacts painting professionals. The program offers large volume pickups for anyone with 100 gallons or more of eligible paint. Since PaintCare first launched in 2010, it has arranged nearly 10,000 of these free pickups, making it easy for painting professionals to responsibly dispose of leftover paint, and keep it out of the waste stream.  

Overall, PaintCare has collected more than 70 million gallons of paint to date. 

“Households and businesses greatly benefit from the PaintCare program,” says Nichole Dorr, Vice President of State Programs at PaintCare. “It’s a common challenge for most homeowners, renters, and painters to have leftover paint with no easy solution in sight. PaintCare offers a convenient way to responsibly manage the end of life of your paint.”  

What happens to the paint once it’s dropped off at a drop-off site or hauled away during a large volume pickup? PaintCare works with waste transporters to collect the paint and manage it according to a hierarchy of “highest, best use,” meaning as much as possible is given away as-is, recycled, or put to some other beneficial use. PaintCare recently piloted a series of free paint giveaway events that provided thousands of gallons of leftover paint to communities in California and is considering expanding these to other areas. 

The statewide paint stewardship programs are funded by a fee (referred to as the PaintCare fee) which is applied to the purchase price of architectural paint sold in each state. The fee amount is based on container size and varies from one program state to another. It covers all aspects of the program: including paint collection, transportation, processing, and public education. This small fee means that those who purchase and use paint each help ensure a system to manage postconsumer paint. 

Learning how PaintCare operates allows for a more robust understanding of how the legislative process informs these state program successes. ACA’s government affairs team expertly navigate the political landscape in potential PaintCare states to form recommendations on possible program states as they forge relationships with lobbyists, stakeholders, and others with involvement in the legislative process.   

“The goal is to ensure each paint stewardship law is tailored to the needs of each state, yet consistent at its core,” says Jeremy Jones, Director of Extended Producer Responsibility at ACA. “Lawmakers and governors play a decisive role in shaping bills that become laws. However, we work closely with the wide gamut of stakeholders who can convey from their unique vantage point what becoming the next PaintCare state would mean to them. Everyone has a stake in a well-executed PaintCare program and that’s why it’s so important to build quality relationships up front.” 

PaintCare continues to build their network of drop-off sites and works closely with many industry organizations to increase awareness of paint recycling opportunities in program states. For more information about paint recycling, visit PaintCare at www.paintcare.org. To get involved in the legislative effort in the next PaintCare program, email Jeremy Jones at jjones@paint.org.  

Earlier this month, over 200 globally recognized experts gathered in Portland, Oregon for PSI’s 12th U.S. Product Stewardship Forum. Speakers presented throughout two days of intensive sessions on a wide range of topics covering the most important trends in producer responsibility policy and programs. While all of the sessions were insightful and high quality, the following notable quotes were made during a few of the top sessions.

Extending Responsibility: Eco-Modulated Fees and Responsible End Markets

“Eco-modulation must go beyond incentives, it is about making sure the fee structure reflects the real costs of managing the packaging material and its impact in the value chain.”
Genevieve Dionne, Éco Enterprise Quebec

“Eco-modulation works, period. But it could be gentler, and it could be less complicated for the producers and other market players.”
Gauravi Saini, Reclay StewardEdge

Perspectives on Plastic Recycling – From Mechanical to Chemical

“Mechanical and chemical recycling need to be complementary solutions. The complexities of plastic waste require both to deliver a truly circular economy”
Maranda Demuth, Eastman

“We need to have a robust conversation on whether chemical recycling is worth its environmental impacts.”
Celeste Meiffren-Swango, Environment Oregon

The PRO’s Role in the Circular Economy

“Having a not-for-profit producer-governed organization that supports producers in meeting their EPR commitments ensures efficient and effective recycling systems are in place where plastics and other packaging materials are collected, recycled, and returned back to producers for use as recycled content.”
Allen Langdon, Circular Materials

“We are working with local governments and recyclers to determine how to effectively support recycling systems.”
Shane Buckingham, Circular Action Alliance

“The hallmark of successful systems is a focus on the goals and the desired outcomes.”
Leslie Huska, GreenDot North America

Packaging EPR Implementation in the United States

“The Oregon law prioritizes sustainability above circularity. There is potential for these ideas to be in conflict and the Oregon law aims to achieve broader sustainability objectives. If we pursue circularity in a narrow way and just focus on recycling and composting, there might be some unintended outcomes.”
David Allaway, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

“In California, we are focused on the reduction of plastic pollution and overall production of packaging materials in the state. The California law requires that 100% of packaging sold into the state of California is either recyclable or compostable, by 2032.”
Rachel Machi Wagoner, CalRecycle

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Throughout the rich and diverse discussions at the conference, the following important issues were highlighted as they are becoming increasingly important in the field of EPR.

