Uncategorized

August 25, 2025

In recent months, two major state victories have helped turn the tide on repair access—pushing the right-to-repair movement further into the mainstream and setting powerful precedents for future legislation. 

Oregon and Colorado Lead the Way 

Oregon’s Right to Repair Act, which went into effect in January 2025, is now the strongest law of its kind in the country. Not only does it require manufacturers to provide consumers and independent repair shops with access to essential repair materials—like tools, manuals, parts, and diagnostic software—it also breaks new ground by banning “parts pairing.” This common manufacturer practice restricts third-party repairs by digitally locking devices to original components. With Oregon’s ban, the state has sent a clear message: repairs shouldn’t be held hostage by design. 

Colorado followed suit with its own expanded legislation, HB24‑1121, signed into law earlier this year. Building on earlier policies for wheelchairs and agricultural equipment, the new law covers most consumer electronics sold after mid-2021 and ensures that device owners and independent technicians can access the materials they need to fix devices safely and affordably. 

Why It Matters Now 

These new laws arrive at a pivotal moment. Consumer electronics have become increasingly difficult to repair, with glued-in batteries, proprietary screws, and software locks that limit options and drive up costs. When devices break, they’re often discarded—contributing to a fast-growing stream of electronic waste. In 2019, the U.S. generated nearly 7 million tons of e-waste, most of which ended up in landfills or incinerators. 

Right-to-repair laws are a powerful countermeasure. They extend product lifespans, reduce the need for raw material extraction, lower costs for families, and support small businesses that provide local repair services. They also shift some responsibility upstream—prompting manufacturers to support longer-lasting products and provide basic access to repair tools and documentation. 

A Broader Movement Toward Circularity 

The right-to-repair movement aligns with PSI’s mission to shift responsibility upstream and promote product designs that are more sustainable, serviceable, and circular. It’s part of a broader policy landscape that includes EPR laws, eco-modulated fees, and other tools to reduce waste and encourage smarter design. 

Just as extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies have modernized how we handle packaging, paint, batteries, and more, right-to-repair laws are laying the groundwork for better lifecycle management of electronics and appliances. Together, these strategies form a powerful policy foundation for a circular economy. 

What’s Next? 

Other states — including New York, Minnesota, and California — are considering similar legislation. At the federal level, policymakers have introduced bills to protect repair rights nationwide, though progress has been slower. 

Meanwhile, the momentum at the state level continues to build, driven by a coalition of repair advocates, consumer rights organizations, environmental groups, and local governments. As Oregon and Colorado begin implementation, their programs will offer valuable lessons for other states considering how to make repair more accessible and equitable. 

At PSI, we’ll continue tracking this progress and supporting policies that move us closer to a circular, sustainable economy—where products are made to last, and repair is the norm, not the exception. 

 

Sources 

August 20, 2025

The Environmental Research & Education Foundation’s recent report raised an important point: there’s no single national platform tracking the performance of extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs across the United States. But the report draws a flawed conclusion—equating data fragmentation with policy uncertainty. 

The reality? While reporting systems vary from state to state, the results are in. And they’re compelling. 

It’s true that EPR reporting lacks national uniformity. But that doesn’t mean EPR isn’t working. In fact, when we look at what’s happening on the ground—state by state, product by product—the evidence shows growing impact, cost savings, and clear environmental benefits. 

More Than Just Paint: EPR in Connecticut 

PSI’s 2017 study on Connecticut’s four EPR laws—covering paint, electronics, thermostats, and mattresses—showed: 

  • 26 million pounds of material diverted from disposal 
  • $2.6 million in annual savings to municipalities 
  • Over 100 local jobs created 
  • A reduction of 13 million kg CO₂e, equivalent to removing 2,300 cars from the road 

While this study was conducted years ago, it reflects EPR at a certain point in time, many at the beginning of their programs. But these numbers haven’t stopped since then—they’ve only matured and expanded. 

Packaging and Pharmaceuticals: Momentum Is Building 

In 2024, Oregon became the first U.S. state to approve a full packaging EPR program implementation plan. Nearly 2,000 producers submitted reports in the first month, and millions in fees began flowing to support education, infrastructure, and expanded access. Other states—California, Colorado, Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine—are not far behind. 

