As more EPR bills will be introduced in 2025 than ever before, the winners will be the companies that lean in, and are at the table, not on the menu.
By Heidi Sanborn
Discuss the EPR landscape in 2024. How did it differ from 2023?
2023 was the year EPR became the normal go-to solid waste policy, but 2024 was the year EPR was embraced by producers to the extent that they were drafting and asking for legislation to be introduced with not just a producer run Recycling Refund for bottles and cans, but also combined for efficiency with all other packaging. The question is no longer whether it is the appropriate policy approach for packaging, but that we must pass EPR to ensure domestic availability of recycled material for corporations to have a chance at hitting their recycled content goals. Producers realized that if they lead on developing legislation, they might get it. As I always say, if you are not at the table, you are probably on the menu. When producers lead with legislative ideas like EPR for all packaging, including bottles and cans that would still maintain a deposit to get more returned, they achieve economies of scale that can save everyone resources. It can be a win-win.
What states had the most EPR activity in 2024?
California, once again, led with the introduction of seven EPR bills and passing the most EPR bills. 2024 bills in California were for Household Hazardous Waste (HHW), marine flares, electric vehicle batteries, fossil fuels, carpet, textiles, and solar panels. All of them made it to the Governor except fossil fuels and solar panels. The Textile EPR was signed into law鈥攆irst in the U.S. HHW evolved into a subcategory with a PaintCare expansion, supported by PaintCare, so that all specialty paints like arts and crafts, marine and furniture paint, and related products are now covered in that existing program. Carpet was an NSAC sponsored bill that was moved back to a cleanup bill from what originally was flipping the program from a visible fee to an internalized cost EPR model. However, it was signed into law with the first carpet-to-carpet recycled content mandates and other overdue improvements to collection of carpet and more. Marine flares and EV batteries made it to Governor Newsom鈥檚 desk, but were vetoed. Beyond California, Minnesota made impressive progress by passing the first EPR law for boat wrap and 5th in the nation EPR for packaging. Illinois passed EPR for primary batteries and Maryland passed the 12th Paint Stewardship law.
What were the biggest 鈥渧ictories鈥� in 2024?
I am always impressed by those who led鈥攖he bills that are first in the U.S. NSAC鈥檚 sponsored Marine Flare EPR bill in California and the Boat Wrap EPR for Minnesota were both first of their kind and made it to the governors鈥擥overnor Newsom vetoed SB 1066 (Blakespear) on Marine Flares and Governor Tim Waltz signed the EPR law for boat wrap. Both laws drew attention to existing problems in the boating sector like the dangerous and explosive marine flares with no end-of-life plan, and with single use boat wrap, the wastefulness of not recycling that volume of film plastic.
How has the waste and recycling industry continued to play a key role in working with packaging producers, legislators, etc. in moving legislation forward?
The waste and recycling industry has continued to lean-in and learn and advocate to protect their investments while learning to partner with producers not only on legislation, but also on determining whether products going to market can be managed cost-effectively using existing infrastructure. Our industry is doing great work in developing relationships with producers to close the communication loop between what is coming on the market and ensuring we have a system to manage it all.
However, we saw a concerning trend from some Producers using threats to stop selling products to stop legislation. On the implementation side, in Washington and Vermont, existing EPR bills for Solar Panels and HHW respectively are getting push-back from industries saying they will not comply and stop selling their products in the states. In California, Orion, the sole producer of the product, stated clearly that they would stop selling in California if the bill passed. Do producers think they can make their products and profit from its sale, leaving taxpayers and ratepayers holding the bag at EOL? The answer is yes, they do, but no they cannot. They may win a battle, but they will not win the war. This situation makes it clear that states should work together on their timing of EPR bills and introduce them in multiple states in the same year to ensure producers know that the bills will eventually pass. That is why NSAC has organized five national working groups for products including HHW, boat wrap, and marine flares to ensure states are talking to each other and sharing information and coordinating on bill strategy.
How important is the terminology used in bills presented?
Every word matters鈥攖he devil is always in the details. Unfortunately, there are those that conflate EPR with product stewardship (which has a visible fee paid for by the consumer), and the industry uses that to their advantage. There is discussion regarding EPR for all packaging, including bottles and cans, when Deposit Return Systems are in fact EPR with a deposit to ensure the materials come back. We can remind people that when producers internalize costs, they answer to shareholders about those costs to get them down. When they control public/consumer money, they do not have the same pressure to change design and get the costs down in the system. I personally do not believe it is ever appropriate to give industry control of public money. They need to earn the right to control the program by paying for it with internalized costs.
What are some of the legislation/proposed bills that are coming down the pipeline in 2025? What does 2025 hold for the future of EPR?
Vermont led the way in 2023 with HHW EPR and I foresee that we will see much more attention paid to HHW since it is so toxic, dangerous, costly, and contaminates the waste system, which then endangers our workers. We just learned from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that our industry is now the 4th most deadly in the U.S. These products have no real market, but are very costly to manage and should be considered first for EPR. The costs are so high for HHW, Los Angeles County heard a motion on January 14th to direct staff to come back in 120 days with a proposal on what they should do since they are spending $14M a year on HHW and reducing services due to increasing costs. California will reintroduce EPR for HHW by February 21st and other states are considering it. In general, we anticipate seeing more bills introduced targeting products that fit in the category of explosive or hazardous. We anticipate that states will follow the successes achieved in other states, including bills addressing paint, mattresses, and bottles/cans via Recycling Refunds and Packaging. Rhode Island is currently considering EPR for packaging and a Recycling Refund combined in the same bill and held an educational hearing with legislators that was an excellent discussion of the issues. We also saw producers leaning in, such as PaintCare wanting to expand their program to cover all of their paint products and the Lubricant Product Manufacturers Association being formed to take over management of their lubricant products. We strongly welcome these efforts and hope we see more industries being proactive instead of reactive.
I predict more EPR bills will be introduced in 2025 than ever before, more companies that stall and try to kill those bills by introducing new bills to undermine them, and more companies that lean in to implement EPR as envisioned. The winners will be the companies that lean in, and are at the table, not on the menu. | WA
Heidi Sanborn is Executive Director of the National Stewardship Action Council and the Stewardship Action Foundation and operates as an independent consultant. Heidi has been a leader in the solid waste industry for 34 years, working with industry, government, and the public to reduce waste, improve product design and recyclability, and implement cost-effective projects and policies that protect public health and the environment and support a circular economy.She can be reached at (916) 217-1109 or e-mail [email protected].