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 fourth in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.
This blog focuses on funding inputs and allocations, i.e. how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. 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.
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: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS
INPUTS
- Eco-modulated fees set through rulemaking and based on the median per ton cost for municipalities to manage each material.
- Weight or volume-based metrics
- Incentivizes recyclability, post-consumer content, reuse, reduction of materials, reduced toxicity and litter, and clear labeling.
ALLOCATIONS
- Needs Assessment: SO conducts & funds. Results submitted to DEP.
- Municipal reimbursement: all municipalities that recycle readily recyclable covered materials and meet reporting requirements receive reimbursement.
- Reimbursement mechanism: to be determined through rulemaking.
- Recycling funding covers: median net cost of municipal collection, transportation, sorting, and processing; program administration; and investments in education and infrastructure as funds allow (see Element #10 –Outreach & Education requirements).
OREGON: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS
INPUTS
- Eco-modulated fees proposed by PRO/s and based on the PRO/s’ costs to manage covered materials.
- Metrics/units not specified (“total amount”)
- Incentivizes recyclability, post-consumer content, life cycle impact reduction, evaluation and disclosure, and product-to-package ratio.
ALLOCATIONS
- Needs Assessment: Limited to local governments expansion. State conducts, PRO/s fund.
- Shared-Cost municipal reimbursement: PRO/s reimburse municipalities – or provide funding in advance – for most transportation costs to commingled processing facilities or end markets based on distance, provision of generator-facing contamination reduction programming (e.g., cart tagging), and expansion of collection and recycling infrastructure based on the needs assessment.
- PRO/s pay processors directly to cover costs of removing contaminants in the waste stream (“contamination management fee”) and a separate “processor commodity risk fee” designed to protect ratepayers from volatility in commodity revenues, and to cover most processing costs, including increased costs from implementing the law.
- Reimbursement mechanism: principles prescribed in statute, details to be determined through rulemaking.
- Recycling funding covers: transportation, sorting, processing, public education.
- Funding does not include local government collection costs (roughly 70% of system costs).
COLORADO: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS
INPUTS
- Eco-modulated fees proposed by PRO and based on type of material, recyclability, and net recycling services costs.
- Fees based on net costs for recycling; must be reported by weight
- Incentivizes reduced packaging material, enhanced recyclability, PCR content, design for reuse/refill, high recycling and refill rates.
ALLOCATIONS
- Needs Assessment: PRO funds state-approved third-party to conduct. Results submitted to Advisory Board and agency.
- PRO must work with agency, Advisory Board, and legislative budget committee to agree on scenario for increasing collection & recycling.
- Full EPR: PRO contracts with haulers, depots & MRFs, including local governments.
- Reimbursement formula: Must cover 100% of net recycling services using objective cost formula/s proposed in stewardship plan; Advisory Board input required.
- Recycling funding covers: capital improvements, collection, transportation, sorting, processing, public education, disposal of contamination (nonrecyclable collected covered materials).
- Funding to compost facilities goes to reduce contamination and improve processing of compostable packaging.
- Caps PRO expenditures on administration at 5% and prohibits spending producer fees on employee bonuses.
- Reimburses state agency for program-related expense.
CALIFORNIA: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS
INPUTS
- Eco-modulated fees proposed by PRO and based on the PROs costs to manage covered materials.
- Weight and unit-based metrics
- Incentivizes recyclability, post-consumer content, reuse, source reduction, reduced toxicity and litter, and clear labeling.
ALLOCATIONS
- Needs Assessment: State conducts, PRO funds.
- Shared-Cost municipal reimbursement: all municipalities that recycle readily recyclable covered materials and meet reporting requirements receive reimbursement.
- Reimbursement mechanism: proposed by PRO in program plan; state approval required.
- Recycling funding covers: capital improvements, transportation from remote/rural areas to centralized sorting facilities or end markets, sorting, processing, public education, expanding curbside collection, drop-off & public space recycling access, improving end markets.
- Funding does not include ongoing operational costs for recycling programs in place before the Act took effect, but does include enhancements to existing infrastructure through quality incentive payments, grants, or other means to improve processing or reduce contamination
ALL OR MOST: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS
INPUTS
- Eco-modulated fees
ALLOCATIONS
- Statewide Needs Assessment
- Recycling funding always covers administrative costs
- Shared-Cost reimbursement states (OR & CA): Include provisions to protect ratepayers from increased costs.