General Extended Producer Responsibility Policy Options

1
General Extended Producer Responsibility Policy
Options

• September 11, 2007
• Presentation by CIWMB Staff to the
• Strategic Policy Development Committee

2
Presentation Covers

1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Key Findings
4. Framework Overview
5. Product Selection
6. Recommendations
7. Next Steps

3
I. Introduction to Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR)

• Shifts end-of-life (EOL) responsibility for
  products
• Local gov and ratepayers producers
• Provides more equitable distribution of costs
• Reduce burden on ratepayers and local
  jurisdictions

4
Definitions

1. Extended Producer Responsibility
2. Producer
3. Cradle-to-Cradle Impacts
4. Product Stewardship Program
5. Stewardship Organization

5
1. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

• The extension of the responsibility of producers,
  and all entities involved in the product chain,
  to reduce the cradle-to-cradle impacts of a
  product and its packaging.
• The greatest responsibility lies with the
  producer, or brand owner, who makes design and
  marketing decisions.

6
2. Producer

• For products sold or distributed in CA
• Producer is
• person who manufacturers a product and sells it
  under the manufacturers own brand
• owner or licensee of a trade mark
• person who imports a product

7
3. Cradle-to-Cradle Impacts

• Include energy, water, and materials use
  greenhouse gas and other air emissions toxic and
  hazardous substances materials recovery and
  waste disposal and worker safety.

8
4. Product Stewardship Program

• A program for the collection, transportation,
  recycling, and disposal of unwanted products,
  including legacy products and the programs fair
  share of orphan products, which is financed as
  well as managed or provided by the producers of
  those products.

9
5. Stewardship Organization

• A corporation appointed by a producer to act as
  an agent on behalf of the producer to administer
  a product stewardship program.

10
Why Extended Producer Responsibility?

• Achieve environmental benefits
• Product design improvements
• Reduce solid waste, GHG, toxic components,
  energy water consumption, air emissions
• Highest and best use of product/material
• Reduce public costs

11
II. Background

• Previous Board activities
• Feb 2007 Strategic Directive 5, Producer
  Responsibility
• June 2007 Producer Responsibility Public
  Workshop
• Board directed staff to report back with policy
  recommendations
• July 2007 Contractor report and presentation to
  Board on EOL financing

12
II. Background (continued)

• Voluntary CIWMB EPR-related initiatives
• Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
• Plastic Film Packaging and Plastic Container
  Recycling
• Electronics Recycling
• Carpet Recycling
• Take-It-Back Partnership (U-Waste)

13
II. Background (continued)

• Staff analysis, review of
• International and domestic reports, planning
  documents, legislation, presentations, websites
• Information gathered at conferences, workshops,
  and dialogues
• Staff experience in developing voluntary EPR
  initiatives
• Stakeholders' comments

14
III. Key Findings

• Stakeholder responses generally support EPR
• One size does not fit all
• Govt should prescribe as little as possible
• Shared responsibility not just producer
• Consider life-cycle impacts, more than RC
• Opportunity to learn from and align with other
  programs
• Input from stakeholders vital

15
III. Key Findings (continued)

• Similarities among Product Stewardship Programs
• Broad legislation
• Goals, guiding principles, general roles and
  responsibilities
• Flexible authority to customize for specific
  product/product categories

16
III. Key Findings (continued)

• Government role
• Oversight, set targets
• Enforcement
• Create level playing field
• EPR - Fundamental shift in state role

17
III. Key Findings (continued)

• Statutory authority (current)
• Board may implement voluntary programs without
  enforcement oversight
• No requirements uneven playing field
• Need new statutory authority

18
III. Key Findings (continued)

• Legislative approach is currently piecemeal and
  inconsistent
• Wide array of approaches by product or substance
• Inconsistent implementation
• High administrative burden
• Staff looked at broader Framework

19
IV. Framework Overview

• Framework approach offers alternative
• Add new products without new legislation
• Legislative authority needed to establish
  Framework
• CIWMB develops regulations
• Producer-defined programs
• Customize for product categories

20
IV. Framework Overview

• Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach (see
  Attachment 1)
• Policy Goals
• Guiding Principles
• Definitions
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Governance
• Products/Product Categories
• Program Effectiveness Measurement

21
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach

• Policy Goals
• Achieve measurable net environmental benefits
• Maximize economic efficiency market innovation
• Transfer waste-related costs to producers users
  of products

22
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• Guiding Principles
• Producer Responsibility
• Environmental Protection Strategies
• System Coverage
• Results-Based Programs

23
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• Definition of Key Terms
• EPR
• Producer
• Cradle-to-Cradle Impacts
• Product Stewardship Program
• Stewardship Organization

