Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extended Producer Responsibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Extensive public comment on Packaging Product Stewardship Act as advocates and industry clash over scope, exemptions and advanced recycling
Summary
The committee held a long hearing on a Packaging Product Stewardship Act that would create an EPR system with a 50% source-reduction target for single-use plastics and toxic packaging bans; advocates urged tighter exemptions and exclusion of advanced recycling, while industry urged flexibility and business-to-business exemptions. Debate will continue at the committee's next meeting (Feb. 10).
The Packaging Product Stewardship Act (referred to in testimony as the Packaging Product Stewardship/Producer Responsibility Act) was the committee's main item of the day and generated the most extensive and divided testimony.
Advocates including Judith Enk (Beyond Plastics, SEG 1576), Taylor McFarland (Sierra Club, SEG 2391) and representatives of environmental-justice groups urged a strong 50% source-reduction requirement for single-use plastic packaging, strict toxic-substance bans in packaging, exclusion of advanced (chemical) recycling from program accounting, and tight limits on exemptions. Enk warned that broad or lengthy exemptions and an unaccountable private Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) would undermine the bill's goals.
Industry witnesses including Ed Waters (Chemistry Council, SEG 1902), Andrew Hackman (AmeriPen and the Flexible Packaging Association, SEG 2130), and others commended the work done on the bill but urged changes: a business-to-business exemption, practical timelines for source-reduction, allowance for advanced recycling as counted recycled content, and clarity on funding flow and program oversight.
Key points from testimony and the sponsor's summary included: uniform measurement by average weight per product sold, an exemption application and approval process through DEP for narrow categories, an eco-modulated fee design to fund local collection, and a set of toxic bans with hardship waivers. Witnesses debated whether exemptions should extend as long as 10 years or be shortened to one or two years.
The chair closed the hearing noting substantial progress but continued disagreement; the committee set a next meeting for Feb. 10 to continue consideration. No final roll-call vote on the full substitute was taken in this session.
