Hurd in Capitol Halls: Extended Producer Responsibility Update

Frank Hurd; Hurd in Capitol Halls – An update of issues affecting carpet: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

In an effort to keep all of its members up to date on the latest developments in state and federal legislation as they pertain to the carpet industry, here are excerpts from the first edition of “Hurd in Capitol Halls”, written and edited by Carpet and Rug Institute Chief Operating Officer and Government Relations head Frank Hurd.  According to Mr. Hurd and CRI Government Relations Director Jennifer Mendez, “Hurd” will be produced quarterly and more frequently during legislative sessions. 

The inaugural issue focuses on the pressing issue of extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation in the states.  EPR is the number one issue facing the carpet industry at the state level, whether it is framework bills (broad, all-encompassing proposals that could apply to multiple products and industries) or carpet-specific legislation. (See related blog articles EPR Update from Carpet and Rug Institute, Carpet and Extended Producer Responsibility.)

From Hurd in Capitol Halls, Volume 1

“Legislative sessions for 2011 have been quite active regarding EPR in the following states:

Delaware – The Delaware Legislature adjourned for the year on July 1.  There was a joint resolution introduced in the Senate in the closing weeks, which would have established a study group for carpet recycling (SJR 8).  Originally, the author’s intent was to introduce California AB 2398-type legislation.  Discussion with Senator McDowell’s office convinced them that the timing was not right for such legislation.  We were also successful in getting them to drop their proposed ban on landfilling carpet.  The good news is that they have agreed to have industry representation on the Study Group Committee.  This will lead to discussion with the industry before submitting legislation.  The resolution did pass the Senate, but it did NOT pass the Assembly which killed the bill for this year.  We fully expect to see something similar in 2012. Delaware has moved up as a state that we need to watch carefully so we will be monitoring and working proactively in Delaware prior to the start of the 2012 legislative session.

Iowa - (HF 80) Introduced in the Iowa House; this piece of framework legislation did NOT pass.  It was introduced by a Democrat, who is not a member of the Natural Resources Committee, in a state with a Republican majority.  It is unclear whether this will be reintroduced in 2012.

Massachusetts – This is a state that seems to never go out of session.  It’s been a busy session   with three framework bills introduced (H. 2017, H. 2003 and S. 341).  All three bills were filed early in 2011.  The Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Energy held a hearing on May 4, 2011, during which CRI Government Relations Director Jenn Mendez testified.  Additionally, CRI provided written testimony.  To date, there has not been any movement on these bills.  CRI, along with the EPR coalition, continues to monitor the situation in Massachusetts.

New York - (AB 6293) This framework bill was introduced and referred to the Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee.  A “hearing” (with very little notice and limited allowance for testimony) was held on May 10 and the bill was reported out.  CRI, along with the EPR Coalition, worked to prevent Republican sponsorship of this bill in the Senate.  The legislature adjourned and this bill DIED with the adjournment.

New York – (AB 8492) A very onerous, carpet-specific bill.  This bill was introduced with very little fanfare.  It was reported out of committee but then stalled.  CRI worked with allies on the ground to build support to prevent this bill from moving.  It is likely that this bill, as well as the framework piece of legislation, will resurface in 2012.

Oregon - (HB 2187) This is the second consecutive legislative session where a bill of this type has been considered.  CRI worked with the EPR Coalition to defeat this.  In 2010, Oregon passed a paint-specific EPR bill.  It is likely a similar bill will once again be introduced in 2012.

Rhode Island - Although the paperwork from a busy end-of-session is still being processed, the product stewardship bills in Rhode Island and companion framework bills (H 5888, S 459) did not move out of the Environment and Agriculture Committees.  We expect them to be reintroduced in 2012.

Vermont - (HB 74 / SB 21) Similar to the 2010 Maine framework legislation.  Working with the EPR Coalition, these bills did not pass.  It is likely, given the makeup of the House and Senate in Vermont, they will reappear in 2012.  Even if these bills somehow pass in 2012, it is likely that Vermont’s Republican Governor would veto them.

Washington     (SB 5110) This was perhaps the most troubling and onerous piece of legislation introduced at the state level during the 2011 session.  CRI sent CEO letters of opposition to Senator Phil Rockefeller, Committee Chair (Environment, Energy and Water).  Jenn Mendez testified in opposition February 2, 2011 at the committee hearing, CRI along with its member companies activated a grassroots letter campaign by Washington flooring retailers.  Our efforts led to the eventual death of the bill in the Senate Rules Committee.  It’s almost certain this bill will be reintroduced in 2012.

Other Concerns: In addition to bills introduced, we expect to see the possibility of framework legislation in Minnesota and Wisconsin.  Minnesota introduced framework legislation during the 2010 session but it wasn’t signed by then Governor Pawlenty.  Wisconsin also considered the idea but nothing materialized.  Some states have approached CRI about carpet-specific legislation (Illinois and Texas).  CRI continues to stress that our efforts in California are an experiment and any further legislation at this time is premature.”

Thank you Frank and Jennifer,

~Bethany