24
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

1. Roles and Responsibilities

1. Producers
2. Retailers
3. Consumers
4. CA State Government

• Local Government
• Haulers
• Recyclers
• Advisory Committee

25
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• Producers
• Key role design the product stewardship program
• Flexibility to design program in the most
  efficient manner

26
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• B. Retailers
• Provide information from producers to customers
• Only sell registered products
• Voluntary involvement in EOL collection

27
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• C. Consumers
• Participate in collection systems
• Information, convenience, and incentives may
  contribute to success
• Pay for EOL management

28
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• California State Government
• Establish statutory requirements and regulations
• Implement EPR to achieve goals, using guiding
  principles
• Seek reimbursement for oversight and enforcement
  activities

29
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• E. Local Government
• May choose to participate
• Obtain compensation from producers

30
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• Haulers and Collectors, and
• Recyclers
• Contract with producers, in addition to contracts
  with local governments
• Provide information to help producers enhance
  recovery.

31
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• H. Advisory Committee
• Participate in regulation development process
• Advise State government
• performance standards (product, facility
  operations)
• finance EOL management

32
Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach
(continued)

• Governance - CIWMB
• Seek legislation to provide CIWMB with authority
  to develop and implement an overall EPR program

33
5. Governance (continued)
Scope of Authority

1. Product stewardshipplan
2. Enforcement
3. Transparency accountability
4. Performance standards
5. Encourage product design improvements

• Regulations
• Selecting adding products/product categories
• Targets, measurement, reporting
• New, historic orphan wastes
• Independent collective producer programs

34
V. Product Selection

• Purpose
• Details of program are product-specific
• Systematic approach
• Constant re-evaluation

35
V. Product Selection (continued)

• Methodology
• Quantitative and Qualitative
• Waste Characterization Studies
• Staff Estimates
• Initial effort, additional analysis, and
• Stakeholder input recommended

36
V. Product Selection (continued)

• Process
• Determine list of products to be considered
• Determine evaluation criteria
• Conduct screening process

37
V. Product Selection (continued)

• Determine List of Products to be considered
• 42 products selected
• National and state data
• Individual products and product categories

38
V. Product Selection (continued)

• Determine Evaluation Criteria
• Balance between exhaustive analysis and timely
  analysis
• Two-stage screening
• Primary 3 criteria
• Secondary 6 criteria

39
V. Product Selection (continued)

• Conduct Screening Process
• Primary criteria macro assessment
• Secondary criteria - more detailed

40
V. Product Selection (continued)

• Primary Criteria
• Significant EOL Impacts
• High weight/volume or high toxicity
• Feasibility
• Clearly defined producers
• Data availability
• Opportunities Exist for New Effort
• Target products without effective programs

41
V. Product Selection (continued)

• Secondary Criteria
• Difficult to manage/bulky
• Costly to local jurisdictions
• CIWMB is appropriate agency
• Increasing/steady usage trend

42
V. Product Selection (continued)

• Secondary Criteria (cont.)
• Stakeholder concern
• Lifecycle impact
• Potential for lifecycle improvement

43
V. Product Selection (continued)

• Preliminary Results
• Major Appliances
• Non-automotive Batteries
• Electronics
• Includes many products not covered under current
  e-waste program
• Mercury-containing Lamps
• Paint

44
Options

• Option 1
• Adopt the EPR Framework (Attachment 1)
• Develop a legislative proposal for an overall EPR
  Framework
• Continue current voluntary initiatives
• Conduct further research and convene an advisory
  group to discuss one new voluntary initiative

45
Options

• Option 2
• Option 1 new voluntary stewardship program
• Option 3
• Form advisory committee, further develop EPR
  Framework, return to Board
• Option 4
• Initiate one or more new voluntary initiatives
• Option 5
• Additional analysis for future discussion

46
Staff Recommend Option 1

• Adopt the EPR Framework (Attachment 1)
• Develop a legislative proposal for an overall EPR
  Framework
• Continue current voluntary initiatives
• Conduct further research and convene an advisory
  group to discuss one new voluntary initiatives

47
Rationale for Option 1

• Framework approach
• Establishes CIWMB authority
• Provides method for implementing Product
  Stewardship Programs
• Allows flexibility to add products and customize
  programs
• Complements efforts internationally
• Streamlines government

48
VI Recommendation, Option 1

• Staff not recommending new voluntary initiatives
• Need to involve stakeholders
• Need further analysis of product categories

49
VII. Potential next steps

• Continue existing programs
• Convene stakeholder workshops
• Establish legislative Framework
• Develop regulations and select products to use in
  Framework
• Implement product specific stewardship programs

50
www.ciwmb.ca.gov