Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Packaging Epr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mixed testimony as committee considers targeted exemptions and litigation pause for producer‑responsibility packaging program
Summary
Stakeholders sparred over HB 4,030 and its amendments that would exempt berry clamshells, noncompostable protein-contact packaging, business‑to‑business packaging, and pause enforcement amid litigation; industry groups sought relief for producers and newspapers, while implementers warned exemptions would shift costs and undermine program goals.
House Bill 4,030 and a series of proposed amendments drew detailed testimony Feb. 10 on the state’s Recycling Modernization Act and the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program.
A committee presenter described proposed amendments: dash-1 would exclude packaging used solely in business‑to‑business transactions; dash-4 would exclude garbage bags; dash-5 would exempt noncompostable packaging that comes into direct contact with raw or not‑ready‑to‑eat meat, poultry, fish or seafood for five years; and dash-6 would block DEQ enforcement of producer-responsibility requirements while a legal challenge proceeds.
Industry and agricultural witnesses supported targeted exemptions, citing costs to berry farmers and grocery retailers and noting that the fees under EPR could exceed a small producer’s annual revenue. Rick Tomlinson said PET thermoformed berry clamshells are currently the most sustainable packaging available for those uses and that farmers pay the recycled-content costs.
Circular Action Alliance, which is the state‑approved producer‑responsibility organization implementing the program, opposed HB 4,030 and the amendments as drafted, saying exemptions would not reduce system costs but simply shift them to remaining producers and create unequal treatment for functionally identical materials. Kim Holmes told the committee the timing of an exemption could disrupt producer reporting and fee setting because the bill would take effect 91 days after session close.
National recycling advocates and the Recycling Partnership also urged caution, saying EPR programs rely on fair distribution of costs among obligated producers and that exempting categories that remain in the recycled stream would force others to pay more. Newspaper and grocery-industry witnesses urged the dash-6 litigation pause; the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association highlighted biodegradability and compostability of newspapers and raised first-amendment concerns about third-party administrators.
Committee members asked technical questions and the implementer committed to providing written analysis on specific amendments. The committee closed the hearing and said members would review written comments.
