[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",5978021,"mediaKeyId","5798841-1b177a80f44d8651009734cecad8ef4a","parentId",5798841,"title","Commission debates battery EPR elements; no final vote, staff to recirculate draft","audioSeconds",1335,"startMs",951000,"endMs",2286000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798841-1b177a80f44d8651009734cecad8ef4a&start=951&end=2286","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798841-1b177a80f44d8651009734cecad8ef4a/thumbnail_951000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5978021/Massachusetts/Commission-debates-battery-EPR-elements-no-final-vote-staff-to-recirculate-draft","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5978021-46c75ef9025acc8f9360c501846546bc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771092484&Signature=ZeTbs6xPbCL2BatItbeSHKYlBOjk5l516s8wiRJlpJscA4I95vOl5eAF589gVRiQm4u98EO5ImtyKLSe8wINZMr-X0avofyFX~zKSMNOQHlMZQOOgYZcOPbvd3KjB~9ZF3QB1D50ArsUGZd2FL~XgxpYd9wdk2cx3iStEYzdIUrjbde~bcTRyZz-NUVOnD8T7di4Ptir4SiTqIYqzndIqN9ZvWppJI8RHco2UgLAKm98w4WIaUjyhKRr8RlfjaL3rti3zKEceiv-cf~nzsf7RDRgeKl4UHAqySUWgt4r9wzEd9l5rQzYbvJjsQ0gLqXdlAgSYmfhkP020ICgFcztrg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MassDEP","date","2025-09-19T13:45:16Z","article","The Massachusetts Product Stewardship Commission discussed a draft recommendation for rechargeable and primary battery EPR but did not take a formal vote. Commissioners and industry guests debated whether to recommend the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation/PRBA-style model, whether embedded batteries should be included, which battery formats to cover, and whether retailer take‑back should be mandatory or voluntary.
Why it matters: Batteries are widely used in consumer devices; how they are regulated affects recycling logistics, safety, manufacturer responsibility and the scope of any producer-funded program.
During the discussion Renita Traver (recorded in the transcript as \"Miss Traver\") argued in favor of adopting the PRBA model legislation, saying it has been adopted in multiple states and was \"well studied.\" Several commissioners and public commenters pushed back on particular elements. One commissioner identified municipal concerns about convenience and costs and said embedded batteries pose technical and regulatory complications if the state does not already have an electronics EPR law that would capture embedded batteries. Traver noted the PRBA model typically excludes embedded batteries and that adding embedded batteries now would provoke industry opposition and complicate implementation; she said such changes often appear in later iterations of laws.
Commissioners agreed to remove a question from the draft that asked whether retailer take‑back programs should be mandatory; the transcript shows consensus to delete that item because most stakeholders did not advocate mandatory retail take‑back. Commissioners asked staff to circulate a revised draft, including references to recently adopted state laws and links to model legislation. Several industry representatives participating from out of state urged harmonization across states and noted an ongoing EPA convening on batteries.
No motion or formal vote was recorded on the battery recommendation during the meeting; staff said the item will be recirculated, commissioners will have an opportunity to provide further written comments, and the item will be revisited at a subsequent meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Extended Producer Responsibility Commission Meeting #5, September 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission discussed a draft battery EPR recommendation, focusing on whether to align with PRBA model legislation, the treatment of embedded batteries, and the scope of covered battery types; no formal vote was taken.","taxTitle","Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Executive , Massachusetts","taxId",24971,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5978015,"Commission hears electronics EPR briefing; commissioners request more analysis on convenience and costs",2240,2249000,8461,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798841-1b177a80f44d8651009734cecad8ef4a&start=2249&end=8","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798841-1b177a80f44d8651009734cecad8ef4a/thumbnail_2249000.jpg","/articles/5978015/Massachusetts/Commission-hears-electronics-EPR-briefing-commissioners-request-more-analysis-on-convenience-and-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5978015-34f944a4db66f651cc687cd26363fec1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771092484&Signature=kDvPadHCbl6u3GAS1higGme9tLUgKZ3iGcB5k1ZQRZWsvv0WHbCLJUbpmVSLriG0dV7X1bKgFCcpiHxjEBcqSSLkRIZlzdDtZVNGT-J~tiQa100gxAqlluZbpGmz6Jjqa2sZ2WPww1zPOSx1Su1NClLp2zf-P3M-oLVkgyNY35eNr5TfaZn55b5PZ8DMvIT5Zmzb-WfdvC~eQCIjO9~mgS-TDfRKTqHt9kaxT7AFMnTJAEiDqnHfjz6ixKJe6bluc2U-w7JFotGNIAbe1PKW5Sej-1~6DnVRlWeVVjjXMLiylo5T0ZQYZq6Kvvs8tL0i27Dfw7jWnTzOqIfamj3Mdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Product Stewardship Commission heard a detailed briefing on electronics Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) models in the United States and then held a robust discussion with commissioners, municipal representatives and industry stakeholders. Jason Linnell, executive director of the National Center for Electronic Recycling (NCER), presented state-by-state program differences, collection models, funding approaches and per-capita collection trends; commissioners requested additional local cost data and asked staff to circulate links and state examples cited during the presentation.
Why it matters: Electronics are a significant and evolving waste stream. Policy choices about covered products, convenience (collection access), funding methods and treatment of embedded batteries will determine how much material is diverted from disposal, who pays and how convenient recycling will be for residents.
