Memo to the New York State Legislature — Amended “Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act”
The recent amendments to S.1464/A.1769 make limited changes to two of our priority issues and makes no material change at all to others, while making several provisions of the bill even more challenging and costly. If passed, PRRIA would create an expensive, unworkable EPR program that would be inconsistent with EPR laws adopted by other states. We remain strongly opposed.
The A print has been described by its sponsors as containing “sweeping amendments” that were done “in collaboration with industry” and that represent a “middle ground,” with the bill now in “alignment with other states.”
With all due respect, we strongly disagree with these characterizations.
- “Sweeping Amendments” – The fundamental structure of PRRIA remain unchanged, as the bill still focuses on restricting the use of plastics, the banning of feedstock materials, and the disregard of some recycling technologies. The bill does extend compliance periods, but it still imposes unworkable “rates and dates.” It extends the duration of waivers based on federal law, but the scope of those and other waivers remains very limited. It limits its statutory recycled content mandates but also imposes a geographic limit on post-consumer material that is found in no other states’ EPR law. It cut its list of banned chemicals from 15 to 10 but would still be the only state EPR law with any chemical bans. It also eliminates a proposed superfluous “independent” compliance enforcement office.
- “In collaboration with industry” – While the sponsors held a two-hour meeting with business, environmental and municipal interests last December, where we shared our top issues of concern and recommended amendments, there were no follow-up meetings or negotiations with these business groups. Instead, we were presented with a set of “final” amendments some three-months later. No doubt, the A-print contains some amendments we agree with, but there has been no ongoing working arrangement with business advocacy groups.
- “Middle Ground” – We have provided legislators a coalition memo in opposition to S.1464-A/A.1769-A with ninety (and climbing) association and business signatures, with signatories ranging from The Business Council, the Farm Burean and Wine Institute, to large and small chambers of commerce from across the state. We are unaware of any business group that now support PRRIA based on these amendments. How does that represent a “middle ground?” In contrast, many business and business associations support an alternative EPR bill, S.5062/A.6191, modeled on a Minnesota statute that was passed with broad, diverse support – achieving a true middle ground.
- “Alignment with other states” – The PRRIA would be the only state packaging EPR law that bans chemicals and compounds, that explicitly precludes consideration of advanced recycling technologies or that requires producers to pay for disposal costs. It is the only state that does not allow producers to designate their own “producer responsibility organization.” It is the only state that limits recycled content calculations to North American-recovered material. Only one of the other seven EPR states imposes any statutory source reducing mandates, and PRRIA goes beyond California’s mandated 25% source reduction. In most respects, PRRIA differs significantly from other states’ EPR, especially the most recently enacted laws in Minnesota, Washington and Maryland.
We have a number of additional concerns with S.1464-/A.1769-A. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our concerns and recommendations with all Senate and Assembly members.