Meanwhile, Washington State’s pharmaceutical take-back program collected nearly 875,000 pounds of unused medications in 2023 from more than 650 collection sites. Programs in New York, California, Oregon and more are ramping up, , proving that EPR is delivering solutions for both packaging and pharmaceuticals.

From Policy to Performance 

At PSI’s 2025 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum, the numbers told a clear story: 

  • 146 EPR laws are now enacted across 21 product categories. 
  • The national conversation has moved beyond legislation to implementation—emphasizing compliance, reporting, and continuous improvement. 

Across states, producers, regulators, and PROs are collaborating with PSI to develop operational systems and standardized performance metrics. 

These Are Just a Handful of Success Stories 

Paint. Mattresses. Electronics. Thermostats. Batteries. Pharmaceuticals. Packaging. The list goes on and on. 

These programs represent only a sample of what’s working across the country today. Dozens of other programs—some mature, others newly launched—are delivering measurable environmental and economic benefits. The real limitation isn’t the performance of EPR laws—it’s the fragmentation of data reporting and the uneven pace of public communication. 

What the EREF Report Overlooks

EREF’s concern about a lack of centralized reporting deserves nuance. The suggestion that we “can’t be sure” EPR is working ignores the documented success of active programs. There is abundant proof that EPR is both effective and measurable.  Nearly every EPR program has a producer responsibility organization (PRO) that manages reporting:

  • PaintCare for paint
  • ISPA for mattresses
  • Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) for thermostats
  • Electronics Recycling Coordination Clearinghouse (ERCC) as a repository for electronics data

These PROs already provide centralized annual reporting—most of which is public. PSI’s studies, state agency reports, and program filings demonstrate measurable success.

The challenge is not whether the data exists, but how to align, standardize, and elevate it nationally. And that work is already underway.

The Cost of Ambiguity 

Delays in implementing California’s SB 54 have created a policy vacuum—one that EPR critics are eager to fill. This pause has emboldened misinformation and threatens to undermine public confidence. 

But make no mistake: EPR isn’t a theory waiting to be tested. In sectors like paint, mattresses, electronics, batteries, and other products, it’s already working—and the data is there to prove it. 

The Path Forward 

To ensure continued progress and credibility, we must: 

  1. Require annual public reporting from all PROs, including key indicators like amounts collected, recycled, reused, and composted;  cost;, convenience;, and postconsumer recycled content used; 
  1. Implement third-party audits to ensure accuracy and foster trust; 
  1. Standardize reporting across states to enable clear, comparable performance metrics; 
  1. Include qualitative indicators—such as program accessibility, local savings, and public engagement—to capture the full picture of success. 

EREF is right: transparency is essential. But saying “we can’t be sure” does a disservice to the work already being done and the results already in hand. EPR in the U.S. is not a hypothetical. It’s a growing network of proven, producer-funded solutions that reduce waste, lower public costs, and build a more sustainable future. 

Let’s move the conversation forward—from questioning whether EPR works to expanding the systems we already know do. 

Sources  

July 31st, 2025

As momentum for extended producer responsibility (EPR) accelerates across the United States, a familiar narrative has re-emerged—one that resists change by casting it as a threat. 

Recent articles in Plastics News and The WestView News portray EPR as a regulatory overreach that punishes businesses, raises consumer prices, and kills innovation. But the facts tell a different story. Around the world, EPR programs are delivering tangible results—driving up recycling rates, reducing municipal costs, and spurring smarter product and packaging design. Far from a radical concept, EPR is a proven policy tool that aligns economic and environmental responsibility. 

In the current system, local governments and taxpayers carry the cost of managing waste from products they didn’t create. EPR changes that by shifting financial and operational responsibility upstream—to the companies that design, manufacture, and sell those products. That’s not punishment. That’s accountability. 

One of the most persistent myths is that EPR leads to higher consumer prices. But peer-reviewed research presented at PSI’s 2025 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum—backed by Columbia University analysis—found no consistent link between EPR fees and retail price increases. In competitive markets, producers often absorb or offset costs through better design, lighter materials, and improved logistics. The result is a more efficient system—not a more expensive one.

