by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs
In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the eighth and final part of our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.
This blog focuses on key definitions and additional components, which refers to additional sections of the bill that do not fit into the other elements. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. To read about design for environment and performance standards, please read part five. For information on outreach and education requirements, and equity and environmental justice, take a look at part six; part seven covers the implementation timeline.
To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:
- covered materials/products
- covered entities
- collection and convenience
- responsible party (i.e. “producer”)
- governance, funding inputs
- funding allocation
- design for environment
- performance standards
- outreach and education requirements
- equity and environmental justice
- implementation timeline
- key definitions
- additional components
For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.
MAINE
KEY DEFINITIONS
- “Recycling” means the transforming or remanufacturing of an unwanted product into usable or marketable materials.
- “Recycling” does not include landfill disposal, incineration; energy recovery or generation by means of combustion with or without other waste.
- “Reuse” means a change in ownership of a product for use in the same manner for which it was originally made.
- No additional components are included.
OREGON
KEY DEFINITIONS
- “Mechanical Recycling”: does not change the basic molecular structure of material being recycled.
- “Commingled recycling” means the recycling or recovery of two or more materials that are mixed and would be separated into individual materials at a facility for marketing.
- “Recycling” means any process by which solid waste materials are transformed into new products in a manner that the original products may lose their identity.
- “Compost” means the controlled biological decomposition of organic material, or the product made by this process.
- “Reuse” means the return of a commodity into the economic stream for use in the same kind of application as before without alteration.
- Act changed the definition of “Recyclable Material” to include any material named by the commission and assigned to either acceptance list.
- Waste Prevention and Reuse: Producers pay into fund that provides state-run grants or loans for projects that reduce the environmental impacts of covered materials through means beyond recycling/recovery.
- Truth-in-Labeling Task Force: State convenes a multi-stakeholder Truth in Labeling task force to study misleading claims of recyclability. Task Force submits report and recommendations to the legislature by June 1, 2022.
- Additional State Agency Tasks: State charged with developing a permitting and certification process for MRFs and assessing the impacts of a potential state procurement policy for recycled products, plastic, and other materials.
- Repeals statewide requirement to place resin identification code with chasing arrows on plastic containers (ORS 459A.680).
COLORADO
KEY DEFINITIONS
- “Mechanical Recycling”: does not change the basic molecular structure of material being recycled.
- “Recycling” does not include energy recovery or energy generation thru combustion; use as a fuel; alternative daily cover; landfill disposal.
- Recycling rate measured when materials are prepared for sale or delivery to reclaimers or end markets.
- “Compostable”: covered material associated with organic waste streams, capable of undergoing aerobic biological decomposition in controlled composting system (ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868, or successor standards).
- “Reuse” or “refill” means returning covered materials to the marketplace that have already been used in same manner as originally intended without change in purpose and was intended to be used for original purpose >5 times.
ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS
Starting in 2028, CDPHE must review consumer cost impacts from the program, including the prices of goods, local government expenditures, and consumer spending on recycling and trash services. Must repeat this review every three years.
CALIFORNIA
KEY DEFINITIONS
- “Recycling” means collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise be disposed of. Materials must be sent to responsible end markets; state may establish regulations to define these markets.
- “Recycling” does not include combustion; incineration; energy generation; fuel production (except for organic materials); landfill disposal.
- Recycling rate measured by dividing amount of materials recycled by total amount of materials disposed of and recycled.
- “Reuse” or “refill” means using materials that are designed for multiple uses/durability; supported by adequate infrastructure to facilitate reuse/refilling; frequently reissued into supply chain.
- California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund: Producers pay $500 million annually into a fund that is used by the state to pay for programs that monitor and reduce the environmental, public health, and environmental justice impacts of plastics. 40% goes to environmental funds and 60% goes to environmental justice funds. Producers may collect up to 30% of this payment ($150 million) from plastic resin manufacturers.