EPR Update: Carpet and Rug Institute Government Relations Director Jennifer Mendez talks about current trends and what’s pending in state legislatures on product stewardship
Jennifer Mendez, the Carpet and Rug Institute’s Director of Government Affairs, monitors potentially harmful legislation across all 50 state legislatures (and the District of Columbia).She has been closely following the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation (EPR), which mandates manufacturers pay the costs of disposing of their products. With AB 2398, the nation’s first carpet-specific product stewardship law set to take effect in California this week, I thought it was a good time to talk to Jenn about what she has seen so far this year.
BR: How did all this get started?
JM: There are a number of theories on how the EPR movement in the U.S. began and how it gained momentum. In Europe and Canada, these types of programs have been in existence and in some cases (depending on the product) have even been successful. In other cases, they have not been so successful. I believe that the existence of at least some successful programs, combined with severe budget issues in the states, has driven legislators to look for ways to relieve their states’ cost burdens. Many times EPR legislation includes language to the effect that “the burden would be off the taxpayer”…but isn’t the consumer the taxpayer as well?
(See related blog posts:
- Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), Carpet & CARE
- Carpet and Extended Producer Responsibility: CRI's Jennifer Mendez on TalkFloorTV
- Carpet Industry, Extended Producer Responsibility, CRI Legislative Update)
JM: I believe in many cases the goal of EPR legislation is budget relief in the states, while at the same time attempting to adopt legislation that is seen as “environmentally friendly”. Sadly, in many cases, there is no lifecycle cost analysis associated with these types of bills and the cost burden to manufacturers to produce products that are acceptable in legislators’ eyes doesn’t make good business sense and can actually harm manufacturers.
BR: What is the current status of EPR legislation introduced or pending in the U.S.?
JM: There are two types of EPR legislation: framework, which is very broad and may include any number of products (and often tasks the state EPA with identifying additional products in future years), and product-specific, which does what it says - targets particular products. So far in the U.S., only one framework bill has passed, in 2010 in the State of Maine. A number of states have introduced framework bills that have failed to pass (CA, IA, OR, MN and VT).
Currently, there are states still in session where legislation is pending, specifically RI and MA (in both MA and RI, CRI has testified in opposition to these bills). California is the only state to successfully pass a carpet-specific piece of legislation. Implementation for that bill begins on July 1!
The state of Washington attempted to pass a bill similar to the California bill but was unsuccessful. There are a number of other industries that have been targeted. In 25 states there are e-waste bills and the paint industries as well as mattresses have been the focus of legislation as well. This type of legislation is becoming pervasive and it’s not going to go away in the 2012 legislative session!
BR: What possible impact does EPR pose for the carpet industry and the jobs it provides?
JM: EPR legislation is often touted as creating green jobs, and that is true. What is not referenced are the manufacturing jobs that would be affected on the front end. As you know, carpet is one of the very few manufacturing industries remaining in the U.S.; others have gone offshore. Often, this type of legislation tries to mandate manufacturing practices (types of raw goods used, use of recycled content, etc.) These types of restrictions and regulation on how manufacturers are allowed to function can have an impact on jobs.
BR: What is the carpet industry’s current stance?
JM: The carpet industry is currently opposed to this type of legislation, both framework and product-specific. Several states have suggested that if this type of legislation works in CA it can work in their state. California is a unique situation (it’s the 5th largest economy in the world). What works in California (which still remains to be seen), may not be the least bit successful elsewhere. CRI stresses that it would like to see how the program in California progresses before other states undertake similar programs. If states do decide to head in the direction of carpet-specific legislation, we believe it is critical for industry to have a seat at the table.
BR: What are the short and longer-term strategies for working with legislators on EPR issues?
JM: Educate, educate, educate! There are some legislators who are completely unfamiliar with the issue as a whole; there are legislators who are unfamiliar with our industry and its economic impact on and importance to the U.S. economy. It is important to build relationships and work with both sides of the aisle to educate legislators. Sometimes people ask me “what does a lobbyist do?” – I like to say we’re like teachers; we have an expertise in a subject area where legislators are attempting to create public policy. It’s my job to share the knowledge I have so that policy doesn’t adversely impact our industry.
Thank you, Jenn, for this timely update.
What questions do you have about EPR that we haven't addressed? Let us know in the comments below.
~Bethany
0 comments:
Post a Comment