New Jersey businesses are expressing concern over the state’s proposed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) bill, especially in light of Maryland’s recent enactment of a more business-friendly packaging law. According to Ray Cantor, NJBIA Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer, “EPR laws do tend to be problematic for businesses and the makers of recyclable material, and you can sometimes question their effectiveness.”
Cantor highlighted that Maryland’s law garnered support from both environmental groups and the business community. He emphasized the need for New Jersey to consider similar models like those in Maryland or Minnesota. However, he noted that the current proposal in New Jersey is viewed as extreme and could further damage the state’s reputation with businesses.
Bill S-3398, also known as the Packaging Product Stewardship Act, mandates producers of packaging products to implement landfill reduction plans. It passed along party lines in February through the Senate Environment and Energy Committee. Cantor criticized this version for disregarding New Jersey’s longstanding recycling efforts and imposing unrealistic goals such as a 50% reduction in single-use plastics within a decade.
Comparatively, California’s EPR law aimed for a 25% reduction by 2032 but faced revisions due to compliance costs. Cantor argued that New Jersey’s goal is unfeasible for its business community.
A contentious aspect of New Jersey’s bill is its exclusion of advanced recycling methods from its definition of recycling. This exclusion could stifle innovative technologies crucial for effective plastic recycling.
Maryland approached its EPR legislation through an advisory group study that assessed needs before making recommendations. Their law includes eco-modulation incentives and allows multiple producer responsibility organizations at launch.
“We can get behind a fair and workable EPR law,” said Cantor, “But as Maryland is showing, New Jersey’s proposal isn’t it.”
