Plastics recycling, packaging companies back Washington state EPR plan

A debate over packaging recycling in the Washington state legislature is drawing major interest from industry, as lawmakers examine competing bills that would put fees on companies to support recycling and require more recycled content in plastic products.

The Association of Plastic Recyclers and the packaging group Ameripen, for example, are lining up behind one bill to set up an extended producer responsibility system that would put fees on packaging to fund better recycling infrastructure, with the goal of boosting the state's recycling rate from about 40 percent to 65 percent.

But others, including the Flexible Packaging Association and the Consumer Brands Association, raised concerns that some of the legislation puts too many restrictions on chemical recycling for handling harder-to-recycle plastics or that it was not clear in how funds raised by the programs would be used.

The sponsors of one of the bills, Rep. Liz Berry, D-Seattle, and Sen. Liz Lovelett, D-Anacortes, said their bill, the Recycling Reform Act, is modeled after a packaging EPR law that passed in Minnesota last year. A similar version from them in 2024 nearly passed the House chamber in Olympia.

Their bill has the general support of APR, Ameripen, the Washington Beverage Association, the Recycling Partnership and some other consumer brands.

APR and others see the Berry-Lovelett bill as the best chance to bring enough money into the recycling system to make substantial improvements.

"EPR policies for packaging and paper products are the most proven, effective solutions to improve plastics recycling and have been widely adopted across Europe and Canada," said Allison Kustic, state government affairs manager for APR. "We need stronger local recycling programs that collect more plastics in order to grow a circular economy that creates U.S. jobs and reduces plastic pollution."

Ameripen, which counts Berry Global, Dart Container, Eastman Chemical and ExxonMobil Chemical among its members, told a recent state legislative hearing that it supported the Berry-Lovelett bill because it was closest to the Minnesota EPR law and included what it called a fair funding formula and goal setting process.

"We definitely think that the Minnesota law is the most balanced approach, especially compared to other EPR laws that have been passed in other states," said Edwin Borbon, a lobbyist for Ameripen.

Both bills are making their way through committee hearings in the state, along with companion legislation that would set up a container deposit system. Some backers of the Berry-Lovelett legislation said it was important for the state to also enact a bottle bill.

Some businesses in the state, including curbside waste and recycling collection companies like Waste Management, strongly oppose the Berry-Lovelett legislation and favor another bill that takes a much slower approach.

The legislation, House Bill 1071, would first do an assessment of the state's recycling infrastructure before starting an EPR program. Both bills include needs assessments, but HB-1071 would not follow it with an EPR program.

HB-1071 does, however, include new standards for recycled content in a variety of plastics products.

It calls for 10 percent post-consumer content in polypropylene tubs starting in 2031, rising to 30 percent in 2036.

Single-use plastic cups must have at least 15 percent recycled content starting in 2032, rising to at least 25 percent in later years, depending on the type of material.

And it would require post-consumer content in PET thermoforms, starting with 10 percent after 2030 and increasing, depending on the use.

Backers of HB-1071said it's go-slower approach did not risk increasing packaging and food prices, which they said they believed the Berry-Lovelett bill would do.

"We must understand that this [EPR proposal] is an extraordinary hidden tax inside of every good that we purchase that requires it to be packed and shipped," said Rep. Mary Dye, R-Pomeroy. "It will continue to add to food inflation."

Retail and grocery groups in Washington also back HB-1071 and oppose the Recycling Reform Act.

Hearings about both bills in recent weeks included sharp debate about whether the Berry-Lovelett measure would increase costs to consumers.

The Washington Association of Cities told lawmakers that multiple studies have not found that EPR increases costs to consumers.

Similarly, Dylan de Thomas with the Recycling Partnership said that studies that have shown an increase in costs to consumers have been "thoroughly discredited."

But supporters of the HB-1071 approach say the Berry-Lovelett proposal will raise prices.

"It is an absolute fact that this proposal will increase costs to consumers and anybody that tells you it doesn't is not really being honest," said Vicki Christopherson, a lobbyist for the Washington Refuse and Recycling Association.

The bills have split the consumer goods industry.

The Consumer Brands Association opposes the Berry-Lovelett measure, arguing that it while it backs EPR in general, it has concerns with that bill's timelines, cost to consumers and how it addresses molecular recycling technologies.

However, a smaller group of mostly consumer brands, the EPR Leadership Forum, backs the Berry-Lovelett proposal. The forum includes plastic packaging maker Amcor along with major consumer goods makers like Coca-Cola Co. and Nestle.

Kelsey Hulse, a lobbyist with the forum, said the Berry-Lovelett bill is the only one that "will generate the necessary funding to improve recycling rates and expand recycling to all Washingtonians."

"It creates a powerful incentive for producers to transform their packaging portfolio and use more sustainable materials, including less plastic," Hulse said.