the bottle bill – potential for wa? shannon mcclelland recycling coordinators mtg. april 2014
TRANSCRIPT
The Bottle Bill – Potential for WA?
Shannon McClelland
Recycling Coordinator’s 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
MSWGHG Savings
Potential
Beverage Containers
Energy needs for 2.3 million US homes
Replacing wasted containers in 2010VS
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
Great Lakes Litter
IN WI OH IL MI0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
8.8% 9.0% 9.0%
11.4%
4.7%
Beverage containers as a percentage of all beach litter in five States
No bottle bill Bottle bill
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 WA’s litter?
Beverage containers ranking on most littered item by weight
Interstates #2 #5State Roads #1 #1County Roads #1 #1Interchanges Tie for #1 #5
State/County Parks #2Public Access #1Rest Areas #1
Study year 2000 2004
Area
Recovers more than curbside alone
Why a bottle bill?
© Container Recycling Institute, 2013
Maine
Iowa
Hawaii
Mich
igan
Vermont
Oregon
Connecticu
t
Californ
ia
Massa
chuse
tts
New York
Delaware
Non-BB State
s0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Num
ber o
f uni
tsOverall US Container Recycling Per Capita 2010
© Container Recycling Institute, 2013
Sold in WA in 2006
Why a bottle bill? Produces quality materials
Yield is how much they can actually use out of a purchased bale
Environmental benefits
History in WA
3 ballot measures failed: 1970 1979 1982
Several bills in 1989-92 – None enacted Since 2000, 6 other bills—All 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)
Structure: How it usually works
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?
Nickel or dime?
Figure 3. The Declining Value of the Nickel and Falling Beverage Container Redemption Rates in Selected Deposit States
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
e
Rea
l val
ue o
f a
nick
el in
con
stan
t (19
83)
doll
ars
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Red
empt
ion
Rat
e
Michigan: 10¢
Massachusetts: 5¢
New York: 5¢
© Container Recycling Institute, 2013
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 BanPros
Litter tax compatible
Should increase collection recovery
MRFs would likely support
Some local governments would likely support
Easy to collect material
ConsDoesn’t address litter and
may exacerbate
Contamination
Lack of infrastructure
Doesn’t address funding source
Some local governments may feel threatened
Enforcement
Serious 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 access
Haulers will likely support
May reduce public place litter
Cons
No incentive to use
Cost to site owner
Collection does not ensure recovery
Will likely threaten governments and business sector
Enforcement
Contamination
Issue: Has this been done before?
Alt 3. ‘If, Then’ Model If beverage container rates don’t achieve 75% recycling
by 201X, a deposit law will go into effect
Pros
Allows for voluntary actions
Sets the bar
Provides time for the system to ramp up
Is less scary than immediate implementation
ConsMay 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 ModelPros
Consistency across borders
Time tested & modernized (2010)
Producer co-op creates efficiencies and accountability
Modern depots, + grocers
Transitioning away from grocers
Includes H20 bottles and more beverages covered in 2018
Diverse stakeholder support
EPR Model
ConsWA grocers not in the business now – less
leverage
Co-op structure might threaten some
How does our litter tax fit in?
Deposit may be viewed as tax
EPR 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
ConsAppears 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 use
Local manufacturing markets
ConsCreates 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 neutral
Drives quality for glass and plastics
Cons
Aluminum has high environmental impact
Creates 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
Doesn’t discriminate between product types
Easy messaging
Some existing stakeholder support
Keeps material stream cleaner
Could incent domestic markets
Cons
Untested
Loses away-from-home focus
Involves more stakeholders
More concern from haulers on removing from curbside
Potentially removes more from litter tax fund