Date post: | 17-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kelley-wilkins |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Can the Patchwork
of State Programs Work
Together?Jason LinnellNCER
STATE HARMONIZATION
E-SCRAP 2008 – Tuesday, September 16
About Us
• Non-profit 501c3• Located in Parkersburg, WV area
■ Federal, State, Association Projects
■ National Electronics Recycling Infrastructure Clearinghouse
■ Research, Collection ProgramsNCER’s Mission:
■ Dedicated to the development and enhancement of a national
infrastructure for the recycling of used electronics in the U.S.
With the proliferation of varied state and now local electronics recycling legislated programs & no immediate prospect of a national program, various stakeholders are looking at ways the existing programs can harmonize common elements.
Where can we work together
to create efficiencies
amongst states?
Purpose
• Look At The Current “State” of States
• Brief Review of Previous Findings Manufacturer-brand connections Return share and brand recording
• Common elements of each program Manufacturer registration Market share data Recycler registration Recycler ESM requirements Retailer requirements?
• Examples of Collaboration
Overview
1:00 - 2:00 PMOverview Presentation
2:00 - 2:15 PM Discussion Questions from Group
2:15 – 2:30 PM Break
2:30 - 3:00 PMPanel of State Representatives
3:00 – 3:15 PM Manufacturer/Recycler Perspectives
3:15 - 4:00 PM Open Forum and Follow-Up
Schedule
Where Do We Stand?
• 19 programs with mandatory financing AR, CA, CT, IL, HI, ME, MD, MN, MO,
NC, NJ, NYC, OK, OR, RI, TX, VA, WA, WV 149 million US residents or 49.5% of US
population• Disposal bans
NH, RI, AR
Current “State” of States
Current “State” of States
Percentage of Population Covered by E-waste Law
% Covered, 49.5%
% Not Covered,
50.5%
NYC
Rhode Island
States With Producer Responsibility
Laws
States With ARF (Consumer Fees) Laws
States With Landfill Disposal Fee
States With Disposal Ban/No E-Waste
Law
Current “State” of States
5 “Types” of State E-cycling Systems:1. Consumer Pays at POS - California
model2. Producer Pays Returns – Maine
model3. Producer Managed With Default -
Pacific Northwest model4. Producer Managed No Default or
Convenience Goals –Minnesota model5. Producer Program Required -Mid-
Atlantic & “Red” States Model
Current “State” of States
#1 Consumer Pays at POS California ModelExisting Laws:
■ CA OnlyKey Elements:
■ Consumer ARF■ State administers fund, flat rate
for collection/recycling■ No collection/conveniece goals■ State authorizes
collectors/recyclers
#2 Producer Pays Returns Maine and VariationsExisting Laws:
■ Maine, Connecticut, and (Rhode Island)Key Elements
■ Recyclers count/weigh brands, send bill to manufacturers w/approved rates
■ No collection/convenience goals■ Collection costs at local govt
Current “State” of States
Existing Laws: ■ Washington, Oregon, New JerseyKey Elements
■ Manufacturers use default plan or set up independent program (with restrictions)
■ Defined convenience goals (number of locations, etc). Some with collection goals
■ Return share and market share data needed
#3 Managed With DefaultDefault Pacific Northwest Model
Current “State” of States
Existing Laws: ■ Minnesota, Illinois, New York City, (Hawaii)Key Elements:
■ Manufacturers responsible for defined amount, except HI
■ Some with unspecified “convenient” goals (NYC)
■ Return share IT/market share TV split
#4 Producer Managed No Default or Convenience Goals
Current “State” of States
Existing Laws: ■ MD, WV, VA, TX, OK, MO
Key Elements: ■ Covered manufactures need to
register and describe program■ No collection, convenience
goals; no market/return share data
■ In some states, registration fee required if no program
■ Some limited to IT products
Producer Program Required Required Mid-Atlantic & “Red” States ModelModel
Current “State” of States
Product Scope By State
Desktops, Laptops (over 4 inch),TVs (over 4 inch), Monitors (over 4 inch)
Laptops, TVs (over 9 inch), Monitors (over 9 inch)
Desktops, Laptops, TVs (over 4 inch), Monitors (over 4 inch)
TVs with exclusions (over 4 inch), Monitors (over 4 inch), Laptops (over 4 inch)
TVs (over 4 inch), Monitors (over 4 inch), Laptops (over 4 inch)
Desktops, laptops, computer monitors, printers, and TVs
Desktops, laptops, computer monitors, printers, keyboards, mice, digital music players, and TVs
Desktops, monitors, laptops
TVs, Desktops, monitors, laptops, keyboard, mice, and other peripheral equipment (excluding printers)
*Product scope for MD and MN includes products triggering a manufacturer obligation to participate in the program.
