This article appeared in the April 2025 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Systems for collecting, sanitizing and redistributing foodservice items are ready to scale up with the help of curbside collection, certain policy changes and other factors, panelists said at the Resource Recycling Conference late last year.

“The next chapter of reuse needs to be tested at city-scale to create an immersive and convenient experience, so that it can be widely adopted,” said Andy Rose, head of circular systems modeling at Perpetual, a nonprofit that works with communities to design and implement reuse systems.

Such a program could feature a common set of reusable items that’s disbursed through a variety of businesses, checked out like a library book or with a deposit, then finally collected back through bins around town, he said.

Rose and other program leaders described progress from coast to coast, including a reusable foodware program at Grand Canyon National Park, a plastic cup reuse pilot in Petaluma, California, and a glass container study in Durham, North Carolina.

Macy Zander, local reuse manager for another national nonprofit called Upstream, pointed to the significant share of resources — almost half of new glass and plastic, for example — that goes into hundreds of billions of single-use items every year in this country.

“Though recycling is clearly a very critical piece of the solution to effective waste management, we believe that there needs to be a shift in focus upstream to cut waste before it is even put out into the world,” she said. “The majority of these items are used by consumers for mere minutes or sometimes seconds before they get discarded.”
She added: “There’s a brighter side to this, though, and that is reuse.”

In many ways, the push offers a return to tradition while also cultivating local economic development and benefiting public health, the panelists said. And the field is wide open for someone to take the lead.

“Some people would argue with me, but I would say there is really no example of a reuse system deployed at scale globally, with the possible exception of beverage reuse in Germany,” said Elizabeth Balkan, director of Reloop North America, which takes American officials on tours of European systems that, as with recycling, often outshine those in the U.S.

“We gotta get to work, right? Because we’re behind,” Balkan said. “And there’s a lot of great lessons learned that we can also capture, so that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.”

‘We need everybody’s help’

A program much like the one Rose described played out over three months last fall in Petaluma, a medium-sized town about an hour north of San Francisco.

The regional government agency Zero Waste Sonoma partnered with Closed Loop Partners’ NextGen Consortium, a brand-supported initiative to address single-use foodservice packaging, to create an open-loop cup reuse system, meaning it wasn’t restricted to one business or event.

Instead, 30 restaurants, including chains and mom-and-pops, shared a purple polypropylene cup that residents could drop off at more than 60 matching purple bins around town. It went further, with a paid public awareness campaign, the participation of a local MRF to pick up misplaced cups and an Uber Eats-style pickup service — “all the bells and whistles,” Zero Waste Sonoma Director Leslie Lukacs said.

“This is the first of its kind in our nation to do an equitable program because there is no deposit; everybody is just getting the reusable cup, and that’s it,” she said.

In the end, roughly 220,000 cups, or more than half, were returned, enough to provide environmental benefits compared to single-use cups, according to the final Closed Loop report released in February. On top of that, at least 80% of local residents knew about the program, understood how to participate and wanted it to continue.

“This data is not just going to help our community, it’s going to help everybody in the reuse space,” Lukacs said. “It’s been a highlight of my career to have this happen in my own backyard.”

The city of Seattle has taken a similarly wide-ranging approach to its own reuse program, said McKenna Morrigan, strategic adviser for Seattle Public Utilities. The Reuse Seattle initiative aims to support a reuse ecosystem by contracting for dishwashing and other services, recruiting participating businesses and paying for pilot projects and public communications.

“We know that we are not going to be able to make the progress that we want to see around reuse on our own, you know, as a city. We need everybody’s help to make progress,” Morrigan said. “We really see our role as creating the conditions for reuse solutions to flourish.”

The effort has partly come down to policy, she noted. Before 2022, Washington’s food code only allowed bring-your-own-cup programs for coffee shops and the like under certain conditions, involving paperwork and separate approvals.

“That’s a hard no” for busy small business owners, Morrigan said. “It’s pretty simple, but it turns out that’s actually a policy impediment in most states in the country to this day.”

An unsurprising ingredient in the reuse formula is the money, Morrigan added. The state and local economic development department provided some funding for Seattle’s work, and the city was on the hunt for more.

“A few weeks ago I was feeling pretty excited about where the EPA was going with their SWIFR dollars,” Morrigan said at the November conference, referring to the general election a few days prior and to the federal Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program. “I don’t, unfortunately, think that the federal government is going to be a source of significant funding for any of our work in the near term the way we hoped it might be.”

Her words proved prophetic, as the Trump administration immediately halted billions of dollars of federal spending, including for SWIFR grants, to ensure they all aligned with the president’s priorities. The money had been approved by Congress, and federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent previously prevented such an appropriation hold-up. Several courts have since ordered the resumption of much of the funding, but some EPA grant recipients have told Resource Recycling the money is still locked or uncertain in recent weeks.

