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 • Introduction • Background • Key Findings • Framework Overview • Product Selection • Recommendations • 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 • Extended Producer Responsibility • Producer • Cradle-to-Cradle Impacts • Product Stewardship Program • 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 manufacturer’s 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 program’s 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 • Gov’t 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. Producers Retailers Consumers CA State Government Local Government Haulers Recyclers Advisory Committee Key Elements of an EPR Framework Approach (continued) Roles and Responsibilities

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. Regulations Selecting & adding products/product categories Targets, measurement, reporting New, historic & orphan wastes Independent & collective producer programs Product stewardshipplan Enforcement Transparency & accountability Performance standards Encourage product design improvements 5. Governance (continued) Scope of Authority:

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