Mixed testimony as committee hears bill to prohibit plastic conversion technologies; proponents cite climate and public-health concerns, industry warns against 

Representative Mark Gamba on March 20 introduced House Bill 29,60 proposing a statewide ban on certain plastic conversion technologies (commonly described as pyrolysis and gasification for conversion to fuels) and presented a dash-1 amendment that modifies definitions in the bill.

Proponents—testifying for environmental and ocean-conservation groups—argued that conversion technologies combust plastic, yield little usable recycled material and produce substantially higher greenhouse-gas emissions than mechanical recycling. Dr. Anya Bridal, director of plastics policy at Ocean Conservancy, told the committee conversion technologies typically are regulated as incinerators and often yield low usable product when compared to mechanical recycling: "conversion technology yields 0.1 to 13% usable material," she said. Tara Brock of Oceana and other witnesses said the technologies prolong demand for virgin fossil feedstocks and are not considered recycling under Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act.

Opponents—industry representatives and several Oregon-based recyclers and startups—said the bill would remove tools from a broader recycling toolbox while harming emerging domestic technologies. Johan Kurz, co‑founder and CEO of Birch Biosciences in Portland, said his enzymatic recycling business and other innovators are developing methods to recover plastics and that the committee should base policy on science and data rather than a blanket ban. Kevin DeWitt, who has worked in pyrolysis and plastics firms in Oregon, explained the commercial process and described a product derived from pyrolysis that can be sent to a petrochemical steam cracker to be reprocessed into chemicals: "If I start with a thousand pounds of plastic ... I get out about 850 pounds of this," he said, summarizing his mass-balance description of the process.

Nut graf: The hearing split along familiar lines: environmental and ocean advocates urged a ban on conversion technologies they characterize as energy intensive and greenhouse-gas intensive; industry and recycling entrepreneurs warned that some advanced recycling approaches are evolving and that an outright prohibition could shut down potentially beneficial, emerging recycling pathways.

Witnesses differed on technical metrics. Dr. Bridal cited peer-reviewed analyses saying conversion processes yield low proportions of recyclable product and emit substantially more greenhouse gases than mechanical recycling. Industry witnesses disputed single-number yield claims and emphasized that process economics have fluctuated with crude oil prices; some described products from conversion as feedstock for existing petrochemical facilities. The committee heard that one Oregon pyrolysis facility (Agilex) had shut down but that the site and technology could be restarted if economic conditions or permitting changed.

Committee members asked for documents and studies; some members asked for clarification about how much of the plastic entering the ocean is sourced to Oregon (witnesses said state-level breakdowns are not precise). Because many testifiers remained and the hearing schedule ran long, the chair closed testimony and invited remaining witnesses to submit written comments within 48 hours. No committee vote was taken March 20.

Ending: The committee will consider the submitted written comments and may schedule a work session; sponsors and opponents were encouraged to continue technical discussions and produce additional evidence for the record.