Jake Morabito Testimony in Tennessee: Recycling & Extended Producer Responsibility

ALEC Senior Director of Policy Jake Morabito was recently invited testify before the Tennessee Joint Advisory Task Force on Solid Waste regarding recycling policy and solid waste management.

You can read his testimony below.

Chairman Reeves, Chairman Todd, and Members of the Task Force:

My name is Jake Morabito, and I serve as Senior Director of Policy at the American Legislative Exchange Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before your committee today to share more about ALEC’s nonpartisan research and analysis on matters of recycling policy and solid waste management, as well as the efforts of our members across all 50 states to develop sound environmental policy rooted in market incentives and industry partnerships to achieve both a robust economy and the conservation of our nation’s precious natural resources and agricultural land.

In my capacity as Senior Policy Director, I also serve as director of ALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force, which consists of legislative leaders and policy experts from across the country committed to developing pragmatic and evidence-based model policy solutions across the EEA jurisdiction, including energy affordability and reliability, public lands policy and private property rights, chemical regulation and ensuring clean air to breath and fresh water to drink, and much more.

I hope you find this testimony valuable as Tennessee considers how to approach some of the emerging challenges facing not only everyday Tennesseans, but also the many small and medium-sized businesses that depend on healthy and dependable energy, environment, and agriculture to survive and thrive.

ALEC’s foundational principles of limited government, free markets, and federalism are crucial to developing effective solid waste policy in Tennessee, solving landfill capacity and strengthening Tennessee’s solid waste and recycling infrastructure for the future, all while avoiding unintended consequences for consumers and businesses.

And that brings me to the purpose of this task force and today’s meeting to address the urgent solid waste concerns facing the State of Tennessee. First, I will explain more about ALEC’s long-standing values on solid waste and recycling policy and our support for a market-oriented regulatory approach driven by incentives and partnership with industry instead of top-down government restrictions, prohibitions, or taxes. I will then dive deeper into ALEC’s model Resolution in Support of Recycling, which acknowledges the importance of sustainable product manufacturing and circularity of materials from both an environmental health and national security lens, while also ensuring that policy solutions are transparent, financially and environmentally sustainable, and grounded in tangible outcomes and measurable results, with the private sector playing a leading role. Finally, I will provide a snapshot of the state regulatory landscape as many jurisdictions work to implement new extended producer responsibility laws for the paper and packaging industries, and some lessons learned that Tennessee should keep in mind.

I should note that recycling and solid waste management are not new to the ALEC community. Since at least 1995, ALEC members have coalesced around common principles to guide state recycling policy, particularly on source reduction. ALEC’s model Resolution on Packaging and the Municipal Solid Waste Stream acknowledges that it was private sector innovation, market incentives, and public-private partnerships that helped achieve effective, integrated solid waste management programs across the country through the use of minimal packaging materials. Inefficient government prohibitions, restrictions, or new taxes on consumer packaging and solid waste only create barriers that limit industry’s ability to meet market demands.

Leading companies are already embracing what is often referred to as the “circular economy,” encouraging the reuse and recycling of materials to extend the life cycle of products, reduce the need for new resource extraction, and keep perfectly good products and resources out of the local landfill. In the technology sector, companies like Apple, Lenovo, LG, and Samsung are responding to strong signals from customers and shareholders who recognize that sustainable practices and repurposing consumer products and packaging materials just makes economic sense.

Fast forward to today. Some states are considering a regulatory tool called extended producer responsibility (EPR) to address recycling and solid waste consumers in the paper and packaging sectors. While some EPR laws have already been implemented in some sectors such as consumer electronics, batteries, and paint, the concept is now being tested in a handful of states in the paper, consumer, and commercial packaging industries.

Now, what exactly is EPR, and why is it considered a possible solution to address solid waste? In short, extended producer responsibility programs, as the name implies, seek to hold manufacturers and producers more responsible for the “end-of-life” of their products and packaging across the supply chain.

By shifting the cost and operational burden of recycling from municipalities and government entities to the product manufacturers themselves, proponents of EPR believe the program will incentivize producers to minimize packaging while adequately protecting expensive consumer goods, increasing recycling rates, promoting sustainable production, and easing pressure on landfills.

However, I will caution that not all packaging EPR laws are created equal. As I mentioned earlier, ALEC members developed a model Resolution in Support of Recycling in December 2024 that contains key principles and best practices for states considering EPR targeting the packaging industry.

First and foremost, packaging EPR programs should be a collaboration between the packaging industry and government—not driven by bans, mandates, or excessive regulation. ALEC recommends that EPR should not be administered by the Department of Environment or another government agency, but should instead be managed by a producer-led Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO).

As states select a PRO to implement EPR, all affected industry stakeholders and producers that EPR laws would regulate must be fairly represented at the table. To date, the majority of states undergoing implementation of EPR have selected one nonprofit organization to serve as their single PRO, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which states that they are “the only organization approved to implement U.S. EPR laws for paper and packaging.”

One of the PRO’s primary responsibilities is to collect producer fees from manufacturers and reinvest them in strengthening domestic recycling infrastructure. However, ALEC cautions that under no circumstances should these funds be diverted to general state funds or otherwise reallocated to other projects not related to EPR investments. EPR programs must be transparent and are not meant to be a piggy bank; such a move could erode trust and participation in the program among producers and consumers.

Next, EPR programs should make recycling convenient and simple for consumers to use, complement and optimize existing recycling efforts, and minimize financial burdens on both the manufacturers and consumers. Affordability should be a top priority, and states should be wary of any EPR proposals that would directly cause unreasonable price increases on the essential products and consumer brands that Tennessee families and businesses consume on a daily basis.

Instead of rushing into a full-fledged EPR program right off the bat, states may consider beginning with a needs assessment of the state’s recycling system to understand the ramifications of implementing such a program. And as some packaging EPR programs like Oregon’s begin to go online, state legislators and regulators should pay close attention to how implementation is faring, learn from their successes, and avoid repeating the mistakes of those who came before. Choosing smaller bites at the apple could be a prudent decision for states like Tennessee to begin, unlike California, which had some setbacks that caused implementation to move in fits and starts.

Finally, EPR programs should be grounded in tangible, measurable environmental outcomes, reducing packaging waste and minimizing environmental harm. Aligning state EPR programs in this way will help achieve both economic and ecological resilience while maintaining affordability and accessibility for consumers.

Before I close, I will quickly provide a snapshot of the current state legislative landscape on packaging EPR. As of January 2026, seven states have enacted new packaging EPR legislation: California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. Oregon’s EPR took effect beginning last July, while requirements in other states like Colorado and Maine will begin to phase in as early as this year. Meanwhile, California’s packaging EPR program will kick off in 2027 but not fully phase in until 2032. Programs in Minnesota and Washington state are still far away from full implementation in 2029 or 2030.

As the task force considers solutions to address the pressing solid waste and recycling needs of your constituents, I encourage you to keep in mind that collaboration and partnership among state government, counties, and the private sector will be critical to getting this right. Tennessee can learn in real-time to see whether EPR programs in states like Oregon are living up to the promise of reducing packaging pollution and landfill excess without burdening businesses or raising prices for consumers. Buy-in from consumers and industry will be critical for the success of any recycling initiative or solid waste management reform. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning, and I welcome any questions.

Respectfully submitted,

Jake Morabito

Senior Director, Policy

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)