Editor’s note: Join us at the 2026 Plastics Recycling Conference, where we’ll dive deeper into chemical recycling’s role in sustainability.
Two Republican congressmen have introduced a federal bill to classify chemical recycling as a manufacturing process rather than as waste incineration, a move they say will help to provide regulatory clarity and encourage infrastructure investment.
Dan Crenshaw of Texas and Gary Palmer of Alabama introduced the Recycling Technology Innovation Act, framing it as an effort to “unlock innovation in America’s plastics recycling sector and strengthen domestic manufacturing.”
“These technologies are already operating successfully in states across the country, but inconsistent federal regulations have created uncertainty that deters investment and slows progress,” Crenshaw said in a statement. He serves as vice chair of the environment subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Palmer is chair of the subcommittee.
Crenshaw noted that “vague and inconsistent interpretations of the Clean Air Act have left companies guessing about how advanced recycling will be regulated – a barrier to long-term planning and large-scale investment.” This echoes factors that industry players have cited for EU recycler bankruptcies and canceled plans in North America.
Chemical recycling, also called advanced recycling, breaks down discarded plastics into their molecular building blocks, to create feedstock for making new plastics. The umbrella term includes such methods as pyrolysis and often solvent-based or dissolution methods, which the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and other industry organizations categorize instead as physical recycling, because the process does not affect the chemical structure of the polymer. APR owns Resource Recycling, Inc., publisher of Plastics Recycling Update.
US recycling policy largely consists of a patchwork of state-level initiatives, including 25 states that recognize chemical recycling as a manufacturing process rather than as waste processing, which often involves incineration, as in waste-to-energy facilities. This distinction can help streamline the process of building chemical recycling facilities.
Industry support for federal standards
Crenshaw represents Texas’s District 2, stretching north and east of Houston, a large area whose economy relies heavily on the energy industry, which includes plastic manufacture. Companies with interests in both energy and circular plastics maintain a significant presence in Houston, such as ExxonMobil and LyondellBasell.
The environment subcommittee held a July hearing on recycling where several recycling industry stakeholders testified:
- Keefe Harrison, CEO of The Recycling Partnership
- Matt Bedingfield, executive vice president of commercial strategy and growth at critical minerals recycler Mint Innovation
- Dan Felton, president and CEO of the Flexible Packaging Association industry group
- Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers at the American Chemistry Council
In her testimony, Harrison said, “Whether we use the phrase molecular, chemical, or advanced recycling, we need to be very clear about what problem we are trying to solve. Recycling is not an end goal in and of itself; recycling is a means to an end of conserving natural resources, building regional economies, and creating sustainable, resilient communities.”
She also encouraged the committee to support the Cultivating Investment in Recycling and Circular Local Economies Act, which would use tax credits to incentivize recycling infrastructure investments rather than grant funding.
During the hearing, Mint Innovation‘s Bedingfield noted “we recognize that improving recycling rates requires more than technology, it requires trust and transparency. That’s why we engage directly with local communities to promote and encourage safe, accessible recycling solutions right here within our borders.”
Felton of the Flexible Packaging Association testified that gaining FDA approval for mechanically recycled plastics can be slow and that chemically recycled plastics have no chemical migration, odor or color concerns and as such, the process “eliminates some of this lag.”
However, Paul Tonko, a Democratic representative from New York and ranking member of the committee, suggested a balance between new and existing recycling infrastructure. Calling chemical recycling technologies controversial “and not without good reason” adding that the US should continue to consider any tools to address waste management, while also ensuring that new technologies “actually displace virgin production and do not introduce environmental and public health risks at this stage.”
Also in July, the US EPA withdrew Biden-era proposed rules aimed at regulating chemical recycling, a move the ACC applauded while other stakeholders said the rules would have imposed undue administrative burden on the industry.
In response to this week’s proposed bill, the ACC said, “This legislation is a crucial first step in a suite of federal policies needed to spur investments and upgrades in our recycling systems with today’s innovations that can capture, sort and recycle many more plastics.
“In addition to passing this legislation into law, ACC calls on the federal government to recognize plastics made from advanced recycling as recycled plastic and to create national recycling standards to improve access and consumer understanding of recycling.”