• Policy Harmonization: All stakeholders expressed the importance of identifying common elements of all EPR bills and laws. Policy harmonization is not only crucial for increasing the efficiency of existing and future programs, but also for ensuring alignment across jurisdictions, reducing consumer confusion, and enabling effective program comparison.
• Measuring Success: Congruent with the need for policy harmonization is the need to define how the success of a program or policy is measured. It is essential to identify what needs to be measured, ensure that data collection is accurate and consistent, and provide all stakeholders with relevant information.
• Producer Presence: As the field of EPR continues to advance, it will be necessary to directly involve producers, along with associations, in the conversation. Without representation from key producers, a valuable perspective on the field is lost. The interest of individual producers and their associations are essential to advancing effective EPR policy.

WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING ABOUT THE CONFERENCE?

We are shifting into a new phase of the EPR movement with rapid success and the need for engaged stakeholders and a highly knowledgeable community. The PSI Forum will continue to be a space for those eager to learn and contribute as we lead this movement forward. Here are some thoughts from 2023 PSI Forum attendees on the importance of event:

“PSI did it again, assembling the world’s experts on EPR (those actually engaged in making it happen) and presenting two days of rich, productive conversations about the current state of affairs in the U.S., Canada and Europe and where things are headed, on a wide variety of products as well as packaging. Kudos to PSI for being able to bring such diverse parties to the conference in a series of stimulating panels. PSI continues to be THE place to go for expertise, ability to bridge government, business and advocacy groups, and the many connections, contacts and synergies possible.”
Dave Galvin, former PSI board president

“PSI’s conference enables State Environmental Staff, PROs, Recyclers and NGOs to collaborate on EPR. With the growth of EPR, this conference is becoming essential to those involved with environmental policy and execution.”
David Bender, CEO Circular Polymers by Ascend

“Excellent forum about all aspects around EPR. Competent speakers, lively discussions about the hot topics, engaged participants, perfect networking. The place to go in the US!”
Joachim Quoden, Managing Director EXPRA

“The 2023 US Product Stewardship Forum provided a wonderful opportunity to connect and have meaningful and in-depth conversations with others working to find solutions to how we can move the solid waste industry from a linear (extract, make, use, dispose) system to a more circular economy. Learning from each other and working together, we can take actions that have long-term positive results for our customers and the environment!”
Susan Fife-Ferris, Seattle Public Utilities, Washington

“Fun, productive, and a truly unique meeting of the minds from across the globe!”
Maya Buelow, Lane County Waste Management, Oregon

“Scott and the PSI team put together an excellent event. The structure was just right to allow attendees to choose which sessions they wanted to attend without having to choose from overlapping sessions. Looking forward to the next Forum two years from now!”
Doug Kobold, California Product Stewardship Council

CONTINUE THIS WORK WITH US

PSI will continue to lead these conversations with other experts through our webinar series this fall. Our webinars will cover a range of pressing issues and we look forward to your participation. For more information, sign up for our monthly newsletter.

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder of the Product Stewardship Institute, debuted his recently published book, Perspectives on Product Stewardship: Navigating an extended producer responsibility path to a circular economy, at the 2023 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum. This book is a must-read for all EPR professionals. Click here to purchase your copy! If you are a PSI Member or Partner, contact info@productstewardship.us for 30% discount.

PHOTOS FROM THE FORUM:

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing & Communications Director

Next week, world leaders will gather for the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. Although PSI was invited to attend and contributed to discussions leading up to the event, we were unable to make the trip.

INC-2 will take place from May 29 to June 2 at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) headquarters in Paris. This meeting will be followed by INC-3 in Kenya in November and INC-4 in Canada in April 2024. At each meeting, EPR will be front and center.

Recently, the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network shared analysis of proposals submitted by UN member states, which showed that 60% referenced EPR. OPLN indicated that the number was probably higher because those that referenced “product stewardship” rather than “EPR” were not included in the evaluation.

Critical to the conversation is the Peak Plastics report published by Economist Impact and The Nippon Foundation earlier this year as part of their Back to Blue initiative. This report showed that on their own, many of the policies being considered — including Single Use Plastic Product (SUPP) bans, EPR for packaging, and an aggressive carbon tax on virgin plastic — are insufficient to affect the projected doubling of plastic consumption by 2050. However, when implemented together they could significantly reduce consumption: “EPR is…vital, as it will improve waste collection and increase recycling rates, which will curtail plastic leakage into the environment.” This is in keeping with PSI’s perspective on EPR for packaging, which is most effective when implemented alongside additional measures such as reuse strategies. 

The genesis of these discussions began at the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2) in 2022, when UNEA Resolution 5/14 was adopted. Its goal is to develop an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution by 2024. Without significant intervention, the UN projects a tripling of the amount of plastic waste entering the marine environment — from as much as 14 million tons per year in 2016 to as much as 37 million tons in 2040.