Presentation on theme: "The Bottle Bill – Potential for WA? Shannon McClelland Recycling Coordinators Mtg. April 2014."— Presentation transcript:
The Bottle Bill – Potential for WA? Shannon McClelland Recycling Coordinators Mtg. April 2014
Outline Why a Bottle Bill? History in WA Common Structures Possible Alternatives
What is a Bottle Bill? A law that: Requires distributers and retailers to collect a minimum refundable deposit, usually 5 or 10 cents, on certain beverage containers Creates a privately funded return infrastructure for beverage containers Provides an incentive for consumers to return the beverage container Makes producers and consumers responsible for their packaging waste – First form of EPR
Why focus on beverage containers? 30% consumed on-the-go Significant contribution to litter Significant energy contribution Significant GHG contribution Beverage Containers Energy needs for 2.3 million US homes Replacing wasted containers in 2010 VS
Why a bottle bill? Reduces litter Addresses away-from- home consumption Diverts from garbage Incentive Higher quantity Higher quality Higher Recovery Reduces energy GHG savings Environmental Gains
Ocean Conservancy 2012 International Coastal Cleanup
In addition: Glass beverage containers were the largest component – by weight – of all litter in both studies. Potential for reduction in WAs litter? Beverage containers ranking on most littered item by weight Interstates #2 #5 State Roads #1 #1 County Roads #1 #1 Interchanges Tie for #1 #5 State/ County Parks #2 Public Access #1 Rest Areas #1 Study year 2000 2004 Area
History in WA 3 ballot measures failed: 1970 1979 1982 Several bills in 1989-92 – None enacted Since 2000, 6 other billsAll died in committee Last one in 2012 – Not even a hearing Myth: A bottle bill has been introduced and failed every year since 1970
Litter Tax $ Taxes WA manufacturers, wholesalers, & retailers who make or sell the 13 categories of materials Rate is.00015 = $150 in tax per $1 million of sales Fully funded in 2007-09 = $19.6M (ECY Share) 2011-13 down to $9.89M $104 M in New York $33.5M in Massachusetts (population similar to WA) $17.8 M in Michigan In comparison, unclaimed deposits for 2010 were:
Our Litter Tax Does not include: non-carbonated bottled water any beverage containing milk 50% or more fruit or vegetable juice However, gross total sales can be taxed and presumably these are included (95% of sales at grocer; 50% at drug store) Of 13 categories, these relate: Soft drinks and carbonated waters Beer and other malt beverages Glass containers Metal containers Plastic containers
Existing Laws In 2010, 46% of all beverage containers recycled in the US came from these 11 states (28% of the US population)
Elements to consider: How much of a deposit/refund? Handling fee to retail/redemption centers? Which beverages and which containers are included? Who gets the scrap value? Where do customers redeem the containers? Who gets the unclaimed deposits? How does our current litter tax fit in? How does our existing curbside system fit in?
The Challenge Provide an incentive for the consumer Address the litter tax Support existing curbside programs Support existing MRFs and scrap buy-backs Incent container return infrastructure – ideally, not at grocers Minimize government Maximize producer role
Alternatives Landfill Ban (not a BB) Mandate away-from-home collection (not a BB) If, Then Model Oregon Model Tennessee Model Refund Only Glass Only Glass and Plastics Only All Bottles + Aluminum Cans
Alt. 1 Landfill Ban Pros Litter tax compatible Should increase collection recovery MRFs would likely support Some local governments would likely support Easy to collect material Cons Doesnt address litter and may exacerbate ContaminationLack of infrastructureDoesnt address funding source Some local governments may feel threatened EnforcementSerious concern about impact of glass
Alt 2. Mandate away-from-home collection Include restaurants, bars, parks, streetside, gas stations Pros Addresses away-from-home consumption Increases accessHaulers will likely supportMay reduce public place litter Cons No incentive to useCost to site owner Collection does not ensure recovery Will likely threaten governments and business sector EnforcementContamination Issue: Has this been done before?
Alt 3. If, Then Model If beverage container rates dont achieve 75% recycling by 201X, a deposit law will go into effect Pros Allows for voluntary actionsSets the bar Provides time for the system to ramp up Is less scary than immediate implementation Cons May be seen as a threat to local governments & haulers May be viewed as an unfunded mandate Need sales data for measurement May be amended before effective date to delay or weaken
Alt 4. Oregon Model Pros Consistency across bordersTime tested & modernized (2010) Producer co-op creates efficiencies and accountability Modern depots, + grocersTransitioning away from grocers Includes H20 bottles and more beverages covered in 2018 Diverse stakeholder supportEPR Model Cons WA grocers not in the business now – less leverage Co-op structure might threaten someHow does our litter tax fit in?Deposit may be viewed as taxEPR Model Issue: Role for curbside stakeholders?
Alt 5. Tennessee Model Not passed yet, but incorporates their litter tax Pros Litter tax compatible No return to grocers – redemption centers only Separate structure for litter system and deposit system Allows for governments or private sector to run redemption centers All beverages, all containers, all sizes Cons Appears to be a double tax Distributors have no role State administers the program (option) Untested
Alt 6. Refund Only Pros The refund is the incentive, not the deposit No state fund to get swept or state could get unclaimed refunds Reduction in bureaucracy involved in deposit Avoided perception of tax EPR Model Allows for municipalities to cash in refund or split w/MRF – New funding source Cons Untested EPR Model No funding to state Hidden tax
Alt 7. Glass Only Only glass containers would be included Pros Glass is a problem for many stakeholders Little to negative value as currently handled Level the playing field for collections with OR, CA & BC Scant environmental benefit as currently handled Glass would go to its highest end useLocal manufacturing markets Cons Creates unfair playing field for glass in the marketplace Aluminum has a higher energy demand/GHG emission than glass Gives perception that other containers are effectively recovered Glass industry would oppose (see Con 1)
Alt 8. Glass & Plastics Only Aluminum cans would be excluded Pros Keeps glass separate Address common material in marine debris Addresses significant litter contribution Aluminum has value in the marketplace MRFs/Hauler would likely be neutralDrives quality for glass and plastics Cons Aluminum has high environmental impactCreates unlevel playing field for aluminum Gives perception that aluminum cans are effectively recovered Likely to cause recent supporters from manufacturing sectors to oppose
Alt 9. All Bottles + Aluminum Cans Include all bottles – not just beverage containers Pros Stronger environmental argument - More environmental gains Doesnt discriminate between product types Easy messaging Some existing stakeholder support Keeps material stream cleanerCould incent domestic markets Cons UntestedLoses away-from-home focusInvolves more stakeholders More concern from haulers on removing from curbside Potentially removes more from litter tax fund