Maryland committee hears debate on SB901 to create extended producer responsibility program for packaging and paper

Sen. Malcolm Augustine, sponsor of Senate Bill 901, told the House Environment and Transportation Committee on March 27 that SB901 would establish an extended producer responsibility program for covered packaging and paper products and asked the committee for a favorable report. "This is a consensus bill," Augustine said, describing the legislation as built from the committee's 2023 needs assessment and the advisory council's recommendations.

The bill would require the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to maintain a decennial needs assessment and to approve producer responsibility plans developed by a producer responsibility organization (PRO). Augustine explained that plans would be updated every five years and would set performance targets, reimbursement processes and producer fee structures. "Those things will go into this producer responsibility plan that will... draw heavily on the needs assessment," he said.

Under the draft read at the hearing, the program phases in reimbursement to service providers over five years, starting with reimbursement at roughly 50% of eligible costs and "lever[ing] up to 90% cost recovery by February," Augustine said. Reimbursable items described at the hearing included capital improvements, collection and transportation, processing and contamination removal, reuse and composting systems, and public education. Service providers must register with MDE to be eligible for reimbursement.

The committee heard testimony from dozens of stakeholders. Trade groups representing producers and packaging manufacturers — including the Flexible Packaging Association, McCormick & Company, AmeriPEN and the Maryland-Delaware-DC Beverage Association — urged passage and said the bill aligns with models used in other states, particularly Minnesota. Tiffany Harvey of the Maryland-Delaware-DC Beverage Association said the bill "carries some best practices" from prior state laws and described her group as supportive. Drew Fells of McCormick highlighted advisory-council involvement and the company’s role in that process.

Recyclers and materials organizations also testified in favor, typically "favorable with amendments." The Association of Plastic Recyclers urged clarity around terms such as "responsible end markets" and harmonization with other states. The Glass Packaging Institute and the Biodegradable Products Institute asked for changes to reimbursement language and fee proportionality for smaller material streams, respectively. Just Zero and the Circular Action Alliance urged stronger statutory direction on performance goals and clearer definitions for reusable/refillable materials. Jeremy D. Baker, testifying for MDE, called the bill aligned with the advisory council’s recommendations and asked for a small drafting change to clarify MDE’s ability to recoup regulatory costs beyond calendar year 2026.

Several stakeholders raised points the bill does not place in statute but leaves to the PRO-plans. Committee members asked whether statutory targets (such as recycled-content requirements) would be in the bill or in plan-level goals. Augustine said many targets would be plan-based rather than statutory, noting the choice reflects negotiated compromises: "It will be incorporated into the plan itself not into the statute..." Delegate questions also addressed rural counties’ costs and participation. Augustine said the statute and the PRO structure are intended to shift costs away from local jurisdictions and toward producers, and to provide funding and incentives for jurisdictions lacking recycling infrastructure.

Opponents and cautious stakeholders asked for modifications. The American Forest & Paper Association and some paper-industry witnesses urged protections to avoid cross-subsidization (paper subsidizing lower-performing materials), stressed differences in paper recycling markets and requested exemptions or off-ramps for materials that have already met program goals. The Consumer Healthcare Products Association pressed for restoring an exemption for dietary supplement packaging; witnesses said that federal packaging requirements constrain design changes for that sector.

Committee members asked technical questions about how the EPR program would treat jurisdictions without existing curbside collection, how producer fees would be eco‑modulated based on recyclability, whether bottle-deposit laws would conflict, and how compostable products would be handled. Augustine said the bill contains harmonization language for a potential bottle-deposit law and that lists of covered materials will be informed by the needs assessment. Several witnesses requested specific, statutory performance goals for clarity in future rulemaking; others said setting goals at plan level would preserve flexibility.

The hearing concluded with multiple organizations offering written amendments and an agreement by the department and sponsor to continue technical discussions prior to any committee vote. The committee did not take a formal vote on SB901 at the hearing.

Ending: The bill remains under committee consideration; sponsors and stakeholders signaled general consensus on the framework but asked for statutory clarifications on enforcement, goal-setting, exemptions and fee structure before the committee advances the measure.