The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Product Stewardship Advisory Commission did not adopt packaging EPR at this meeting. Instead, after extended presentations and a lengthy Q&A, the commission signaled consensus around the need for a funded needs assessment and additional technical work before forwarding a legislative recommendation.

Two outside presenters described implementation experience and options. Peter, representing the Circular Action Alliance (a producer responsibility organization), described the organizations experience implementing packaging EPR in multiple states and said harmonization of definitions, reporting and timelines across states reduces implementation burdens. "Harmonization is really one of our key strategic operating principles," he said, and he recommended a 4 1-year implementation window with ecomodulation factors set after the pro has collected producer data to inform budgets.

Mallory Anderson, program coordinator at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, outlined Minnesotas 2024 law and implementation approach. She said Minnesota set an aspirational 2032 requirement that covered packaging and paper products be reusable, recyclable or compostable; the law phases in cost coverage for covered collection and processing (50% in the first program year, 75% in the second, and 90% in the third and thereafter). "In Minnesota, we have a 2032 requirement that all packaging and paper products that are covered within the law are reusable, recyclable, compostable," Mallory said, summarizing the statutory outcome standard Minnesota adopted.

Commissioners and members of the public pressed multiple concerns before the group: whether producer fees will be passed through to consumers (and whether municipalities will realize budget savings), how small businesses and multifamily housing will be treated, whether commercial packaging should be included, how to sequence ecomodulation to avoid budget shocks, and how to ensure data collection needed to set fees and targets. Several stakeholders urged specific policy steps that would improve market value for recyclables (minimum recycled-content standards, restrictions on low-quality export of recyclable material). Others warned that packaging EPR could increase retail prices and disproportionately affect low-income consumers unless the program design explicitly addresses equity.

Because of those unresolved issues, commissioners discussed and the chair proposed urging a formal needs assessment and cost analysis with dedicated funding and a defined timeline to inform legislation. Several commissioners and stakeholders suggested the needs assessment should include: a statewide baseline of collection and processing capacity, detailed cost modeling (including pass-through scenarios), equity analysis of impacts on low-income households, sequencing of obligations (reporting, fee setting, ecomodulation), and a realistic agency staffing plan for oversight and enforcement.

The commission asked stakeholders to submit written comments and signaled it will take up packaging EPR again after receiving additional analysis. The meeting closed with a motion to adjourn carried by voice vote.

Provenance: Key presentation remarks and the commission discussion are recorded in the transcript between roughly 1135 and 4269 seconds for the Circular Action Alliance and Minnesota presentations and Q&A; the closing discussion and direction toward a needs assessment begin at approximately 8315 seconds in the transcript.