This past week, California finalized regulations to implement its packaging “EPR” (extended producer responsibility) law, after an initial version was rejected by Governor Newsom as being too expensive for California consumers.
Apparently, those concerns extend to the revised rule as well, with a lead California environmental activist quoted in the LA times citing its “exorbitant” implementation cost that will be passed through to consumers. “This will certainly add to product inflation for CA consumers,” according to Jan Dell of Last Beach Cleanup, adding that “Californians already have to pay exorbitantly high curbside collection fees for trash, recycling, and organics … so, starting in 2027, our groceries will cost a LOT more but we won’t see a reduction in our waste bills.”
It should be little comfort to New Yorkers that its legislature is considering a packaging EPR bill that goes well beyond California’s in its mandates for packaging source reduction, material recovery, and recycled content. New York’s proposal, dubbed the “Packaging Reduction and Infrastructure Investment Act,” or PRRIA, also bans key packaging material and chemical bans and the shifts disposal costs packaging companies, mandates not found in the California bill with its “exorbitant” costs.
In other words, PRRIA, if enacted, would impose mandates and restrictions not found in the EPR programs adopted by other states. These mandates will impose significant compliance costs on business, and result in cost increases and product disruptions for consumers. And even though PRRIA would shift some municipal waste management costs onto packaging producers, nothing in the bill requires any savings be passed onto local taxpayers.
Numerous businesses and business associations have argued for a more workable and less costly approach, with a focus on improving the recovery and reuse of post-consumer packaging material. They have supported different EPR legislation modeled on laws recently adopted in Minnesota, Washington and Maryland. These states were in the second “wave” of EPR states, and their statutes reflect lessons learned from earlier adoptions, with program targets based on real world data and with compliance flexibility designed to make the program affordable for consumers and producers alike.
“Affordability” is the word of the year in Albany, with the Governor and Legislature expressing concerns about legislation that would add to rising costs on New York households. Our policymakers need to be aware of how EPR laws are playing out in other states, and avoid imposing unnecessary costs and inconveniences. They need to adopt workable EPR legislation that improves recycling, not PRRIA that is focused on material bans and that will adversely impact New York consumers.
Ken Pokalsky manages The Business Council’s government affairs staff and the Council’s overall legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts.
*sponsored content*
The post For the Sake of All New Yorkers, Don’t Pass Bills that Keep Raising Prices appeared first on EMPIRE REPORT NEW YORK 2026® NEW YORK’S 24/7 NEWS SITE.
