The question of how glass wine containers should be managed in Oregon – under the state deposit return system or under extended producer responsibility – remains active, though wine bottles seem destined for EPR for now.
Jana McKamey, executive director of the Oregon Winegrowers Association, said a bill was introduced this year at the wine industry’s request that would put wine bottles under DRS, a bid to keep the conversation going. The board’s position is that the bottle deposit system is best, she said, but there are hurdles to inclusion.
“Our bill that we’ve put in, we’re hoping to get a hearing for that and be able to further explain our position,” she said. “That’s kind of the goal here, while we’re also preparing for the EPR program to take effect – that is law, and wine glass is included there.”
However, the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative, which runs the state’s successful bottle deposit system, doesn’t want glass wine bottles added to its purview.
In a statement, OBRC Vice President of External Affairs Devon Morales said OBRC believes that wine packaging – other than wine in cans, which is already set to join the system this summer – is best suited to remain part of Oregon’s extended producer responsibility program for packaging that will roll out on July 1.
“The EPR program is expected to deliver a recovery rate for glass that is on par with the recovery rate for large format glass under Oregon’s Bottle Bill,” Morales said. “In addition, because the material stream quality for Bottle Bill glass is very similar to source separated and depot collected glass in Oregon, glass collected as part of the EPR program will continue to be comingled with Bottle Bill glass for processing into recycled glass packaging.”
Morales added that OBRC “supports strong recycling outcomes and Circular Action Alliance’s commitment to effective glass recycling as a part of the EPR program.”
HB 3433 would add glass wine bottles to the longstanding DRS system in the state, which was first enacted in 1971 and updated several times since then. The most recent was in 2022, when wine in cans was approved for inclusion starting this July.
The refund for wine bottles would be no less than 10 cents, the bill states. It would allow beverage containers containing wine to be labeled with a scannable code that shows consumers the refund value, as opposed to a stamp or embossment. That would come into effect after July 1, 2026.
The full provisions of the law would roll out by 2028, if passed. The bill was introduced on Jan. 28 and is currently in the House Climate, Energy, and Environment Committee.
One of the bill sponsors, Rep. David Gomberg, said via email that HB 3433 is “our chance to start a dialogue on the state of producer responsibility in the wine industry.”
“Oregon’s bottle redemption program has been a big success for recycling rates of other beverage containers, so it stands to reason that we’ve got a real opportunity to bring the wine industry into the fold on this,” Gomberg said.
He pointed out that wine is included under California’s system, and Washington is considering doing the same as it eyes DRS legislation.
“I don’t see this proposal as a major shift in Oregon’s policy priorities, but I do see it as a timely opportunity to ensure the wine industry is doing their part to help Oregon achieve our environmental stewardship objectives,” Gomberg added.
Two pathways
Back when EPR first passed in 2021 with the Recycling Modernization Act, the wine industry was given the opportunity to assess the right path for its glass. McKamey said the industry spent the past several years researching, but comparing the two programs was difficult up until recently, when the second producer program plan that included fee information was released.
“We thought the bottle bill was going to be the best route,” she said. “It’s well-regarded with excellent outcomes.”
In addition, she said consumer incentive, such a deposit, will be vital to increasing recovery rates, and that setting up a strong reuse program would be easier under the bottle bill.
The industry started working on bottle bill inclusion, having “a lot of conversations with OBRC and others,” McKamey said. But after leadership changes at OBRC, “the pathway for the bottle bill is, at this point, quite difficult given some of the stakeholder dynamics.
“We want to see strong environmental outcomes from this and it’s not just shifting cost burdens for collection,” she said.
The Oregon Winegrowers Association, along with others in the glass industry, have been communicating with the producer responsibility organization, Circular Action Alliance, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality about the cost of glass in the EPR program plan, which it feels is too high.
“While the cost of glass has come down between the program plans, it’s still quite significant,” McKamey said. “We do think there’s room for that to come down even more, so if we can work collaboratively with CAA and DEQ, that’s our goal.”
In a comment on the third producer plan, Glass Packaging Institute President Scott DeFife noted that “most glass in the state is recycled very successfully under the OBRC bottle deposit program,” adding that glass isn’t a problematic material in the state.
“Knowing that, we asked for a meeting with Oregon DEQ several times last year to discuss the disparate and troubling treatment of glass in the RMA regulations that we believe are creating unnecessary extra costs for glass producers,” he wrote. Glass is classified as a “specifically identified material,” driving up the fees associated with it.
“Glass is one of the most consistently and highly recycled materials in Oregon and serves a key Oregon end-market (Oregon wine industry), as well as other domestic wine, food and beverages markets,” DeFife wrote. “We believe that glass should not continue to be listed as a SIM in Oregon and that special attention is not needed for glass given that the overall glass recycling rate in the state is over 70%, and the RMA covered glass is already recycled at a 49% rate today.”
The RMA has a 45% recycling target for glass. DeFife added that the extra fees and changes under the plan are only projected to bring in another 3,100 tons of glass – less than a 2% increase.
Many smaller businesses would also prefer the bottle bill system, as it would give them more of a voice, McKamey said. The Oregon Winegrowers Association is working to get an official seat at the table for EPR, she added.
Considering reuse
There’s also the question of how bottle reuse will fare under each system. Adam Rack, a co-founder of Oregon-based refillable glass bottle startup Revino, said he sees benefits and drawbacks to each path.
The RMA has specific language and goals for reuse, for example, but no existing framework to build on. Oregon’s DRS network, on the other hand, is well-established and could support rapid scaling, but there’s not much about reuse in its underlying policy.
“What’s going to be the best way long-term to get it off the ground? That’s a hard question to answer,” Rack said.
Revino is working in more than 65 locations, he said, and the RMA is “really starting to change the conversation.” Rack wants to keep the consumer experience at the forefront in the discussion.
“We should leverage existing infrastructure – just like the RMA says – to collect reusables back through any supply stream we can,” he said. “It would be great to make this as easy as possible for consumers and maintain some stability for consumers, as well, so something doesn’t have to change in five years.”
Revino has focused on showing up at meetings and engaging in conversations with different stakeholders.
“We’re excited to keep working with CAA,” Rack said. “They’ve been really engaged at the table – more so then I really expected – so they surpassed our expectations for how interested they are in reuse, and that’s really inspiring.”
Rack is also thinking about the big picture – how to scale reuse across the country. To reach that goal, collaboration is key, because “we all know we need to do better for the future generations,” he said.
While for now, the industry is headed for EPR inclusion, McKamey said there’s still a lot to learn. CAA is still working on details for some reuse-based eco-modulation factors, for example.
“I do think the EPR program has the potential to be more cost-effective and is getting down in cost, so it could end up being a good route,” she said. “We’ll see as it rolls out.”