NCER’s presentation summarized U.S. experience: about 25 states plus the District of Columbia have some form of electronics recycling law, with substantial variation in covered products, covered entities (households, schools, small businesses), funding approaches (market-share, manufacturer fees, clearinghouse models, and point-of-sale fees in a few states), and collection strategies (municipal collection sites, nonprofit drop-off, retail take-back, curbside or mail-back in limited cases). Linnell explained that per-capita pounds collected has declined in many states, in part because the average weight of devices has fallen as cathode-ray-tube equipment has been replaced by lighter flat-panel devices.
Commissioners raised recurring questions. Several requested clearer state comparisons and more municipal cost data. Commissioner Janet Dominance said she would provide municipal cost information from the Massachusetts Product Stewardship Council and Product Stewardship Institute research. Commissioner Neil Ryan emphasized convenience and equity, saying fees at drop-off can discourage residents and lead to illegal dumping; he said he wants \"no fees to the consumers\" where possible. Tracy Triplett from the Attorney General’s Office asked about coordination between electronics and battery EPR programs; Jason Linnell said coordination is still evolving and most states currently treat the two programs separately. Public commenters from industry — Daniel Zotos (Redwood Materials), Scott Cassello and Jeremy Jones (former electronics-company employee, now with American Coatings Association) — urged harmonization across states and noted ongoing federal-level convenings on battery and electronics recycling.
The commission did not take a final vote on electronics EPR. Commissioners asked staff to gather additional information, including: comparative state statutory language and links; municipal cost estimates for collection, transfer and on-site processing; and further analysis of convenience standards (distance/coverage, events vs. permanent sites). Commissioners and staff discussed next steps: staff will circulate NCER slides and links; the commission will consider additional meetings or referral of detailed follow-up work to an appropriate advisory body so the January final report can include clearer, state-comparison analysis.
","The commission heard a comprehensive briefing on electronics EPR from the National Center for Electronic Recycling, then asked staff for more municipal cost data and state-by-state comparisons before finalizing any recommendation.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5978026,"Product Stewardship Commission votes to send mattress EPR recommendation to legislature",468,505000,973000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798841-1b177a80f44d8651009734cecad8ef4a&start=505&end=973","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798841-1b177a80f44d8651009734cecad8ef4a/thumbnail_505000.jpg","/articles/5978026/Massachusetts/Product-Stewardship-Commission-votes-to-send-mattress-EPR-recommendation-to-legislature","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5978026-34649501a2d1cf3a21c93951a04db2e6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771092484&Signature=cjDtjuQ1MG72ig8rm3nuoKXdSKLFZVQIxN6eWh1deIxE6YZfvK1evm5vKHxpqQ0CURqYKCrwogGkmSJCSHfkE2EzpuG02bpep1m2RS2wD651jNtCdQPLsxD14TIQm7BiqsYyBSY2gLdF5SPMdJAeyceB62mWVnoJfYHT5nilOFbT1bWI1QgvUaJMGXNv4exzElj-4GyLP0nNi-jTfAfvEH~j39X4nvEj1GwBx2iB10cD~4W-xdz76OVSYzjI8Vo3N64Ecg4Yqux80iZ45nSHIRgmrI9gLaGv7QfQ7HXq0avGFhEBWJxAHCQPfhcZC5gbcsrz37Rd6kyLfhMz7HXxpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Product Stewardship Commission voted to send its mattress Extended Producer Responsibility recommendation to the state Legislature, approving transmission of the commission’s recommendation during the meeting after discussion and a recorded vote. The motion passed with seven ayes, one no and one abstention. John Bealing, chair, presided over the hybrid meeting where commissioners debated whether the draft recommendation provided sufficient detail on cost allocation and implementation for municipalities.
Why it matters: Commission recommendations inform legislative work and can shape whether bills move forward, how they are drafted, and what implementation questions (curbside pickup, municipal costs, and convenience standards) lawmakers will need to resolve.
At the meeting commissioners debated whether the draft recommendation was sufficiently detailed for legislative action. Amita (identified in the transcript by first name) argued the draft was \"inadequate to address the commission's task,\" saying it \"does not address specific cost mechanisms or other things that the commission was actually tasked with putting forward a recommendation on.\" Commissioner Bill Rennie said he was \"not comfortable recommending that [the Legislature] enact legislation\" until outstanding questions about curbside pickup and other operational details were resolved. Supporters of forwarding the recommendation said the commission’s role is to signal priorities to lawmakers and that the full report to be delivered in January would contain additional commentary and minority viewpoints.
After discussion a motion to forward the mattress recommendation to the Legislature was moved (mover not specified in the record) and seconded by Janet Dominance. The meeting record shows the tally as seven ayes, one no (Commissioner Bill Rennie) and one abstention (Commissioner Janet Dominance). Staff said they will prepare the recommendation package, circulate it to the commission, and send it to the Legislature.
The commission’s decision to send the document now does not foreclose additional commentary. Several commissioners said the final January report will include expanded analysis, minority views and clarifications on municipal impacts. The commission also noted that bills referenced in the draft are already before the Legislature and that legislative hearings provide a further opportunity for technical detail and cost information to be developed.
The commission moved from the mattress item to battery EPR discussion after the vote; staff said they will circulate the final package to commissioners before submission. The meeting record indicates the commission will continue work on other product recommendations and will include more detailed analysis and state-specific references in subsequent drafts.
","The Massachusetts Product Stewardship Commission voted to forward its mattress Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) recommendation to the Legislature after debate over whether the draft sufficiently addressed municipal concerns. The motion passed with seven ayes, one no and one abstention; commissioners said a fuller report will follow.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission debates battery EPR elements; no final vote, staff to recirculate draft

Commission hears electronics EPR briefing; commissioners request more analysis on convenience and costs

Product Stewardship Commission votes to send mattress EPR recommendation to legislature