NYC
Rhode Island
Desktops, laptops, computer monitors over 9 inch and TVs over 9 inch
Hawaii
Adding Covered EntitiesOur Patchwork Quilt
-Households-Small Businesses-Non-Profits-Any Entity w/ Fewer Than 7 Devices
-Households-Small Governments-Small Businesses-School Districts-Charities
Households Only
Consumers Only (Who Use Computer Equipment for Home or Home Business Use)
Any Entity Households& Schools
Hawaii
NYC
Rhode Island
Requirements By State At A Glance
Registration Fee Plan Required Annual Reporting
CA:
CT:
ME:
MD*:
MN:
Current “State” of States
Requirements By State At A Glance
Registration Fee Plan RequiredAnnual Reporting
NC:
OR:
TX:
WA:
Current “State” of States
Registration Fee Plan RequiredAnnual Reporting
IL:
HI:
MO:
NJ:
NYC:
Current “State” of StatesRequirements By State At A Glance
Registration Fee Plan RequiredAnnual Reporting
OK:
RI:
VA:
WV:
Current “State” of States
Requirements By State At A Glance
How Are They Faring?California:
1.79 lbs/capita in 2005, 65 million lbs3.5 lbs/capita in 2006, 128 million lbs5.1 lbs/capita in 2007, 185 million lbs
Maine:3.1 lbs/capita in 2006, 3.85 million lbs3.51 lbs/capita in 2007, 4.63 million lbs
Minnesota: 6.5 lbs/capita from Jul 07 – Jun 08
Maryland:1.2 lbs/capita in 2006, 6.2 million lbs
[not program stats]1.5 lbs/capita in 2007, 8.7 million lbs
[not program stats]
Current “State” of States
What Can We Do?
Assumptions for Workshop• Can’t change the laws/regs • Work on common elements that
provide efficiencies, reduce duplication
• Not create unfair advantages for one group over another
Then, look at common elements• Where are they identical?• Where can differences be
accommodated?• What projects look most promising?
Common Program Elements
Some common elements of each state program
Return Share Data Manufacturer registration Market share data Recycler registration Recycler ESM requirements Retailer requirements
Common Element Example
Return Share Data
Brand Data Management System
What is it?The Brand Data Management System is an online data sharing project of brand return shares and state-mandated program data.• Currently houses 1,487 brands across various
product categories (monitors, TVs, desktops, laptops, P-DVD)
• Approx. 30 of these brands have a return share of 1% or more by total weight across product categories
• Shows brands and their common misspellings • Shows brand quantities returned by unit/weight
across 6 regional studies (FL, MN, IL, WV, WA, New England)
• Go to: www.electronicsrecycling.org/BDMS
Return Share Data
• Requirement: Division of costs for manufacturers by % of their brands in the waste stream
• Once program up and running, data can come from sampling or full counts For first program years, laws specify “best
available data”• Limited number of studies of brand
counts• NCER compiled existing studies, added
data from WV program and created new online, public database As part of NERIC project
BDMS Reports
BDMS has several reporting options:options: • Compare brand “return share” across all studies by product type (i.e., monitors) OR across all product types• Determine an average “return share” for each brand across all studies and product types• Determine each brand’s “registration” or “claim” status in each state program using return share for billing purposes • Determine manufacturer “return share” by combining claimed/registered brands
SSAAMMPPLLEE
RREEPPOORRTT
This report shows that RCA has a total return share of 6.62%
Data Sharing
• NCER provided custom report• For OR and WA, soon for RI• Limited to studies with 4 major
product categories Maine data most comprehensive/recent,
but excluded due to desktop exclusion• Imperfect, but “best available”
Some regional companies from pilot studies penalized
• Example of “easy” harmonization Clearinghouse of national data
Common Element Example
Manufacturer and Brand Registration
Manufacturer RegistrationWho is the manufacturer under manufacturer responsibility?
• Is it the company who designs the covered product? • Is it the company who assembles the product under contract from the designer? • Or is it the company who owns the rights to the brand that is placed on the product?
Two steps:• Define who you are looking for• Find ways to identify those manufacturers
All PR states require “manufacturer” registration with their brands
• Some regional companies, but mostly multi-national companies
Defining the ManufacturerThe terms “producer” and “manufacturer” have been used interchangeably in virtually all non-legal contexts, but….
