Plastic reduction and recycling bill stalls in Albany

By JEFF MORRIS

State Sen. Pete Harckham introduced the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act, which was designed to reduce plastic and paper waste, increase recycling, encourage use of recyclable materials, and save local governments money, in February 2023. 

Fast forward to today, and Harckham (D, SD40), whose district includes Bedford and Lewisboro, is preparing to move forward with the legislation in January, after it failed to come up for a vote in the Assembly despite having passed in the Senate in May, and seemingly having enough votes to pass the Assembly as well.

This is not the way it was supposed to go. 

In April of this year, a poll released by the Siena College Research Institute found that nearly three-quarters — 73 percent — of respondents favored requiring all companies with an annual net income of over $1 million to reduce packaging on their products. That was a key component of the PRRIA, sponsored by Harckham and Assemblymember Deborah Glick, chairs of the Environmental Conservation Committee in their respective legislative houses.

The poll found no demographic gender, age or regional group issuing under 70 percent of support for the bill; similarly, no gender, age or regional demographic was more than 19 percent in opposition to the bill.

But on June 18, after the extended state legislative session drew to a close, the environmental group Beyond Plastics issued this statement: “For the second year in a row, the Democratic supermajority-controlled New York State Assembly failed to vote on the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act despite having enough votes to pass.”

Judith Enck, Beyond Plastics president and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator, said, “While President Trump is launching a full-on assault on the environment, the New York state Assembly sided with the multibillion dollar companies pumping toxic chemicals and microplastics into our environment and our bodies. It’s deeply disappointing that we’re in this position again, with municipalities and taxpayers cheated out of hundreds of millions in cost savings for another year. New Yorkers didn’t vote for any of this, and they deserve better.”

Enck noted that Glick and Harckham had “fought relentlessly” to pass the legislation this year. “Our fight continues,” she said. “Plastic pollution isn’t going away, and neither are we.”

A spokesperson for Harckham said, “We’re letting the dust settle, and we’re going to revisit it again and be in touch again with all the stakeholders, because something has to be done about our packaging waste crisis. Everybody thought this was going to be the year it went over the top.”

“There was a lot of support for it,” said the spokesperson. “There may be even more support for it next year, because it is an election year.”

Assemblymember Chris Burdick (D, AD93), who supports the legislation, told The Recorder that owing to the way the legislature operates, with sessions actually continuing in conjunction with the terms of members, the bill will not need to be “reintroduced” in 2026; it will remain as an active piece of legislation, having already passed the Senate. That does not preclude it being amended.

According to the bill’s advocates, it will reduce plastic packaging by 30 percent incrementally over 12 years; require that all packaging — including plastic, glass, cardboard, paper, and metal — meet a recycling rate of 75 percent by 2052 (with incremental benchmarks until then); prohibit 17 of packaging’s worst toxic chemicals and materials, including all PFAS chemicals, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), lead, and mercury; prohibit the harmful process known as chemical recycling to be considered real recycling; establish a modest fee on packaging paid by product producers, with new revenue going to local taxpayers; and establish a new Office of Inspector General to ensure that companies fully comply with the new law. 

Opponents claimed that the bill was flawed, and by levying new fees on companies based on their packaging, would drive up product costs, placing a heavier burden on both businesses and consumers and removing products off shelves altogether. While environmentalists said the bill would save taxpayers money, business groups disputed that. 

The bill was met with heavy opposition advertising and lobbying from plastics and chemicals interests. That pressure appears to have caused what had seemed like strong support in the Assembly to waver as the session deadline approached.