“In 35 years of EPR in Europe, we’ve never seen direct, automatic price increases for consumers,” said Joachim Quoden, Managing Director of EXPRA. The real-world data is clear: EPR does not burden consumers—it balances the system.

Gary Cohen of the Tennessee Waste to Jobs Coalition put it bluntly: “Approximately 7% of the retail cost goes to packaging. EPR fees are minimal—a fraction of a cent per product.” And with major retailers laser-focused on price competitiveness, those minimal costs are rarely, if ever, passed along.

Critics also suggest that EPR creates bureaucratic red tape. In reality, EPR streamlines fragmented, underfunded local programs into coordinated, producer-funded stewardship organizations. These Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) operate with clear goals and transparency, freeing municipalities to focus on other essential services. 

And when it comes to innovation, the evidence is clear: EPR doesn’t stifle it—it drives it. When producers are responsible for what happens to their products at end-of-life, they’re incentivized to design for recyclability, invest in reuse, and rethink material choices.

“EPR helps fix the system we already have,” said Dylan de Thomas of The Recycling Partnership. “It aligns incentives, stabilizes costs, and delivers better outcomes without burdening consumers.”

Of course, EPR programs must be well-designed and thoughtfully implemented. Stakeholder engagement, performance metrics, and system accountability are key to long-term success. But rejecting EPR outright ignores the data—and the direction the world is moving.

“Producers adapt, retailers absorb, and the system benefits,” concluded Matt Reynolds, Editor at PMMI Media Group and moderator of the session.

We can no longer afford to subsidize wasteful product design with public funds. EPR is not about punishing producers—it’s about creating a level playing field, where those who generate waste also help manage it responsibly. 

It’s time to move beyond the rhetoric and embrace the reality: EPR works. It’s not just the future of waste management—it’s the future of shared responsibility, smarter systems, and a more sustainable economy.

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. 

Beyond Recycling: A Broader Vision for Stewardship 

Several sessions pushed beyond traditional recycling to explore the future of reuse, repair, and circular economy design. Discussions on textiles, compostables, and medical waste showed how product stewardship is expanding to cover not just more materials, but deeper environmental impacts. 

“One garbage truck of textiles are burned or landfilled every second,” said Zoe Heller (CalRecycle). And in the compostable packaging session, Mallory Anderson (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) highlighted that “confusing packaging labeling […] has caused a large contamination issue—really one of the largest contamination sources for compostables.” 

This matters because sustainability is not just about managing waste—it’s about designing smarter systems that reduce waste in the first place. 

Alex Truelove of BPI reinforced the big-picture goal: “The spirit of EPR is making sure your recycling gets recycled, your reusables get reused, and your compostables get composted.” 


Costs and Communication: Telling the Right Story 

The myth that EPR will cause sweeping price hikes for consumers continues to surface in debates. But the Forum offered a more nuanced—and evidence-based—perspective. “The key thing that is really important is that we are internalizing these costs—right now they are all externalized,” said Dylan de Thomas of The Recycling Partnership. 

What’s needed, many agreed, is better messaging—framing EPR as an investment in infrastructure, jobs, and public safety. Effective communication helps build bipartisan support and fosters understanding among skeptical stakeholders. Joachim Quoden, Director of EXPRA, said, “The more shoulders you have, the cheaper it is for all of us.” 

Where We Go From Here 

In the closing session, PSI and state leaders reflected on what success could look like in the next 5 to 10 years. The answers varied: simplified compliance systems, upstream material reduction, climate-aligned metrics. But the common theme was this: the work is just beginning, and it must be done together. 

Abby Boudouris of Oregon DEQ summed up the vision: “We need to redirect or expand the focus of EPR” to include upstream material extraction and broader environmental outcomes. The Forum made clear that EPR is not a fringe concept, it’s a national strategy. And strategy alone isn’t enough. The next phase will require trust, iteration, creativity, and persistence. 

This matters because the stakes are high. Our waste systems are under pressure, our communities are demanding solutions, and the window for action on climate and circularity is narrowing. The 2025 Forum offered hope—not just in policy progress, but in the people driving it forward. 

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. 