• State legislators have used the term “manufacturer” almost exclusively
The term “manufacturer” traditionally connotes physical activity but has become more removed from the physical formation process
• “2a: the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor…” • “3: the act or process of producing something” • Source: “manufacture.” Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. 2007. http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manufacture. (10/11/2007)
• Some states allow non-brand owners to claim responsibility for brands (ie. ME & MN)• Some states require the “brand owner” to be responsible for that brand (ie. WA & MD) • Some states allow only the brand owner or licensee to be the “manufacturer” (ie. OR)• Some states cover historic producers, even if no longer in that product market (ie. ME & WA)
How Is A Manufacturer Defined In Each State? Differently!
The Manufacturer/Brand Connection
Owner of the rights to the main brand on the front of a product is the only entity that can be the “manufacturer”. Need to find the “main” brand on the front of a covered product in a return share system. In a market share system, look for the main brand under which a covered product is marketed.
Brand Owner Only Approach
Advantages: • Single entity for each brand is responsible • For return share, brand ownership records should more available than manufacturing history• Over time costs could be included in licensing agreements • Easy to explain – whoever currently owns rights is responsible
Disadvantages: • Owner of brand rights may control design, manufacture, distrib.
Does that undercut PR design feedback incentive?• Cases where 1 company manufacturers several licensed brands (e.g., Hello Kitty, Strawberry Shortcake, etc.) but brands are held by multiple companies • A company that wants to take on the responsibility and costs for a brand (e.g., a producer that licenses a brand) is denied• Brand label on front only is the identifying marker, and if missing in return share system, product is an orphan.• Gray area when multiple brands on a product are owned by different entities (IBM ThinkPad)
Brand Owner Only Approach
ME, MN, and OR • Brand owner is default, but a brand licensee (or other entity) can register or claim a brand and its associated recycling responsibility. • Brand on the front is usually the brand for which the “manufacturer” is responsible, but back label information can also be used to supplement or can be used in place of if front label is missing. • In a market share system, look for the main brand under which a covered product is marketed.
“Claiming Manufacturer” Approach
Advantages: • Allows any company willing to take on
responsibility for recycling responsibility to do so; licensee could be closest to design of the product
• If no company claims a brand, brand owner still responsible, unless brand is deemed an orphan.
Disadvantages:• Administrative complexity: allows multiple
entities to claim a single brand• Orphan determination can be particularly
tricky when one historic producer among several goes out of business
“Claiming Manufacturer” Approach
• Most state laws allow importer to register/claim a brand if the “manufacturer” (brand owner or otherwise) has no presence in the US.
• Historic “manufacturers” of product no longer sold can also be a manufacturer in return share systems (JC Penney, Sears, etc)
• Potential hybrid approach: presume the brand owner is responsible, but allow a single company other than the brand owner assume responsibility for covered products carrying that brand.
Other Approaches?
What Do All Of These TVs Have
In Common?
Same Brand, Different “Manufacturer!”
• Barbie Brand TVs Registered by Mattel, Inc. in WA and
Emerson Radio Consumer Products in ME, MN, MD and OR
• Runco Registered by Planar Systems, Inc. in ME,
MN and OR and by Runco International in WA
• Xerox Registered by Proview Technology Inc. in
ME, MN and OR and by Xerox Corp. in WAChallenge: Recycling responsibility
sometimes on brand “licensees” sometimes “licensors”
The Manufacturer/Brand Connection
Category ME MD MN TX OR WA
# Unique Manufacturers 197 64 75 40 148 170
# Unique Brands 435 131 145 51 212 259
Desktop Brands 2 N/A N/A N/A 80 92
TV Brands 254 N/A N/A N/A 87 117
Monitor Brands 285 N/A N/A N/A 97 114
Laptop Brands 34 N/A N/A N/A 49 56
Portable DVD Brands 13 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Manufacturer Patchwork
Getting to Manufacturer
Brands:• Brand marking is primary means of
assigning financial responsibility for recycling costs Completely new use of brand information States are doing it differently
• What is the impact?
What is a “Brand?”It is “a name, sign or symbol used to identify items or services of the seller”
Why look at “brand” for producer responsibility?• Most reliable visible evidence at end-of-life
and when sold. Most large producers use company name for
brand• i.e. Dell-Dell, Sony-Sony
Brand Recording• Brand recording is required in
some states In ME/CT/RI, all units are recorded and in
WA/OR/NJ brands are recorded by random sample
• High potential for errors with recording• NCER developed Best Mgmt Practices
Reduce errors, guide for brand recorders• Steps detailed for brand recorder
Distinguish product categories – gray area Find true “brand” label, will differ by state Identify common mis-identified markings
Brand Recording Pitfalls
““Creative”: drive, not Creative”: drive, not brandbrand
““Personal Computer”: Personal Computer”: not brand, but IBM not brand, but IBM trademarktrademark
The BRAND (in WA) The BRAND (in WA) is “CCI”!is “CCI”!
