The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Nicole Grohoski, D-Ellsworth, represents Maine Senate District 7 and previously served two terms in the Maine House of Representatives, when she sponsored Maine’s first-in-the-nation EPR for packaging law. Rick Bennett, R-Oxford, represents Senate District 18 and was the lead Senate sponsor of the EPR for packaging law when he served as the ranking Senate Republican on the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.
Four years ago, we stood together — across the aisle and across many stakeholder divides — to help pass Maine’s first-in-the-nation Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Packaging law. It was a bold, bipartisan step to solve a real problem: municipalities and taxpayers are footing the entire bill for managing a flood of packaging waste, while the producers creating it have no skin in the game.
This law was designed to change that. By shifting costs from local property taxpayers to the companies that design and distribute packaging, Maine is not only easing the financial burden on our towns, we’re creating incentives for producers to use smarter, more sustainable packaging. To be clear, the law does not require a change in packaging.
Getting to this point wasn’t easy. The original law took years of negotiation and organizing. And as the state agency moved to implement it, new concerns emerged, especially from Maine’s forest products sector, an essential economic engine for our rural communities.
When valid concerns about implementation emerged, we didn’t want to start back at the beginning and lose all the work the Legislature and agency had done. But a new bill, LD 1423, was introduced this year that we believe would have done just that, setting back much-awaited taxpayer relief by years.
At first, it looked like the beginning of another drawn-out debate. But instead of relitigating the past, we did something different.
At our urging, key stakeholders — environmental advocates, industry representatives, and others — agreed to sit down together. And to everyone’s credit, they showed up. What followed was a refreshingly productive series of conversations. Participants began with shared priorities, set aside irreconcilable differences for another day, and kept their focus on one goal: Strengthening the law while preserving its core purpose. The result was a broadly supported amendment that improves the program while protecting its intent.
The amendment earned strong bipartisan support in committee, with an 11–2 vote. It represents a practical, Maine-made solution that preserves the law’s benefits: protecting taxpayers, expanding recycling, and creating market signals that reward better packaging design.
It also supports our renowned forest products industry, which is innovating paper-based plastic alternatives right here in Maine. Sappi, for example, produces recyclable, renewable and sustainable paper and paperboard for packaging. Sappi is currently completing a $418 million project in Maine to double its capacity to produce packaging that provides a sustainable solution to plastic packaging.
In Waterville, Huhtamaki remains at the forefront of the molded fiber sector, employing 600 Mainers to manufacture materials that are readily recyclable and certified to BPI compostability standards.
Tanbark in Saco is a newer molded fiber company with a mission to “reshape the future with molded fiber.” With the help of the University of Maine’s research team, this company is truly pushing the limits of molded fiber design to support circular sustainability in packaging. This mission has resonated on a national scale with the recent announcement from Gov. Janet Mills and Maine’s congressional delegation about a $22 million federal tech hub grant to position Maine as a global leader in forest-based biomaterial production.
The LD 1423 compromise amendment would support these important manufacturers and countless others across the state. However, some are still pushing for last-minute changes that would weaken the program by exempting large producers of packaging from paying their fair share. We believe the inclusion of any “poison pills” — provisions that would upend the carefully negotiated balance and jeopardize the broad consensus that’s been reached — would undermine the spirit of compromise that made this critical recycling reform possible.
Our story is proof that even in these divided times, real progress is possible when people come together, listen with respect, and keep the common good in focus. LD 1423, as amended, represents that kind of progress, and we urge our colleagues to support the bipartisan committee amendment and see this effort through.
