The 2025 legislative session in New York ended, and legislators’ hopes to pass extended producer responsibility for packaging this year did as well.
Several EPR bills were introduced this year from various authors, but S 1464, authored by Sen. Pete Harckham, moved the furthest.
It passed out of the Senate on May 28 with a vote of 33-25, and on June 16, was substituted in for the companion Assembly bill, A 1749. However, the session ended on June 17, and the bill did not pass the Assembly in time, despite legislators staying on the floor late into the night.
Last year, similar legislation passed out of the Senate on the final day of the session. In early June this year, Assemblymember Deborah Glick, who sponsored the companion bill, told local media that in the final days of the session that she believed the legislation had enough votes to pass, it was just a matter of timing.
“In talking to my colleagues, I believe I have the votes to pass it in this house,” she told Spectrum News 1. In the same article, Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics, added that “more than the industry opposition, I think our biggest barrier may just be running out of time.”
In a statement issued after the session ended, Enck said that “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.”
In a press release, Harckham said the legislation “represents the strongest Extended Producer Responsibility framework in the nation” and the bill’s forward momentum “is a critical step forward for our communities and our environment.”
S 1464 would have required producers to eliminate certain chemicals from packaging materials and would have directed the producer responsibility organization to make a plan to give producers an easier pathway to purchase recycled materials from processors.
The bill also set targets: On reduction, at least 10% from baseline three years after implementation, ramping up to 30% after 12 years. On recycled content, the targets were 35% for glass, 40% for paper bags and 20% for plastic trash bags two years after implementation.
The target recycling rates were at least 35% by 2030 for non-plastic packaging, increasing to 75% by 2052, with packaging reuse making up at least 20% of that target. For plastic packaging, the goals were 25% by 2030 and 75% by 2052.
The American Forest & Paper Association opposed the bill, as it has opposed packaging EPR for years in the state and elsewhere in the U.S. The Business Council of New York State also opposed the bill on the grounds that it would drive up business costs.
In a statement, the group pointed to California’s restart of its rulemaking process for packaging EPR over similar concerns.
“We wanted an updated EPR cost study to illustrate our long-standing concern about the impact on our member companies and on New York consumers, and we hope that it will help New York lawmakers avoid following California’s bad example when we could enact more practical legislation that reduces waste and is affordable,” said Ken Pokalsky, vice president of the Business Council of New York State. “We continue to oppose expensive, unworkable mandates and restrictions on business, and we believe these costs would be exacerbated by passage of bad legislation.”
