News

Nov 15, 2023

Packaging, EPR measures spur opposition in New York

The Business Council of New York, based in Albany, has issued an early-June

The Business Council of New York, based in Albany, has issued an early-June statement again expressing opposition to proposals in the state legislature designed to let state agencies become more involved in boosting recycling and diverting waste.

The group, which represents some 3,000 large and small firms in the state, says it "is strongly opposed to the amended version of expanded producer responsibility legislation introduced last week, with just four days left in the 2023 legislative session."

Senate Bill 4246 is known as the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act.

In its drafting stage, some aspects of it drew criticism from national trade groups, including the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA), the American Chemistry Council and the Plastics Industry Association.

NWRA told the Recycling Today Media Group that, as of late February, SB 4246 was one of three EPR-related proposals being circulated in New York, adding that "harmonizing the concepts reflected in the three legislative proposals will likely be a difficult task, given the complexities and economics of New York's recycling programs and the conflicting priorities of the stakeholders."

The Business Council of New York says SB 4246 entails a significant shift from the basic approach being adopted by other states, including California, Oregon and Colorado.

The New York version of EPR, the group says, eliminates a meaningful role for packaging producers to help design programs for recovering, processing and marketing covered material.

Instead, according to the Business Council, the legislation "creates two new state entities, one to manage recycling, reduction and reuse programs and a second with authority—concomitant with the existing authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Department of Law—to enforce compliance."

"This legislation will not just be costly to private sector employers but will result in increased consumer costs and fewer choices for consumers," says Ken Pokalsky, vice president of government affairs for the Business Council of New York. "Entire categories of packaging materials will be restricted, and companies will change their offerings to respond to new state-specific mandates and prohibitions, also hurting consumer options."

On the bottle bill front, SB 237 has been proposed to expand the bottle deposit law to also include wine, liquor, distilled spirit coolers and cider by 2025. The following year, noncarbonated soft drinks, some fruit and vegetable juices, coffee and tea beverages and carbonated fruit beverages would be added.

"By increasing the volume of redemptions, this bill will significantly increase the compliance burden placed on supermarkets, convenience stores and other beverage outlets," the Business Council writes. "These added costs will eventually lead to higher prices and perhaps sales disruptions as below-scale operators from adjoining states bootleg cheaper products into New York," the organization predicts.

The Business Council also says municipal recycling programs will suffer fiscal harm because the bill "will in fact take valuable postconsumer materials out of municipal recycling programs and divert those materials to store-based recycling."

A month ago, Reloop North America released a set of what it calls 10 high-performance principles for an effective deposit-return system (DRS) or bottle bill program, along with 10 essential practices to build into a DRS policy or piece of legislation.

The second Business Council criticism of SB 237 could pertain to one of those principles: "provide financial support for municipal recycling programs."

Regarding the other criticism, Reloop's first principle mentioned is "be easy and equitable," including working with retailers as a stakeholder.