SB5219 – Requires more post-consumer recycled plastic in packaging. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsors Liias, Conway, Hunt, Keiser, Kuderer, Nguyen, and Claire Wilson – all D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology January 28th.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
I think that the fees per ton that are supposed to raise specified amounts of revenue only apply to packaging that doesn’t meet the recycled content requirements; that implies there there’s expected to be enough of that to generate $20 to $30 million/yr.
The bill defines the “producers” responsible for implementing its requirements as the brand owners of products with plastic packaging sold or distributed for use in the state, or the importers of such products. I think that means there will be a great many of them…

Summary –
The bill requires plastic packaging on products sold or distributed in Washington to increase its postconsumer recycled plastic content. The bill includes things like plastic tags, and packaging intended to be sold to consumers.; it exempts plastic packaging and food serviceware provided for serving prepared food at a drive-through, in a packaged form for takeout or takeaway, and from food trucks, stands, delis, or kiosks; as well as the plastic carryout bags for which State law already has recycled content requirements. Its requirements apply to the brand owners of products with plastic packaging, or to the importers of such products.

From July 1, 2023, through December 31, 2026, it would require at least 15% recycled content; through the next four years it would require at least 25%, and after January 1, 2031, it would have to contain at least 50%. Every other year, and at the request of producers, but not more than once a year, the Department of Ecology would have to consider reducing the requirements, but it would not be authorized to set them below 15% after 2026. (In making the decision, it would have to consider at least changes in market conditions, including supply and demand for postconsumer recycled plastics, collection rates, and bale availability; recycling rates; the availability of suitable recycled plastic; the capacity of recycling or processing infrastructure; the progress made by manufacturers in meeting the requirements; and the carbon footprint of transporting recycled resin.)

The department must implement a fee of up to $200/ton on brand owners and importers whose packaging, “in pounds and in aggregate”, fails to meet the requirements. It’s to be set to  to raise $40 million to $60 million per biennium in 2023 through 2026, no less than $30 million and no more than $50 million per biennium in 2027 through 2030, and no less than $20 million and no more than $40 million per biennium after that. Ecology’s to publish an annual report including estimated revenue from the fee, the amounts and quantities of packaging subject to it, and the number of producers currently in and expected to be in compliance with the requirements. If the department estimates revenues will fall below the ranges the bill specifies, it’s to set a fee of $200/ton and include the revenues expected from that in its report.

Revenue from the fee is to go into a recycling improvement account. Twenty-five percent of the money must be spent on grants to material recovery facilities processing municipal solid wastes to improve their ability to sort and manage plastic packaging, with a goal of improving recycling infrastructure and its recyclability. The rest must be used to cover the department’s administration of the requirements, and distributed to cities and counties that have qualified for State financial aid in planning solid waste management. They may spend the funds  on improving recycling infrastructure and the recyclability of plastic packaging through curbside recycling (or through depots or collection points for plastics that can’t be dealt with effectively through curbside collection), and on solid waste planning, management, regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and public education. The department’s to distribute this funding in consultation with an advisory committee it sets up, including five members appointed by the Washington Association of County Solid Waste Managers and five appointed by the Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials. It must distribute a set minimum amount to each county, and must distribute funds to counties based on their populations, but may incorporate the criteria and prioritization process it’s already developed for distributing solid waste planning funds.

Details –
The bill diverts 4% of the waste reduction, recycling, and litter control account to the Department of Ecology for one year to fund implementing its requirements. There are provisions for required reporting by brand owners and importers, for enforcement, and for appeals.