The Impact of the
“Beverage Producer Responsibility Act”
on Existing Bottle Bill States

Beverage container waste is a national problem; it increased more than 50% between 1992 and 1999. Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) will introduce “The Beverage Producer Responsibility Act” in September 2003 as a means of reversing this trend. The bill requires that brand owners achieve an 80% recycling rate for their beverage containers, and collect a 10¢ deposit on every container.

Under a national bottle bill with an 80% recycling rate, a total of 53 million barrels of crude oil equivalent (bcoe) could be saved annually. This number includes the 28 million bcoe in energy savings already being realized from existing recycling efforts, and 25 million bcoe in additional energy savings due to the national bottle bill. 25 million bcoe is sufficient to meet the total residential energy needs of 1.4 million American households for a year.

Every state bottle bill has been amended since its enactment, and every deposit state has sought to expand or update its deposit law through legislation or voter referendum. Policymakers and activists in deposit states already seek many of the provisions included in Jeffords’ bill, but are stymied by their state legislatures. They are aware of the economic and environmental benefits of deposit legislation, but may have questions about how the National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act will impact their existing deposit law. The following points are intended to address those concerns:

· PROVEN EFFECTIVENESS: All of the provisions in this bill have precedents in existing bottle bill states. For example, the 10¢ deposit is a feature of Michigan’s deposit law, and it produces container recycling rates of 95%, in contrast to the average of 70% in states where the deposit is a nickel. The inclusion of all beverage containers (excluding milk) is modeled after the deposit system in Maine.

· INCREASE IN DEPOSIT VALUE: The value of the dollar has declined significantly since the nickel deposit was instituted over 30 years ago, greatly diminishing the impact of the financial incentive. A 10-cent deposit would increase the financial incentive, which is essential to the success of bottle bills, to a meaningful level.

· EXPANSION TO OTHER BEVERAGES: Sales of “new age” beverages, such as sports drinks, juice drinks, teas, coffee and bottled water, are skyrocketing. They are predominantly packaged in plastic and glass bottles, which are costly for municipalities to collect through curbside programs. Had these beverages existed 20 or 30 years ago, they would have been included in deposit laws. Expanding existing bottle bills to include these beverages, as well as wine and liquor, will reduce litter, solid waste, and recycling costs to state and local governments.

· UNREDEEMED DEPOSITS: Unredeemed deposits are partly or fully retained as state property in California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Michigan. These states would continue to keep the unredeemed deposits under Jeffords’ bill.

· OUT-OF-STATE REDEMPTION: The prospect of increased interstate fraud, which has deterred states from raising their deposit values, would be eliminated under Jeffords’ bill.

The 82 million people in the ten bottle bill states recycle more bottles and cans than the 200 million people in the forty non-deposit states. A national bill provides bottle bill states with the opportunity to coalesce and collectively implement sought-after measures.