Dive Brief:
- The Massachusetts Extended Producer Responsibility Commission voted on Dec. 9 to recommend further study of packaging EPR, including a potential needs assessment to be completed pending a budget appropriation from the state legislature. This process would fall to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
- The commission also voted to recommend that state legislators pursue an EPR law for electronics, adding to prior recommendations for paint, mattresses and batteries.
- The commission released a draft report on all of its work this year, which it will finalize and submit to the legislature by Jan. 15, 2026. A vote was taken to dissolve the commission within 30 days of the report’s submission.
Dive Insight:
Legislative progress on waste and recycling has long been stalled in Massachusetts. This commission was created a year ago, as part of a broader climate bill, in an effort to advance the conversation.
MassDEP was tasked with organizing the effort, which included numerous meetings in Boston throughout the year, but all involved recognized the task was a tall order. The commission included representatives from the National Waste & Recycling Association, Casella Waste Systems, MassRecycle and Keep Massachusetts Beautiful, as well as multiple environmental advocacy groups, trade associations, the attorney general’s office and various state and local elected officials.
Packaging was intentionally left until later in the commission’s agenda, due to its complexity, but that also meant that discussions were relatively limited ahead of the January report deadline.
“This is a very challenging and complex area,” said John Beling, chair of the commission and the deputy commissioner for policy and planning at MassDEP, during the Dec. 9 meeting, “we just don't have sufficient time to fully explore this issue.”
This outcome was previewed at the group’s October meeting, which drew critiques from commissioners representing MassRecycle and the Environmental League of Massachusetts who were concerned about how effective a needs assessment process could be within a subcommittee of the SWAC. During that meeting, Circular Action Alliance also previewed upcoming recommendations for harmonizing EPR that include establishing covered materials lists before pursuing a needs assessment.
That discussion continued during this week’s meeting, with initial resistance to the needs assessment proposal from groups such as NWRA and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. Others, who support packaging EPR, also raised concerns about resources after the experience of running a commission this year without notable legislative funding.
“If DEP was not able to get adequate funding to do what we were supposed to do in this commission for packaging, then I'm very concerned about ... just following another DEP process that is not guaranteed to have any funding associated with it,” said Waneta Trabert, vice president of MassRecycle.
Beling acknowledged that conducting a needs assessment for plastics and other packaging would likely “cost a lot of money” and involve hiring a private consultant to assist the agency with its work. This comes at a time when state legislators are looking to tighten spending levels.
After further discussion the group landed on language recommending that “the legislature appropriate the necessary resources to complete a needs assessment within two years of appropriation.” The text also acknowledged, but did not endorse, a pending bill in the state legislature that calls for such an assessment.
In the meantime, the latest MassDEP data shows that the state’s disposal volumes grew to 6.22 million tons in 2024. This is up nearly 10% from a 2018 baseline and heading in the opposite direction from a goal of reducing volumes to 4 million tons by 2030.
MassDEP has worked to influence this volume trend via targeted grant funding as well as disposal bans on certain packaging categories, plus textiles, mattresses and organics from certain categories of generators.
EPR bills for paint and mattresses were considered particularly ripe in the last legislative session, due to support from local officials concerned about cost burdens associated with managing these materials, but the bills stalled out last year. Other bills to limit certain plastic packaging and update the state’s container deposit law also failed to pass last session.
While there were some points of disagreement, the majority of commissioners supported endorsing EPR language for paint and mattresses, as well as batteries and electronics. NWRA was particularly supportive of EPR for batteries in prior meetings due to fire risks from lithium-ion units.
Each material category also has corresponding legislation that has been introduced this session, which the report acknowledged but did not endorse. Massachusetts runs on a two-year legislative cycle, with the current session set to end next year.
