1 / 42

Thank you to our funder and sponsors.

Thank you to our funder and sponsors. PSI National Dialogue on Fluorescent Lighting. National Dialogue Meeting #3 November 6, 2008 (Day 1). Recap & Status of National Dialogue (9:15 am PST).

kerry
Download Presentation

Thank you to our funder and sponsors.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thank you to our funder and sponsors.

  2. PSI National Dialogue on Fluorescent Lighting National Dialogue Meeting #3 November 6, 2008 (Day 1)

  3. Recap & Status of National Dialogue(9:15 am PST)

  4. Promote use of energy efficient lighting while eliminating or reducing the amount of mercury and other toxins entering the environment during the lifecycle of fluorescent lamps. Overall Dialogue Goal: Fluorescent Lighting

  5. Reduce environmental impact of manufacture of fluorescent lighting. Increase manufacture and procurement of environmentally preferable lighting. Maximize safe collection and recycling of spent lamps from households and businesses. Develop nationally-coordinated system that is financially sustainable. Specific Dialogue Goals

  6. Meeting #1: Salt Lake City, Utah April 23-24, 2008 Multi-stakeholder participation 24 in the room, 25 calling in Created 3 workgroups Infrastructure (for “small”/consumer sector) Bans & enforcement Financing 6

  7. Meeting #2: Seattle, Washington July 15-16, 2008 37 in the room, 27 calling in Focused on financing options Continued workgroups 7

  8. Workgroups Infrastructure Workgroup Focused on collection infrastructure for consumer sector Commercial sector infrastructure exists and will grow with demand Bans & Enforcement Workgroup Promoting education & enforcement of existing bans Promoting disposal bans in more states Financing Workgroup 8

  9. Meeting #3: Objectives Determine next steps to promote passage of disposal bans Determine next steps to promote enforcement of existing disposal bans Consider criteria and elements of comprehensive state/national program for fluorescent lamp recycling Develop greater understanding of different perspectives on financing and determine next steps Determine next steps to develop consensus methodology for performance goals 9

  10. Meeting #3: Objectives, cont. Review the state-of-knowledge on lamp breakage impacts, and determine next steps to gather information or develop best management practices Determine next steps to promote voluntary retail collection & recycling of lamps Revisit workgroup composition & focus Consider timing, stakeholders for Meeting #4 Chicago, IL with funding from U.S. EPA Region 5 Tentatively scheduled for March 3-4, 2009 10

  11. Bans & Enforcement Workgroup & Discussion (9:30 am PST) 11

  12. Bans & Enforcement Workgroup Workgroup members: Paul Abernathy, Association for Lighting & Mercury Recyclers Linda Barr, Shayla Powell & Wendell Tomes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Becky Jayne, IL Environmental Protection Agency Mark Kohorst, National Electrical Manufacturers Association Alex Pashley, UT Dept. of Environmental Quality Rob Rieck, WA Dept. of Ecology 12

  13. Workgroup Purpose Encourage compliance with, and enforcement of, existing bans or other regulations 2) Pass disposal bans in more jursidictions 13

  14. Promoting Compliance & Enforcement Press release drafted: Publicizes enforcement actions taken against businesses improperly managing lamps Encourages building managers & others to comply with applicable requirements Will highlight 2-3 examples of violations/penalties Looking at non-industrial sites with recognizable names Quotes from ALMR, NEMA, PSI Websites provided to find state-by-state regulations, recyclers, and drop-off locations for consumers 14

  15. Promoting Compliance & Enforcement Strategy for release: Targeting trade journals & associations nationally Waste News, BOMA, others? States welcome to adapt for local release Timing? 15

  16. Promoting Compliance & Enforcement Are there other steps this group can take to promote compliance & enforcement? At last meeting, we discussed case studies, enforcement expert presentations/calls, but these did not become priorities for the Workgroup We will discuss public education in general later in this meeting, but is more specific compliance education needed (for example, for the commercial sector)? 16

  17. Passing Disposal Bans in Additional States Compiled information for those interested in creating a disposal ban for fluorescent lamps Model disposal ban language Draws on existing language, primarily NH (passed) and WA (draft) Overview of mechanisms (state legislation most common) Examples of existing disposal ban language Examples of artwork educating about disposal bans 17

  18. Model Disposal Ban Language Applies to all Hg products, except FDA-approved pharmaceutical products Either recycle or dispose of as hazardous waste Prohibits disposal in water, wastewater treatment, or wastewater disposal systems Minimum requirements for solid waste facilities to inform customers & prevent delivery of Hg products Options for phased-in approach (commercial sector first, then households) 18

