By now, you may be aware that Minnesota has become the fifth state to sign into law an extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework for packaging. What isn’t readily apparent is how some of the provisions of Minnesota’s law differ from the provisions within the laws of four other states—California, Colorado, Maine, and Oregon—with EPR laws for packaging. These distinctions showcase the potential for collaboration in policymaking and could set a precedent for other states considering EPR frameworks.
After having worked with stakeholders in Minnesota on the legislation for more than two years, AMERIPEN supports the state’s packaging EPR law for a number of reasons. The most important factor is that the Minnesota law represents true shared responsibility for recycling costs—something AMERIPEN staunchly advocates. Producers will be required to reimburse service providers for management of covered materials incrementally, starting at no less than 50% in 2029 and capping at 90% in 2031 and beyond. Unlike in most of the other states where there are laws, producers will not be responsible for 100% of costs in Minnesota. Service providers also have skin in the game: They must register with the producer responsibility organization (PRO) and meet the organization’s performance standards to be reimbursed for covered costs under the law.
We believe this model is a fair compromise that not only supports Minnesota’s strong recycling infrastructure and nationally high recycling rates but also helps all stakeholders to adapt gradually. The law also provides for fair competition, with reimbursement to service providers for infrastructure investments based on competitive bids. Local governments will, of course, continue to play a role as engaged partners in the recycling ecosystem.
Another key feature of the law is that the PRO will be formed by packaging producers that have the knowledge and insights to effectively develop and manage their stewardship plan. The PRO will develop a process and reimbursement model for core recycling functions, focusing on services at residencies, schools, small non-profits, and governmental entities. (The law does not require funding for recycling in large commercial operations that can manage their own recycling costs.) The PRO has the ability to petition the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MCPA) in a number of functions.
Minnesota’s statute also avoids arbitrary recycling targets and unrelated mandates on packaging composition. Instead, it includes provisions for both the PRO and the state to establish performance targets. Specifically, the PRO must propose reuse, return, recycling, and composting rates, and targets for waste reduction and postconsumer recycled content. The state will submit to the PRO advisory board suggested dates for those targets based on a number of sources.
AMERIPEN was pleased to see a neutral definition of “recycling” in the law, too. As I explained in my testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in March, limiting innovation, including new recycling technologies, is counterproductive. These advancements are crucial tools for improving recovery and recycling rates and enhancing existing infrastructure. Any program that hinders such innovations will likely be ineffective in addressing waste management challenges long term.
Generally speaking, Minnesota’s unique approach to recycling and packaging EPR policy takes into account the state’s existing infrastructure and laws. While the law may not be perfect, AMERIPEN views it as a reflection of what is currently achievable through collaboration and government-industry partnership. We will continue to collaborate with all stakeholders and policymakers to develop and implement packaging producer responsibility laws that are as reliable, efficient, equitable, and as fair as possible in the coming years.
For more information about packaging EPR policy and implementation in the United States, and how to get engaged, visit our EPR webinar series pages at www.ameripen.org.
