relative to extended producer responsibility.
HB 1789 establishes a statewide extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for packaging. The bill would require producers that sell or distribute packaged products in New Hampshire to register with a nonprofit packaging reduction organization contracted by the Department of Environmental Services (DES), report packaging data, and pay fees based on the amount and type of packaging they use. Those fees would fund program administration, municipal reimbursements, needs assessments, education and outreach, and investments in reuse, refill, and recycling infrastructure.
The bill also sets long-term packaging reduction and recycling targets for producers. Producers would have to reduce packaging by at least 5 percent after two years, 20 percent after five years, and 50 percent after ten years, measured against their first year of registration. In addition, packaging would need to meet escalating recyclability thresholds over time, and certain toxic substances and materials, including PFAS, lead, PVC, polystyrene, and polycarbonate, would be prohibited in packaging after rulemaking and phase-in periods. The bill authorizes DES to adopt rules, oversee compliance, conduct needs assessments every five years, and enforce the program alongside the attorney general.
HB 1789 would add a new subdivision to RSA 149-M and amend RSA 6:12 to dedicate moneys in the new packaging reduction fund. It would create a new regulatory structure for packaging stewardship, shift some waste-management costs from municipalities and the public sector to producers, and establish a non-lapsing fund to collect producer payments and penalties. The bill would also expand DES and attorney general enforcement authority, require annual reporting and audits, and create new compliance obligations for producers, with limited exemptions for small businesses and low-volume sellers.
The bill appears to be framed as an environmental and waste-reduction measure, with a strong policy emphasis on reducing packaging, increasing reuse and refill systems, and improving recycling outcomes. The fiscal note suggests the administration anticipates significant new work and costs, but it also assumes the program could eventually generate dedicated revenue to support implementation and reimburse local governments. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s structure and the agencies’ fiscal concerns.
The main points of contention are likely to be the cost and complexity of implementation, the burden on producers, and the scope of the new restrictions. DES and DOJ both indicate the bill would create substantial new administrative, legal, and enforcement responsibilities, and the fiscal note says the bill does not fund the requested positions or fully cover early implementation costs. Producers may also object to mandatory fees, reporting requirements, packaging redesign mandates, and bans on specific materials, while municipalities and environmental advocates are likely to support the reimbursement structure, waste reduction goals, and toxic substance prohibitions. The bill’s exemptions for smaller producers and its treatment of reusable/refillable packaging may be intended to address some of those concerns.