This Brand is a Candidate for Misidentification!
Manufacturer here:“Toshiba”
Sub-brand here:“Blackstripe”
Should be recorded as “Toshiba” NOT “Blackstripe”!
What is THE “Brand?” for Recycling Purposes?• Same product may include multiple
“brand” markings Are true brands, but not correct brand
for assignment of responsibility
• Correct brands to record depends on program, purpose of brand recording
• In ME, the correct brand is the one that is registered to a claiming “manufacturer” and may require recording of marking on both the front and/or back of unit
• In WA, the brand on the front of the unit exclusively is used to determine the “true” brand for recycling responsibility purposes.
Hurdles In Determining Brand Ownership
• Brand name can differ from the “producer” name Retailers brand differently, i.e. Walmart - ilo,
Best Buy – Insignia• Primary brands vs. secondary brands
Secondary Brand Examples: Presario (HP), Macintosh (Apple)
How to train brand recorders?• Licensing!
No central registry of licensees/licensors Less common among IT companies Creates complexity in determining who is
ultimately responsible
Other Hurdles In Determining Brand-Manufacturer Link
• Not getting at physical manufacturer (e.g., contract manufacturing)
• Licensing of legacy brands, i.e. Polaroid, Westinghouse Also called “Back from the Dead” or
“Zombie” brands Brand equity helps make a product
recognizable in a cluttered marketplace, even when not associated with that type of product
Gateway MonitorGateway MonitorGateway Spotted Box Logo On Gateway Spotted Box Logo On Front, but word “Gateway” Is Front, but word “Gateway” Is
MissingMissing
*Difficult to Identify Unless Familiar *Difficult to Identify Unless Familiar With Branding!With Branding!
Gateway Monitor (Back)Gateway Monitor (Back)
Missing Back Panel – No Manufacturer Missing Back Panel – No Manufacturer Information For ID Purposes!Information For ID Purposes!
Manufacturer registration All states except CA require some form
of registration Brands tied to manufacturers (albeit
different basis) Informal contact info sharing/updates
currently happening Possible joint project for one-stop
manufacturer and brand registration Benefits: eliminates duplicate entries,
conflicting info across states, reduce non-compliance in certain states
Challenges: accounting for varying definitions, finding sustainable home, manufacturer/state acceptance
Where is the common ground?
Other ExamplesPotential Areas for
Collaboration
•Needed for recycling financing basis: MN – all VDDs NYC – all covered products CT, IL, RI, OR, NC – TVs (WMMFA) – 50% of costs for all
manufacturers• Needed for registration fees:
WA, OR – all covered products• Needed for orphan costs:
CT
Market Share Data
• Potential Collaboration: Develop single source of national
market share for all covered products using combination of research reports
• Benefits: All states using same or similar data No need for states (and manufacturer reg
fees) paying multiple times for same data sets• Challenges
Data protection! Market research business model don’t mesh,
some refuse to work for this type of project
Market Share Data
•Potential Collaboration Single registration for recyclers
rather than duplicate across states• Benefits:
Reduces confusion about which recyclers are qualified
• Challenges: Still many local/regional recyclers
may not need national registration State permitting laws vary
Recycler Registration
•Potential Collaboration: Recycler ESM requirements Currently multiple sets of similar
BMPs/EMPs•Probably already covered
with R2 discussions
Recycler ESM Requirements
Retailer Requirements
• Potential Collaboration: Retailer requirements: some provisions
require education info from retailers to consumers on recycling options. Adopt single set of messages and national reference point
• Benefits: National retail chains have one source of
info to distribute for compliance• Challenges:
Outreach and retailer involvement Some states without laws, and few recycling
options
Other Examples?
Where Else Can States Cross Harmonize? Some ideas…
• Manufacturer Reports?• RoHS compliance
reporting/verification• EPEAT requirements• Sampling Brands (get more
representative national data)• Definition of “convenience”
State Implementation Info and Compliance Calendar
available at:www.ecyclingresource.org
Compliance Calendar
Thank You!
Jason Linnell, NCERPhone: (304) [email protected]
Visit us on the web: www.ncerwv.orgAnd www.ecyclingresource.org