The Business Council Continues Opposition to Proposed PRRIA Legislation
The Business Council is one of many business voices that have opposed the so-called "packaging reduction and recycling infrastructure act" (S.1646/A.1749).
Our concerns are straightforward. This bill will impose harmful material bans and unworkable material reduction and recycling mandates, resulting in increased consumer costs and reduced consumer choices at a time of rising concerns about affordability.
From our perspective, the more that lawmakers and the public understand the specifics of the PRRIA, the more concerns they will have about its cost and unachievable mandates.
Notably, The Business Council and other business groups support an “expanded producer responsibility” program that focuses on the diversion of post-consumer packaging from disposal and back into productive reuse, and we support alternative legislation already introduced in New York, S.5062/A.6191. This approach would implement an effective, workable EPR program in a way that protects consumers, New York jobs, and the state’s economy.
Importantly, this alternative EPR bill is patterned on legislation recently adopted in Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland, with broad, diverse support.
Maryland is the most recent state to pass broad EPR legislation, in May 2025, and it new law illustrates how far the PRRIA is out of the mainstream of recent state legislative actions.
Here's a quick comparison -
PRRIA Bans 14 chemicals and compounds and sets up a process to ban more.
In comparison, Maryland - No provisions for chemical bans, nor does it have packaging EPR statutes adopted in Maine, California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland, or S.5062/A.6191.
PRRIA – The state determines the producer responsibility organization (PRO) from competing bidders, with no clear role for producers who are ultimately responsible for the success of the program.
In comparison, Maryland – Producers are required to organize the PRO and develop its implementation plan, as is the case in California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland, and in S.5062/A.6191.
PRRIA – Imposes unworkable statutory mandates for material use reduction, recycling, and recycled content.
In comparison, Maryland – Compliance requirements are to be established by the state environmental department based on recommendations from the PRO, and with public review and comment, based on the Minnesota model – also reflected in S.5062/A.6191. No state imposes as aggressive, unworkable material mandates as does the PRRIA.
PRRIA – Excludes the use of advanced recycling technology in meeting recycling goals.
In comparison, Maryland – Is technology neutral, as is the case in other states’ EPR legislation.
PRRIA – Imposes 100% of the cost of material collection and processing on the PRO. It also requires the PRO to pay for some disposal costs – something done in no other state.
In comparison, Maryland – Follows the Minnesota model – and S.5062/A.6191 – for a phased shift of costs from municipalities to the PRO, reaching a permanent requirement of 90% of costs borne by the PRO – which will provide significant consumer relief, but still assure municipal focus on cost-effective programs.