This month's Policy Now is sponsored by:

So far, all five states in the U.S. that have passed extended producer responsibility laws for packaging have included eco-modulated fees. 

Eco-modulation of fees means giving a bonus – lower fees – to producers that use eco-friendly options, such as more recyclable design or more recyclable materials, or a malus – a higher fee – to producers that make less eco-friendly packaging choices.

Several other countries that have EPR for packaging also use eco-modulation, such as France, but often that level of fee setting is introduced after EPR has been in place for several years. Some French organizations have also said that the way the fees are set is not effective, though it is being revamped. 

U.S. states have so far decided to dive into eco-modulation of fees right away. However, producer responsibility organization Circular Action Alliance noted in a July Colorado advisory board meeting that when it comes to what is considered in the fee-setting process, there is very limited alignment across Oregon, California, Colorado and Maine. 

For example, all four of those states want the eco-modulated fees to consider the amount of PCR in the packaging, but that's the only factor all four share. 

Shane Buckingham, CAA EPR program planning lead, told me that one of the big challenges, besides the lack of harmonization, is getting producers ready to jump into eco-modulation at the outset of the program. 

"There's also the challenge for producers to be able to prepare to capture the right data to report into CAA so they are able to claim a bonus or to manage the maluses," he said. "So that's a lot of what we're looking at right now, that data foundation that needs to be put in place to manage eco-modulation across those states." 

Minnesota has not yet selected a PRO and so was not part of CAA's discussion, but the newly passed law also calls for eco-modulated fees based on PCR as well as toxic substances, reduction of packaging, increasing reuse, and recyclability and/or compostability.

There are instances of two states lining up: Oregon and Colorado both include the recycling rate of the package or packaging material, California and Colorado both include reuse and refill, and California and Maine align on targeting the presence of hazardous or toxic materials or additives as well as labeling. But from there the states diverge, with Oregon also directing the eco-modulation of fees to take into account the product-to-package ratio, the kind of material the producer chooses to use and life-cycle analyses.

California highlights plastic derived from renewable material, compostables and source reduction, while Maine wants fees to include reduction of litter and factor in yield. Colorado adds that the use of a material that is not on the covered material list will merit an increase in fees, but innovation and practices to enhance recyclability will result in lower fees.  

Buckingham said much of the discussion is still in the early stages and will be further developed over the next year and a half. 

For more on eco-modulated fees in the five states, read the full story. 

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality denied the first draft of CAA's program plan, which was expected, so that CAA can take the agency's feedback into account in its second draft, which is due on Sept. 27. 

In its 61-page letter laying out the decision, DEQ noted it "would like to voice overall appreciation for the constructive tone of the plan, its ease of navigability, and the considerable knowledge of Oregon's program requirements that it reflects." 

Overall, 18 individual sections of the plan were approved, four were conditionally approved and 14 were not approved. Sections that needed more work were the closure plan, dispute resolution, plans to advance equity in recycling, fees and goals, many of which CAA had previously noted it would need to flesh out in future plans. 

In Colorado's July 10 EPR advisory board meeting, CAA shared that so far, 1,300 producers have registered with the PRO, including over 250 large companies that supply a "significant amount" of material into the state. In the past, CAA has noted that it is difficult to estimate how many producers need to register. 

CAA also launched a 10-part stakeholder consultation process, running from the end of July through September. 

Board members discussed possibly adding polystyrene to the additional material list, as some communities and organizations in the state are currently collecting and recycling it and CAA does not want to roll back any current services.

Right now, PS is not on either the minimum recyclable list or the additional material list. That doesn't mean it can't be collected or recycled – it just isn't part of the EPR program. Under the program, the minimum list is materials that must be collected in a manner that is as convenient as the collection of solid waste, while the additional list covers materials that may be collected through either curbside services, drop-off centers or other means but is not required. 

However, the board emphasized that there would need to be clear education and instruction to avoid curbside contamination. 

Colorado's vacant seat on the board representing paper producers will also likely be filled in the next month, according to a presentation by the state at the meeting. 

In California, CalRecycle updated the list of covered materials under SB 54, making more than two dozen changes, mostly to the categories. 

The first version of the list was released in late December, and the department was required by statute to formally publish the list by July 1. It did so, and the updated list has 94 categories, while the first had 98. 

Some categories, such as fiber types, were originally double-listed, CalRecycle explained. In addition, ceramics was removed from all six glass categories and given its own corresponding but separate categories. The way certain metal sizes were described was also tweaked, and the new list has greater differentiation in the fiber categories. 

A study in Connecticut found that after the state modernized its bottle bill in 2021, redemption numbers sharply increased. The law phased in the changes: In 2021, the number of redemption spaces increased, as did the handling fee paid to retailers and redemption centers; in 2023 the list of covered containers expanded; and starting last January, the deposit doubled from 5 cents to 10 cents. 