  19. Passing Disposal Bans in Additional States: Next Steps Is there information available on the success or challenges of existing bans to add to document? Are there other next steps that this group should take to promote passage of more disposal bans? 19

  20. Thank you to our funder and sponsors.

  21. Comprehensive State/National Program for Lighting: Criteria & Elements(11:00 am PST) 21

  22. Proposed Program Criteria Promote the use of energy efficient lighting Maximize safe collection and recycling Convenient and free recycling for the consumer Levels the playing field for manufacturers, retailers, and others Shares responsibility (even if not fully financially) Ability to measure progress toward increased recycling “Cost-effective” 22

  23. Proposed Model Program Elements Procurement Example: Require state to purchase low mercury and most efficient lighting with recycling service component Collection infrastructure for consumers Voluntary retail collection Convenient and comprehensive coverage (including rural) Disposal ban Commercial & consumer sectors Performance metrics and goals Public education Financing system 23

  24. Discussion questions on elements Should we be thinking comprehensively (e.g., Model) Is legislation necessary to “level the playing field” for companies involved? What is most useful to you? 24

  25. Overview of Financing Options & Discussion(1:30 pm PST) 26

  26. Financing Options Focusing on consumer & possibly small commercial sectors There is currently no consensus Our goal today is to further the discussion of current concepts 27

  27. Key Concepts – Any Solution There is a sustainable system already in place to pay for recycling of fluorescent lamps from the commercial sector. A sustainable system is needed to pay for recycling of lamps from the consumer sector. This system should pay for collection containers, transport and recycling of CFLs and LFLs; public education; and management and reporting. Increasing the cost of the product will decrease demand and should be avoided/minimized. Paying an end-of-life fee will discourage consumer recycling and should be avoided. 28

  28. Financing Options Overview of financing options (Theresa Stiner) Industry concept (Joe Howley) Industry concept – discussion Cost internalization – discussion Utility – discussion Where does this leave us? 29

  29. National program is preferable to state-by-state Avoid increasing cost of product (thereby discouraging purchase and use of CFLs) Environmental benefits of using the product are greater than the environmental recycling concerns and are of an equal or higher importance when developing solutions. Convenient recycling should be free to consumers General Premises from Manufacturer Perspective

  30. Utilities use existing mechanisms in the short-term to fund recycling programs Offered to retailers to start voluntary recycling programs using a small part of energy efficiency funding currently used as incentives for CFL use. Incorporate lamp recycling for consumers into cap-and-trade legislation for medium to long-term solution Industry stewardship organization and/or U.S. EPA to manage program Retailers implement voluntary collection programs $ comes from sale of GHG emissions credits Legislation could be introduced w/in next year Manufacturer Concept for a National Solution

  31. Financing Options EPR discussion – pros/cons (Theresa Stiner slide 9) Utility discussion – pros/cons (Theresa Stiner slide 14) 32

  32. Financing Options Who Pays? Manufacturers Utilities Retailers? How Much? Short, Medium, Long-Term  Where does this leave us? 33

  33. Thank you to our funder and sponsors.

  34. Performance Metrics Options & Discussion(3:15 pm PST) 35

  35. Performance Metrics • Establish baseline & measure progress • Make changes to program if desired impact not achieved • Communicate achievements externally • May be required by legislation or set administratively 36

  36. Effective performance measures should be… • Tied closely to outcomes of public concern • Based on publicly available data and defensible (and conservative) assumptions • Straightforward to explain and use • Other criteria? • * Extensive work in this area has been done by Stratos consultants as presented at the PSI Forum in June 2008. 37

  37. Two General Approaches • Collection quantities/rate • Robustness of program 38

  38. Robustness of the Program • Is the program easy to use and efficient? • % of target population aware of the program • cost/unit collected • customer satisfaction with program • population within a certain proximity of--or average travel distance to--collection site

  39. Robustness of the Program • Pros • Those who run and use the program (and may share program goals) provide data for measurement • Measurement requires fewer data, and data may be of higher quality (fewer assumptions required) • Cons • Does not directly measure the intended impact of the program (keeping lamps out of landfills/incinerators)

  40. How might this work in King County? • Awareness • Survey of residents • Population within a certain proximity/average travel distance to collection sites • Collection locations & population data • Quality of service

  41. How do we move forward? • Establishing an agreed-upon methodology will save time and effort • We know collection rate data is difficult to get • Are “robustness of program” metrics acceptable alternatives, or only complementary to actual collection data? • Is developing a methodology a priority for this group (should it be a next step)? • Which approach, or combination of approaches, should be used?

More Related