ERCC 2012 Workshop Summary

Highlights from ERCC Workshop

Panel 1 Summary (Lessons Learned, Challenges/Benefits):

Challenges:

·         1st year always a challenge in any state

·         Process of approving state-approved recyclers

·         Keeping up with needed changes to program through lengthy regulatory process

·         Limited resources to implement program

·         states where manufacturers don’t choose the recycler

·         Challenge to change consumer behavior, unpredictable from state to state

·         Different standards for market share across states

Benefits:

·         Flexibility allows for more cost efficiency

·         Fair assignment of responsibility based on market share

·         Some programs (example MN) offer flexibility to achieve goals with

          incentives to collect outside metro areas

·         Pound-based metrics easy to understand

Common Goals

·         Ensure consumers are satisfied

·         Create level playing field

·         Make recycling convenient as it is to purchase

Recommendations for others states:

·         Broad scope of products

·         Create aggressive but achievable of goals

·         Flexibility to help address trends

·         Helpful and informed staff can make a big difference for participating

           stakeholders

Panel 2 Summary (Future Trends Impacting Electronics Recycling Policies):

·         Changes in products impacts recycler – smaller = less commodity value. This

          offsets the cost to dismantle. Not offset by lower transport costs for smaller

          items

·         Flat screens are coming back in higher volume. This is another disassembly

          process and it doesn’t pay for what is coming back.

·         Some manuf choose lowest cost recycler that meets their standard.

·         Certifications are good, but some have questions about practices of those

          that have certifications

                  o   Can both competing certifications survive?

·         More product categories will follow electronics with product stewardship. Will

          there be multiple product drop off locations for different stewardship programs?

·         State laws can’t keep up with changing product scope.  Resources are wasted

          with trying to keep up and determine coverage. Alternative would be an industry

          solution

                  o   Continuum between mandatory and voluntary programs: new laws in UT

                  and TX (TV) provide a convergence of mandatory/voluntary

                  o   Difference between what laws should do, and what industry should do

·         Manufacturers have accepted producer responsibility, but state laws may not

          always provide the answer (no new laws over industry objections have passed

          in last year)

                    o   Recyclers may not

Other goals:

·         Making products more recyclable – state laws don’t have mechanisms for

          achieving this

                   o   What incentives could be added to achieve this (true cost

                     internalization cited as mechanism)? Disassembly metrix?

·         Simple goal is to facilitate recycling

PANELS LESSONS LEARNED

1.       Certifications are no guarantee

2.       Flexibility promotes cost efficiency

3.       Changing product scope is a challenge

4.       Consumer behavior is unpredictable

5.       Collection programs need to match consumer expectations

6.       Laws have not resulted in green design

7.       Technology is affecting cost of recycling

8.       Voluntary vs. mandatory

9.       Patchwork creates compliance challenges

10.   Collection system overlap

11.   Manufacturers don’t oversee collection sites

12.   Separate categories for small electronics

13.   R2 versus eSteward – will they converge? Should more states incorporate?

Future Vision

Garth presented a potential future program with outline:

·         Key elements laid out in statute, States could oversee.

·         Broad(er) scope of products (industry would make interpretations through Plan)

·         Require Stewardship Plan by groups of manufacturers or individual ones

          (financing determined by industry through Plan)

·         Set aggressive but achievable goals (big piece of puzzle)

               o   Example by CEA – convenience coverage in UT set through dialogue with

               state and local officials identifying needs

Benefits

·         Reduce compliance costs for state programs and need for state administrative

          oversight/ fees.

·         Examples: British Columbia and Paint Industry

Questions/Comments

·         Is this more appropriate for federal level? Yes, but more likely to happen

          through state action. Would need to roll out state to state. 

                  o   Because of trends in industry (i.e. goals decreasing due to product

                  changes, etc) states will be pushed to make changes to our laws very 
                  soon. Need to come up with a framework for something manufacturer led.

·         Need to bring manufacturers together to accomplish this

·         How would states reject a Stewardship Plan?  What basis in the law would

          be used?

·         Canadian examples now looking at horizontal integration where regulators in

          multiple Provinces deal with one industry group. There is a framework of laws

          and some ability to opt out. Compliance penalties are high for individual plans.

·         How do Canadian programs ensure level playing field? Canada hires auditors. If

          they don’t comply, they are handed over to the auditors.

·         What about anti-trust issues? Other programs (paint) require industry to be

          members.  Anti-trust could be dealt with in state legislation and eventually at

          federal level.  Allowing an opt-out would help.

·         Other models would be Washington’s WMMFA (and new

          BC structure), California carpet, WEEE compliance schemes, etc.