On April 7, the Maryland General Assembly passed SB 901, intended to establish a statewide Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program for packaging. Once signed by Governor Moore, Maryland will become the sixth state in the U.S. to enact packaging EPR legislation – after Maine (2021), Oregon (2021), Colorado (2022), California (2022), and Minnesota (2024)

INSIDE THE LEGISLATION: WHAT MAKES SB 901 STAND OUT

Maryland’s newly passed packaging EPR bill is based on standard packaging EPR elements that the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) developed with its members over the past 15 years, which includes requiring producers to fund and manage the recycling system and register with a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) to sell their products in the state. The PRO must also submit an implementation plan (“stewardship plan”) to a multi-stakeholder Advisory Council for review and, ultimately, for approval to the state oversight agency, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).

Another important element of SB 901 is the requirement that the PRO charge less fees on producer packaging that incentivize sustainable packaging that can be reduced, reused, recycled, or composted. These eco-modulated fees would, for example, cost a producer more for a package that is made of materials that lack a recycling market than one that has value and can be easily recycled.

Following a trend set in Minnesota’s 2024 packaging EPR law, SB 901 establishes a phased approach to modernizing the state’s recycling system—packaging producers will contribute 50% of system costs by July 1, 2028 – 75% by July 1, 2029 — and 90% by July 1, 2030. Funds will go towards maintaining and improving recycling, composting, and reuse programs; statewide education and outreach; and other key program aspects. A key difference in Maryland’s packaging EPR bill is that it allows multiple PROs to operate from the onset of the program, promoting flexibility and competition within the system, subject to MDE oversight and approval.

HOW THIS BILL CAME TOGETHER

PSI and Trash Free Maryland worked closely in 2021 with original bill sponsor, Delegate Brooke Lierman, to establish the need for a packaging EPR program and craft bill language that included the interests of government, industry, and environmental groups. When Lierman became Maryland Comptroller, Senator Malcolm Augustine championed a revised bill for the next three years. In the House of Delegates, Environment & Transportation Chair Marc Korman and Delegate Dana Stein strengthened and moved the legislation through the House. Senator Sara Love who, as a Delegate, cross filed the 2023 legislation that laid the foundation of the 2025 legislation and championed the legislation as primary co-sponsor.

A WORD FROM SENATOR MALCOLM AUGUSTINE

“I am very proud of Maryland’s EPR for Packaging and Paper Program legislation passed by the General Assembly during the 2025 legislative session,” said Senator Malcolm Augustine, the bill’s lead sponsor. “This legislation will create a more efficient, circular system for managing packaging and paper—resulting in cleaner communities, less waste, and more sustainable products. I’m grateful for our partnership with the Product Stewardship Institute, whose policy expertise, guidance, and dedication made a huge difference in getting this across the finish line.”

PSI’S ROLE AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE NATION

PSI provided policy analysis and technical assistance throughout the four-year legislative development process, helping to align stakeholders and ensure a workable program structure. The final bill incorporates elements from PSI’s national packaging EPR model and mirrors key provisions enacted in other leading states.

“By aligning with best practices from other leading states while including several new elements, Maryland positions itself as a national leader in sustainable materials management,” said Scott Cassel, founder and chief executive officer of the Product Stewardship Institute. “Without the passionate, tireless, and collaborative leadership from Senator Augustine and Senator Love, this bill would not have passed. Once signed, this bill will save Maryland taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each year, reduce waste, increase recycling jobs, and advance a cleaner environment and a more circular economy.”

This legislation reflects years of advocacy, negotiation, and consensus-building, laying a strong foundation for a sustainable packaging system in Maryland—and signals continued momentum for EPR across the country.

BLOG CATEGORIES
Batteries
Carpet
Chemical Recycling
Circular Economy
Consensus Building
Electronics
EPR
EPR by Product
Extended Producer Responsibility
Gas Cylinders
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Junk Mail
Legislation
Lighting
Mattresses
Medical Sharps
Membership
Mercury Thermostats
News & Events
Packaging
Paint
Partnership
Pharmaceuticals
Phone Books
Policy
Recycling
Refrigerant-Containing Appliances
Solar Panels
Textiles
Tires
Uncategorized