CLIMATEWIRE | ALBANY, New York — Democratic lawmakers are still fine-tuning a sweeping measure aimed at reducing the amount of plastic and packaging trash headed to the state’s crammed landfills.
The rebranded extended producer responsibility bill seeks to reduce the amount of packaging being used, increase recyclability and charge producers of consumer goods for the costs of disposing of packaging that mostly ends up in landfills.
But tweaks are still expected to the current version, and some lawmakers have concerns about the costs for consumers with the legislative session set to end June 6.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said there are still conversations ongoing.
“We want to make sure that we have input so at least whatever we do legislatively not only reflects, to the extent possible, the real concerns that people bring to us and we weigh it against the real results that we’re trying to achieve,” the Democrat from Yonkers said Tuesday.
“Obviously, we all are getting all kinds of things that should not be in landfills, so we are trying to get to a point where we’ve got a piece of legislation that will pass.”
Broadly, the goal is to mandate producers of packaged consumer goods — think Amazon, Unilever, Procter & Gamble — to fund the recycling or disposal of what they sell. There’s also mandates to stop using potentially harmful substances.
Money raised would be used to reimburse local governments for the costs of waste disposal and recycling programs.
It’s a big shift in the way recycling is funded in New York.
Most costs are currently borne by local governments. The state’s climate plan, approved in late 2022 to map out the path for New York to achieve dramatic emissions reductions, backs sweeping new “extended producer responsibility” legislation to begin reducing emissions from waste in landfills.
Industry opponents of the bill warn the measure would increase costs and limit the convenient choices that grocery shoppers have come to expect. They say there aren’t readily available alternatives to some of the chemicals that would be banned.
Most supporters acknowledge there would be changes, but argue that habits are already shifting and that healthier, more refillable and less disposable choices would become more widely available because of the new requirements.
They’re also emphasizing that customers ultimately pay for sending the trash to the landfill anyway, and that reducing packaging material can lower costs.
“You don’t have to wrap everything in plastic,” said Assemblymember Michaelle Solages, a Democrat from Nassau County who is the chair of the influential Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic, and Asian Legislative Caucus. “I think it is a sin to even wrap fruits and vegetables in plastic.”
Solages said there’s still work to do on the details, although there’s support for the spirit of the proposal. She said there are concerns about costs, and there are currently discussions about how to ensure those costs aren’t only on consumers.
“We’re just throwing all this waste in our garbage,” Solages said in an interview. “At the end of the day, it’ll cost us more to clean up all the impacts to the Earth.”
Under the legislation, companies that are covered would have to reduce packaging by 10 percent within three years, increasing to 50 percent in 12 years. Recycling rates would also have to increase to 75 percent of packing material, including plastic, to be reused or recycled in 2050.
Assemblymember Deborah Glick, a Democrat from Manhattan, said there are also health risks from current packaging. Glick sponsors the bill, and as chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee, she has made it her top priority as the end of the legislative session nears.
“We have a variety of problems related to the chemicals that are in the plastic that is wrapped around our food,” she said. “We know we have a growing health problem.”
Producers could give consumers more options than are currently available, said Vanessa Fajans-Turner, executive director of Environmental Advocates NY.
“This is product agnostic. This is not a referendum on how we shop or what we shop for,” she said. “There are alternatives for packaging.”
There’s also significant labor opposition to the bill, and supporters recognize the challenge.
The New York State Conference of Teamsters and United Steelworkers District 4 oppose the bill, as does the New York State AFL-CIO.
The steelworkers oppose the inclusion of paper products, given the high recycling rate already, while the teamsters who represent some sanitation workers have concerns about the potential for new organizations to be responsible for collecting waste.
“This legislation is a direct assault on organized labor,” the Teamsters opposition memo states. “This legislation allows municipal waste removal forces, both public employee and currently contracted private companies, to be replaced by a state supervised private collection force without any regard to workers’ rights.”
Meera Joshi, New York City deputy mayor for operations, said there have been discussions with organized labor, and the city agrees there might be some protections that could be added.
The city estimates it would get $150 million if the bill were enacted, and it would have to pay less to ship waste to landfills, meaning additional savings.
“Our sanitation system covers all the cost of packaging that’s not recycled,” Joshi said in an interview. “Many states have adopted this. … We’re not reinventing the wheel here.”
Assembly Democrats are sensitive to the prospect of higher costs being passed on to consumers. The Assembly conferenced on the bill earlier this week.
Assemblymember Carrie Woerner, a Democrat from Saratoga County, said that any policies that would increase costs in an inflationary environment are a concern. She said she has a “conceptual appreciation” for the goals of the bill.
But she said she has questions about the time lines, given how many food suppliers are national brands and would face difficulty specifically making changes in New York. Policymakers should consider aligning implementation with California’s measure, which was signed in 2022, she said.
“I think the industry is trying hard to reduce the plastics they use and improve recyclability,” Woerner said. Food suppliers “have to be on a time line that is consistent from state to state. California got there first.”
Glick said the gradual implementation of the requirements to reduce plastics and other packaging helps address cost concerns.
“We're just giving them an incentive to be innovative,” she said. “The less packaging they use, the less they pay into a fund. So they reduce their costs and the less packaging they use, the less money they spend on that material. So it's just an excuse to raise prices.”
The opposition from companies, including makers of plastics represented by the American Chemistry Council, has been consistent since environmental groups began pushing for an extended producer responsibility program several years ago.
The chemical industry opposes restrictions on chemical recycling counting as recycling, arguing it unfairly bars the technology.
Sen. Peter Harckham, the chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee, has pointed out the bill includes a provision requiring a report every three years that could spur changes to the definition by lawmakers.
Business groups, chemical makers and product manufacturers of everything from toys and home appliances to footwear have also objected to a list of chemicals that would bar material from being recycled. There would also be a ban on additional toxic substances in packaging including various chemicals used to make plastics, flame retardants and PFAS.
“This overly broad prohibition disregards sound science and could potentially have major unintended socioeconomic, environmental, and public health consequences by arbitrarily eliminating packaging best suited for, among other uses, food preservation, medical supply and device protection and hazardous materials containers,” the groups wrote in a memo opposing the bill.
Environmental advocates in the past were split on different versions of the measure and strategies to get it passed. So that has made it even more difficult to get a bill passed.
Gov. Kathy Hochul proposed her own version of the extended producer responsibility for packaging plan in her 2022 and 2023 budget proposals, but her administration has concerns about the current version.
That includes the large number of staff they expect would be needed to implement it.
This year, however, a key organization hired a high-powered and well-connected lobbyist with close ties to Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie to work on the bill.
Beyond Plastics retained the firm of Patrick Jenkins, Heastie’s former college roommate, on May 1, according to public records. The group is based at Bennington College in Vermont and led by former EPA regional administrator Judith Enck.
“We don’t have the firepower that Albany lobbyists have, but we could only afford him for a month,” Enck said.
So far, it appears to have helped: Shortly afterward, the measure moved through several key Assembly committees.
But opponents have retained many more lobbyists to block the bill, and national companies have been actively involved in the effort.
Enck said she’s open to some changes, including around recycled content requirements for plastics due to potential health concerns about plastic touching food and beverages.
One issue she won’t budge on, though: any allowance for chemical recycling. And she’s pushing the Legislature to also keep it out of any final deal.
“The industry opposition is ferocious to say the least, and we're trying to counter that with grassroots support,” Enck said. “This is the closest we’ve ever been.”
Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.