Dive Brief:

• Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection is soliciting public comments on the latest version of draft rules for the nation’s first extended producer responsibility law for packaging, the next step in an ongoing implementation process. 
• The public comment period is open through March 18. Maine first passed its EPR for packaging law in 2021, which laid out a general EPR framework, but the state has since been working on the draft rules that spell out crucial details such as recycling targets and producers’ and municipalities’ specific responsibilities.
• At a public hearing on Thursday, stakeholders representing municipalities, recyclers and packaging producers called for more details on the state needs assessment and more adjustments to producer requirements to align with the market, among other suggestions. Speakers also called for technical assistance for municipalities due to the complexity of proposed regulations.

Dive Insight:

Maine’s EPR program is the first of its kind in the U.S., meaning numerous recycling and waste stakeholders are monitoring details of the program’s rollout. The latest public comment round follows a previous public comment period in October, where stakeholders reviewed a more preliminary, conceptual draft that was then revised and presented to the Board of Environmental Protection in December to kick off the formal rulemaking process. 

DEP expects the board to adopt the final “routine and technical” rules of the EPR program by this summer. The final adoption of what it considers “major substantive rules” could come in the summer of 2025, after they are approved by the state legislature and then the board. DEP is expected to issue an RFP for the stewardship organization in the fall of 2025 and select the winner in 2026.

Maine’s law covers most types of consumer packaging and will require that producers make payments to a stewardship organization. The amount each producer pays will be based on the volume it generates, as well as how recyclable or reusable its packaging is. That funding will reimburse municipalities for certain recycling and waste management costs or fund recycling infrastructure projects or educational outreach.

Colorado, California and Oregon are also in the process of implementing their own packaging EPR laws, which include conducting draft rulemaking meetings. 

Maine’s draft rules include numerous proposed implementation details and metrics. Municipalities must collect at least 60% of readily recyclable packaging from 2030 to 2034, with that rate increasing to 80% by 2035 and 90% by 2040, according to the draft. Producers will need to reduce packaging in the program by weight by 20% starting in 2030, though a previous draft had called for a 15% reduction by that time. Producers will need to meet a 40% reduction goal by 2040 and a 60% goal by 2050.

During the hearing, some speakers highlighted the importance of the program’s needs assessment. The stewardship organization will be required to collect information about “readily recyclable packaging material” in the state, the municipalities that collect it, the places where collection isn’t taking place and details on state recycling infrastructure and other data points. 

Andy Hackman, a consultant for Ameripen, said the organization doesn’t take an official position on the draft rules, but had concerns about some of the “prescriptive” elements of the draft related to the requirements for the stewardship organizations. He suggested that the information from the needs assessment will help set more accurate, achievable goals for eco-modulation, reuse requirements and other details.

The draft also calls for producers to use more reusable packaging and gradually add more postconsumer recycled content. In many cases, producers will be hit with heavy fines for not complying. Ameripen called for flexibility in the penalty formulas laid out in the draft and said the stewardship organization should be able to adjust goals if they are “completely unachievable.” 

Hackman acknowledged that DEP revised the draft to make goals more realistic, but “we still believe that these goals are not really based on any significant assessment of the current marketplace and the system that we're trying to put in place here.” 

Groups like the American Forest and Paper Association said Maine’s state needs assessment guidance “is still very sparse” and needs more details on the types of data the stewardship organizations should be collecting. Abigail Sztein, senior director of government affairs for AF&PA, said the needs assessment “is a crucial element of this program being successful, and as much information is needed as possible. Trying to structure performance goals, trying to figure out what is technologically feasible and economically practical, is really going to rely on a thorough program.”

Sztein pointed to states like Illinois, Maryland and New York, which are all in the process of completing similar needs assessments with much more detailed requirements, and suggested Maine consider using those drafts as models to follow.

Under Maine’s draft EPR rules, municipalities are not required to participate in the program, which differs from other upcoming packaging EPR programs in California, Oregon and Colorado. Maine’s law is considered a full municipal reimbursement model, meaning the producers pay fees but leave collection duties to the municipalities. California and Oregon have a shared responsibility model in which municipalities are reimbursed, but producers and municipalities share collection duties. In Colorado, producers will fund a statewide recycling program and take a role in managing it.

Mark Draper, solid waste director at Aroostook Waste Solutions, called the voluntary participation feature “an essential provision” of the draft law because it allows municipalities a way to disengage “with no negative consequences” if the program doesn’t provide needed financial benefits or becomes too complicated to operate, he said during the Thursday meeting.

Aroostook is a municipality-owned, not-for-profit waste company in northern Maine that owns two small landfills in the region. The company supports the EPR law because of its potential to reduce municipalities’ financial burden “by providing somewhat predictable non-tax revenue,” but worries about the law’s potential to be overly complex, he said.

Draper called for municipalities to have access to “significant technical assistance,” which he said he expects the stewardship organization to provide. Such support is critical to help retain “robust municipal participation, [which is] is key to achieving the overall goals of the program,” he said.