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