DENVER — When House Bill 22-1355 “Producer Responsibility Program for Recycling,” was passed in 2022, those against the bill warned that the costs for the state-wide recycling mandate would eventually be pushed onto Colorado consumers.
Three years later, as the law is preparing to go into effect, the roll out of the program is indeed looking like an expensive and expansive new mandate, one with a highly questionable membership “dues” cost structure, paid to a private non-profit.
HB 1355 requires “producers of products that are … packaging materials and paper products sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state” to pay annual “producer responsibility dues.” An amendment to the bill exempted: “packaging material used for Colorado agricultural products sold under the name of the farmer, grower or grower cooperative.” Newspapers were also originally included among the industries required to pay the annual fee, but were removed from the final version.
Paying your ‘dues’
The “dues” fund a program to “implement and manage a statewide program (program) that provides recycling services to covered entities in the state, which are defined as residences, businesses, schools, government buildings, and public places,” putting the cost of such program on those who manufacture recyclable material.
Producers who are mandated to take part in the program were required to sign a participant agreement and make their first report by July 31. Currently there are 2,279 producers who have registered.
According to the Sum & Substance, an online publication of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, the program aims to raise between $215 million and $267 million by charging between 2 cents and 90 cents-per-pound to producers of packaging materials used in Colorado.
Former Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Kevin Priola, who by default of redistricting represented Weld County for the last two years of his term, sponsored the bill. Priola was replaced in the Senate by Scott Bright, R-Greeley.
Juri Freeman, executive director of Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the private, non-profit “producer responsibility organization” (PRO) contracted by the state with implementing the program, told the Chamber in its story that the goal is to “more than double” the state’s recycling rate by 2035.
CAA will use the money collected as dues to contract with other providers to pick up recycling at homes around the state. Colorado Consumer Coalition Executive Director Jaime Gardner, told the Chamber, she expects the new fee will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each to fund the scheme.
Paper products and glass dues average between two and six cents-per-pound, aluminum is four and five cents-per-pound, and paper/fiber packaging ranges from seven to 10 cents-per-pound. Rigid plastic, which is plastic that does not easily bend such as reusable water bottles or window frames, are estimated between 66 to 90 cents-per-pound because they are not currently something collected for recycling. Flexible and film plastics will average between 62 and 86 cents-per-pound, and wood is likely to cost between 43 and 55 cents-per-pound.
A fee by any other name
Gardner told the Chamber she and others remain skeptical this new fee is even constitutional.
“There are significant legal questions when you’re talking about what is a tax on business. And these are not small taxes,” Gardner told The Sum & Substance. “I tend to think that a six-figure tax is a big number.”
In fact, just last week, The National Association of Wholesale-Distributors filed a suit in district court in Portland against a similar new law in Oregon — just weeks after it took effect.
According to the Oregon Capitol Chronical, the wholesale distributors claim the law is unconstitutional “because, as it’s structured, it gives regulatory authority over the fee schedule and collection not to the state’s environmental quality department but to a private entity,” which happens to be the same non-profit Colorado has contracted with — the Circular Action Alliance.
“Rather than encourage sustainability through a uniform and transparent system where compliance burdens are shared across industries, Oregon chose to shift the burden to the parts of the supply chain that have little to no control over decisions to design, reduce, reuse or recycle a product,” Eric Hoplin, the wholesaler association president and CEO, told the Chronical.
The group says Oregon’s law discriminates against out-of-state producers and violates state and federal due process laws.
At the time of the bill’s passage, inflation in Colorado was already at one of its highest rates ever (7.5 percent), and higher than the national average. While inflation has fallen to 3.5 percent, it still remains above the national average, according to the Common Sense Institute.
Another unelected board
Those close to the situation say the biggest issue right now is yet another appointed bureaucracy that was created by the bill known as the “statewide recycling advisory board. The terms are staggered. Members serve three years. Members are supposed to have “relevant knowledge and expertise in recycling programs or the impacts of covered materials on the state and environment.”
Current members are:
- Angela French, Recycling and Waste Reduction Supervisor for Grand Junction
- Liza Marron, Saguache County Commissioner
- Gail Garey, Steamboat Springs City Council
- Richard Kattar, former VP of Safety and Maintenance for Greenstar Recycling
- Mark Petrovich, Republic Services
- Clinton Sander, worked in “natural foods” industry
- Elizabeth Chapman, served on various volunteer boards
- Scott Saunders, General Manager of KW Plastics, recycling division
- Michael Pratt, packaging industry
- Scott DeFife, former president of the Glass Packaging Institute
- Brian Loma, Hazardous Materials and Waste Diversion Advocate for GreenLatinos
- Barrett Jensen, Government Affairs Manager at Waste Connections of Colorado
At the time of the bill’s passage, officials in Weld County pushed back hard as that county is a major food producing region, with a fast-growing plastics manufacturing sector as well.
Weld County Commissioner Scott James, who was opposed to the plan in the beginning said nothing has changed his mind.
“We don’t need it,” James said. “It’s just more grist for the green-grift mill. We are creating economies where no economies exist in the name of environmental absolution. People are done with it. It’s going to cost producers more, and companies will not absorb that cost. If we really want to make things more affordable, then we need to stop doing things like this.”
Another meeting to “finalize” the plan will be held virtually from 12:30 to 3:30 p.m. on August 13. The public is invited to attend and provide comment.
