The Bottle Bill – Potential for WA? Shannon McClelland Recycling Coordinators Mtg. April 2014.

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