Data from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection shows that the first quarter of 2024 notched the highest number of first-quarter returns in the state in at least a decade and the highest dollar figure for redemptions on record at $19.4 million. The first quarter of 2023 saw $8.6 million in redemptions, comparatively. That's despite lower container sales in 2024. 

That means consumers redeemed 194.5 million containers in Connecticut during the first quarter of 2024, up 12.6% from a year before. 

Similarly, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy reported that the recycling rate reached a record high of 23% in 2023 after a 2022 update to the state's solid waste law. In comparison, the 2019 rate was 14.25%.

Kerrin O'Brien, executive director of the Michigan Recycling Coalition, credited the success to collaborative efforts at the state and local levels. 

In total, 703,000 tons of residential material were recycled in 2023, surpassing the previous year by 82,000 tons or about 13%. 

Finally, a study out of MIT suggested that a nationwide 10-cent deposit on PET beverage containers could push the recycling rate for the material to over 80% in the next decade with a high level of bottle-to-bottle circularity. 

The team of researchers used NAPCOR, U.S. EPA and The Recycling Partnership data to dive into the connections between RPET supply and demand and the potential effect on MRFs if a national DRS program were to be implemented. 

The researchers estimated that a 10-cent, nationwide bottle deposit program could increase the recycling rate from its current 24% to 82% by 2035, with 68% recycled into new bottles. Currently, the bottle-to-bottle circularity rate is 11%.

At a federal level, the White House published a strategy on reducing plastic pollution that players in the recycling industry both applauded and derided. 

The 80-plus page strategy, "Mobilizing Federal Action on Plastic Pollution: Progress, Principles and Priorities," outlines existing and new federal actions, including reducing pollution from the extraction of fossil fuels and production of plastic, supporting innovation in alternative materials and processing methods, decreasing plastic generation, improving "environmentally sound waste management" and cleaning up existing plastic pollution. 

The White House also shared a new goal of phasing out federal procurement of single-use plastics in food service operations, events and packaging by 2027 and all federal operations by 2035. 

The Recycled Materials Association praised the strategy, saying the organization "looks forward to working with the Administration as it executes this ambitious program," and the Association of Plastic Recyclers called the strategy "a significant step as it represents the first comprehensive, government-wide strategy to target plastic pollution." (APR owns Resource Recycling, the publisher of Policy Now.) 

However, the Plastics Industry Association's president and CEO Matt Seaholm said he was disappointed in the strategy, which "arbitrarily singles out plastic under the false pretense of a lower environmental impact." 

In addition, Congress is considering a labeling law that would set federal parameters around recycling labels on consumer packaging. The American Institute for Packaging and the Environment had a list of suggestions, including that any federal law explicitly preempts state laws, such as California's SB 343.

Read more about Ameripen's suggestions in the full story.  

In other interesting policy related news, some plastic bag manufacturers and recyclers teamed up to create the Responsible Recycling Alliance, which is lobbying against SB 1053 in California. That bill, and its companion legislation AB 2236, would extend the state's current plastic bag ban to also prohibit reusable bags made from 40% post-consumer resin. 

EFS-Plastics, Merlin Plastics and PreZero US are arguing that banning the thicker bags would remove 100 million pounds of North American post-consumer resin demand per year and would push consumers toward products with a larger overall environmental footprint. 

The group is instead advocating for improving bag recycling rates by including the material in the state's emerging EPR program. 

In Massachusetts, a broad bill that combined a half-dozen environmental actions, including EPR for several materials, plastic bans and access to both bulky plastic and organics recycling did not move out of the House before the end of the session.

S 2833 passed out of the Massachusetts Senate on a vote of 38-2 in late June and went to the House. The state’s legislative session ended July 31. 

The Act to Reduce Plastic included a single-use plastic bag ban and a 10-cent charge for paper bags, a requirement to make straws and plasticware available by request only, and a statewide recycling program for large plastic durables such as car seats. 

Here are a few bills that I've been watching: 

        • HB 1386 in New Hampshire was sent to the governor's desk. It would prohibit disposing of lithium-ion batteries in landfills, composting facilities or incinerators. 

        • HR 8544 in the U.S. House was introduced. The full bill text is not yet filed, but the Fair Repair Act would provide consumers the right to repair electronics. 

        • HR 8092 in the U.S. House was introduced. It directs the EPA to protect communities from the harmful effects of plastics.

Thanks for reading! If this email was forwarded to you by someone else, you can sign up for free so you don’t miss a single update on recycling policy.

Be sure to connect with this month's sponsor:

Policy Now is produced by Resource Recycling, your trusted source for recycling news and analysis. Choose your subscription preferences here. Received as a forward? Sign up here.

Interested in sponsoring a future edition of Policy Now? Contact ads@resource-recycling.com.