The Maine Board of Environmental Safety finalized guidelines for the state’s prolonged producer accountability regulation for packaging on Thursday.
The regulation, the primary of its form within the nation when it handed in 2021, is now amongst 5 EPR for packaging legal guidelines within the U.S. It’s set to take impact in 2027.
Finalizing the principles marks a key step within the course of after years of deliberation, debate and soliciting feedback from stakeholders. The state’s Division of Environmental Safety collected lots of of pages of suggestions to tell improvement of the principles.
Members of the enterprise neighborhood, together with the Maine Chamber of Commerce, requested the state this week to pause the rulemaking course of, citing considerations that Maine’s proposed EPR for packaging construction diverged an excessive amount of from different state’s fashions, creating attainable regulatory points for companies and producers. Ameripen had additionally beforehand requested for a pause, however BEP moved forward at its Dec. 5 assembly.
Maine’s regulation, which covers most varieties of shopper packaging, is exclusive in contrast with packaging EPR legal guidelines in different states.
In Maine, producer funds will straight reimburse native governments for waste administration prices. The quantity every producer pays might be primarily based on the quantity it generates, in addition to how recyclable or reusable its packaging is. Maine’s regulation is taken into account a full municipal reimbursement mannequin, that means the producers pay charges however go away assortment duties to the municipalities.
California, Oregon and Minnesota have a shared accountability mannequin through which municipalities are reimbursed, however producers and municipalities share assortment duties. In Colorado, producers will fund a statewide recycling program and take a job in managing it.
Whereas some commerce teams took concern with Maine having a unique system than different states, others that testified mentioned they didn’t view this as a authentic concern.
“Packages like this, as you recognize, have been working efficiently across the whole world for many years, actually 40 to 50 years in some nations. Completely none of these applications are harmonized with one other one,” mentioned Sydney Harris, coverage director for Upstream, who mentioned this regulation was deliberately “tailor made for Maine” and the state’s distinctive wants.
Maine already has EPR applications for different merchandise together with batteries, paint, mercury thermostats and pharmaceuticals.
“Maine DEP has been overseeing eight different varieties of EPR applications right here in Maine that date again to 1995. They know what works in Maine. We’re not the identical as Oregon, we’re not the identical as Minnesota. We’re definitely not California,” Harris mentioned in the course of the listening to.
Considerations over prices
Commenters additionally raised considerations over how Maine’s EPR mannequin will play out out there, when it comes to the place the ultimate value burden falls.
BEP Chair Susan Lessard, who voted in opposition to adopting the ultimate guidelines, mentioned in the course of the assembly that firms doubtless will cross ensuing prices on to shoppers.
“We’re transferring this value off the property tax to one thing else as a result of it must go some other place, as a result of producers will not add value to their system with out transferring that value alongside,” she mentioned.
Different assembly attendees didn’t view this as a probable final result and mentioned they anticipate that prospects might make totally different buying selections primarily based on the finalized system.
Through the assembly, board member Robert Duchesne identified that state lawmakers might introduce laws meant to refine the EPR regulation and tackle considerations raised by some stakeholders. The state’s EPR regulation additionally consists of an annual report mechanism that might present a possibility for the legislature to weigh in periodically.
In a written assertion after the ultimate vote, the Pure Sources Council of Maine mentioned the finalized guidelines have been a “sensible resolution” that can assist elevate recycling charges. NRCM was a key backer of the preliminary regulation.
The EPR program will “shift prices away from taxpayers onto the firms that produce and revenue from the large quantity of cardboard and plastic packaging that’s driving up waste administration prices for Maine municipalities,” mentioned Vanessa Berry, NRCM’s Sustainable Maine program supervisor.
Maine’s guidelines additionally embody quite a few implementation particulars and metrics. Producers should make a sure share of packaging “readily recyclable, reusable or compostable,” beginning at 50% by 2030 and growing to 75% by 2040 and 100% by 2050. Producers might want to scale back packaging in this system, by weight, by 40% by 2040 and 60% by 2050.
Different provisions name for producers to fulfill post-consumer recycled materials thresholds to keep away from larger charges and improve use of reusable packaging over time, amongst quite a few different particulars.
Disposal reimbursement charges debate
One other key level the waste trade raised in the course of the public remark interval was a provision within the guidelines about reimbursement charges for disposing of packaging that’s not readily recyclable.
Casella Waste Methods — a landfill operator within the state — took concern with provisions that will reimburse communities that use incinerators at a better charge than landfills, in addition to not reimbursing communities which might be close to an incinerator however select to make use of a landfill. One motive it cited was that communities might ship their waste to totally different amenities all year long, particularly when incinerators are down for upkeep.
“We strongly oppose this language on the bottom that it obscures the present realities of waste disposal within the State of Maine, ends in unfair outcomes for Maine municipalities, reduces market competitors, incentivizes CO2 emissions from the combustion of plastic, provides pointless complexity, and distracts from the acknowledged objectives of EPR for Packaging,” wrote Bob Cappadona, vp of useful resource options, in a remark.
Aroostook Waste Options, a nonprofit landfill operator and recycler, raised comparable considerations.
Nonprofit incinerator and MRF operator ecomaine mentioned it absolutely supported the proposed closing rule and appreciated the popularity of landfill emissions. The town of South Portland, which sends its materials to ecomaine, questioned the incinerator language.
In the meantime, the Maine State Chamber of Commerce expressed concern about disposal prices being included within the reimbursement charge in any respect. The chamber additionally questioned the incinerator benefit. The Pure Sources Council of Maine, a key backer of the preliminary regulation, additionally questioned the incinerator language however mentioned it supported the inclusion of disposal prices.