by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs
In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the fifth in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.
This blog focuses on design for environment and performance standards. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent.
To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:
- covered materials/products
- covered entities
- collection and convenience
- responsible party (i.e. “producer”)
- governance, funding inputs
- funding allocation
- design for environment
- performance standards
- outreach and education requirements
- equity and environmental justice
- implementation timeline
- key definitions
- additional components
For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.
MAINE
DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT
- None beyond eco-modulated fee criteria.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
- Program targets for reuse, recycling, and collection rates to be set through rulemaking.
OREGON
DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT
- Large producers must perform a life cycle evaluation on 1% of their in-state covered materials and publish results.
- State conducts studies on contamination, composting, and litter/marine debris. Must recommend changes to the program based on results of composting and litter/marine debris studies.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
- Statute includes plastics recycling goals:
- 25% by 2028;
- 50% by 2040;
- 70% by 2050.
- In 2038, OR DEQ may adjust plastics recycling rates by rule (no less than 35% and no more than 70%).
- Program targets for contamination to be set through rulemaking.
- Convenience standards, collection targets and performance standards for PRO-collected materials to be set through rulemaking.
COLORADO
DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT
- None beyond eco-modulated fee criteria.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
- Needs assessment will create three scenarios with proposed goals; Advisory Board and state agency will make recommendations on preferred scenario and legislature will designate 2030 goals to move forward; PRO will then design plan to meet goals by 2030, and 2035 for collection, recycling, and PCR content rates (for certain covered materials).
CALIFORNIA
DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT
- All covered materials must be recyclable or compostable by 2032.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
- Plastic covered material must be source reduced (reusable, refillable, or with virgin plastic components eliminated) by 25% by weight and number of plastic components:
- 10% by 2027;
- 20% by 2030;
- 25% by 2032.
- At least 10 percentage points must be achieved by elimination without substitution; at least 4 percentage points must be achieved by shifting to reuse or refill.
- Plastic covered material must meet increasing recycling rates:
- 30% by 2028
- 40% by 2030
- 65% by 2032
- Polystyrene food service ware banned unless it meets increasing recycling rates:
- 25% by 2025
- 30% by 2028
- 50% by 2030
- CalRecycle may adjust recycling rates (up or down) and source reduction targets (up)