Industry reacts: Maine becomes first US state to pass EPR for packaging bill

19 Jul 2021 --- In a US state first, Maine has signed an Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging bill into law. 

Passing with a 86-57 vote, the LD 1541 bill will require producers of packaged goods that are sold in the state to finance the maintenance and expansion of municipal recycling programs.

“This bill shifts the culture around what is legislatively possible for zero waste and circular economy strategies in the US,” Yinka Bode-George, environmental health manager at the National Caucus for Environmental Legislators (NCEL), tells PackagingInsights.

Bode-George believes the legislation can be used as a template for other states working to optimize waste management and recycling efficiencies.

“Lawmakers now have concrete examples of source reduction, recycled content, hazardous substance protection and producer responsibility policies they can take on in their states to address waste issues.”

The law requires Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to develop the bill’s implementation plan by the end of 2023.

All in the fine print
Introduced by State Representative Nicole Grohoski, the EPR bill aims to increase recycling rates, reduce packaging pollution, and save taxpayers money. 

“Our current recycling system isn’t fair and it isn’t working,” Grohoski states in a Facebook post. “Maine taxpayers are paying an estimated US$16 million annually to manage packaging materials and, at best, only 36 percent of these materials are being recycled.” 

“I am grateful to a tri-partisan majority of my colleagues in the House for recognizing that, for the sake of our taxpayers and our environment, we cannot afford to maintain the status quo.”

The LD 1541 bill will require producers of packaged goods to finance the maintenance and expansion of municipal recycling programs.Under the new law, Maine’s DEP will partner with a stewardship organization to reimburse and assist municipalities in providing recycling services throughout the state. 

Brand owners selling packaged goods must pay fees on all packaging materials to the stewardship organization to fund the system. This funding can range from the recycling costs for each material, infrastructure investments or resident education. 

The fee structure will be determined by DEP rule with multi-stakeholder input and also include financial incentives for recyclable packaging. 

“Having more recyclable products has the potential to lead to less materials landfilled, incinerated, or exported to different communities,” says Bode-George.

Moreover, the bill would create a uniform list of materials collected in each participating municipal recycling program.

First to fail?
The Consumer Brands Association spotlights the legislative see-saw the EPR bill is on: “Maine could become a model for the rest of the nation. However, a lack of smart policymaking will result in Maine being first in the nation to fail,” says Jen Daulby, senior vice president of Consumer Brands’ government affairs.

The Consumer Brands Association’s criticism is that legislation should improve the underlying recycling system to deliver strong environmental outcomes, and not add funds to an existing system.

“Revenue proposals should support real recycling solutions, not be the solution. In moving so quickly, it [Maine] has chosen expediency over efficacy and is failing to follow a thorough rulemaking process,” says Daulby. 

The Consumer Brands Association further calls for raised funds to be dedicated solely to recycling improvements, not to general government funds or “unnecessary” administrative costs. Moreover, it advocates no single funding source should replace or supplant other funding sources.

“Extremely low” costs
Despite concerns about funding and affordability, the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) suggests the EPR bill is unlikely to affect consumer prices. 

The NRCM flags EPR program costs are “extremely low” for producers. “Total costs are between 0 and 1 percent of a company’s gross revenue, typically fractions of a penny per container. The costs per package are not even close to enough to justify a change in product price.”

The NRCM warns recycling waste costs 67% more than disposal of waste on average, making it hard for Maine’s municipalities to maintain recycling programs.Research on consumer prices from Resource Recycling Systems found no correlation between price and the implementation of an EPR policy across Canada. 

“It is likely that pricing is more influenced by other economic factors, such as energy or labor costs, local taxes, distance from distribution hubs, competition, or other operating expense differences,” the report authors write.

Moreover, the NRCM maintains countries and provinces with EPR regularly achieve recycling rates above 50 percent without raising the overall cost of recycling.

Not their first rodeo
Producer responsibility programs are “not new to Maine,” says Bode-George, referring to the Pine Tree State’s eight EPR laws, including electronic waste, mercury-containing products, and unused paint.

“The agency will be using their long history implementing other producer responsibility programs to address packaging products,” she highlights. 

Moreover, the bill is paired with Maine’s existing zero waste policies, such as a ban on single-use plastic bags and foam foodware packaging.

In previous interviews with PackagingInsights, Bode-George discussed the NCEL’s efforts to build an EPR network in nine other US states, as well as her views on environmental inequities on UN Day of Women in Science 2021.

By Anni Schleicher

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com