Zero Waste Sonoma applied for SWIFR’s second round in the fall to continue and expand the cup reuse program, Lukacs said in March. She had little hope of receiving it.

“I’m not quite sure if the SWIFR grant still exists,” she said, adding all of the cups and bins are in storage for the time being. “We’re just kind of pausing until maybe spring to see what happens.”

Whatever funding mechanisms are available, Lukacs reiterated her view that reuse programs must be a shared expense. Local or federal government funding is “part of the solution, but it’s not the full solution,” she told conference attendees.

‘Renormalizing reuse’

Petaluma and Seattle’s examples illustrate the need for broad, systemic, infrastructural changes to allow reuse to reach its full potential, said Crystal Dreisbach, Upstream’s CEO. She pointed to polystyrene containers and trays, which have raised health concerns over contact with hot food and can be replaced with reusable alternatives yet are common in restaurants and schools. Why do we still use those?

“The answer is not because people are dumb or that’s all there is,” she said. “Really we haven’t created a system yet to make anything else possible.”

Interoperable, shareable infrastructure is essential — “It’s washing dishes, it’s transporting dishes, it’s storing dishes,” as Dreisbach put it. Businesses have been reusing pallets, crates and other back-of-house equipment for decades, she added, “and that type of reuse saves corporations an incredible amount of money.”

Upstream, Perpetual, Reloop, a fourth nonprofit called PR3 and many other groups are united in the quest to bring the same norms to customer-facing wares, Dreisbach said.
In her previous work in Durham, North Carolina, for instance, she worked with a network of partners, including a local MRF, to test out curbside collection and reuse for glass containers, the kinds used by distilleries, salsa makers and any number of other local businesses.

“They said the cost of the glass to put their stuff in was more costly to them than making the actual product,” Dreisbach said. And MRFs could benefit from joining reuse programs as well, with revenue streams that aren’t dependent on volatile commodity prices: “They can do what they do best — collect, transport, sort, redistribute — in a whole different way.”

More recently, Upstream last year received a grant from the National Park Foundation to lead a 2.5-year reuse program in Grand Canyon National Park that might be replicated in other national parks. And the Chicago Bears launched a reusable cup program at its stadium in November, which could provide an anchor venue that makes washing infrastructure accessible to schools, hospitals and other establishments, Dreisbach said. Moves like these bring reuse closer to becoming an everyday utility, much as it was decades and centuries ago.

“We’re renormalizing reuse, aren’t we?” she said, adding she prefers the word recirculation. “It creates a visual concept.”

This article appeared in the April 2025 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Resource Recycling’s annual plastics-focused edition, the Spring 2025 Plastics Recycling Update, published in March to coincide with our own Plastics Recycling Conference in National Harbor, Maryland. This year’s magazine shone a spotlight on some of the sector’s hottest topics: chemical recycling, textiles and designing for recyclability.

Below we’re republishing snippets of the edition’s feature stories; you can also find the full versions here.

The new age of textile recycling

A few generations ago, the fate of end-of-life clothing would have been an unlikely subject in a plastics recycling trade journal.

In 1960, natural fibers dominated global production, with cotton making up half of all textile fibers produced that year, according to data from textile analysis firm The Fiber Year, with other natural or cellulose-based fibers like linen, rayon and wool rounding out the mix. Synthetic fibers made up just 3% of global textile fiber produced that year.

The percentages have flipped dramatically since. In 2023, synthetic materials including polyester, which is made from PET, and polyamide — nylon — made up a whopping 68% of global textile fiber production, while cotton had fallen to 21%.

Besides the material shift, the sheer growth of clothing production is staggering: Global textile manufacturing increased nearly sevenfold from an estimated 20 million metric tons annually in 1960 to 130 million metric tons in 2023.

With the increases come a host of new considerations. End-of-life textile management is far from a new concept, spanning a long history of secondhand clothing use, repurposing and mechanical recycling. And even in the synthetic space, recycled polyester clothing has been produced — typically using mechanically recycled PET bottles — for decades. Its share of overall polyester fabric grew from 4% in 2010 to 14% in 2020, according to the nonprofit Textile Exchange, which publishes annual textile data.

But the growth in new polyester production is eclipsing the increase in mechanically recycled polyester use: After recycled polyester production’s share of overall polyester use peaked at close to 15% in 2021, it fell back to 12.5% in 2023.

Consumers have frequently followed the materials management hierarchy, which prioritizes reuse and repurposing above recycling, when faced with textile management.

“First they would wear, wear, wear, until it literally couldn’t be worn anymore,” said Marisa Adler, a senior consultant at Resource Recycling Systems and founder of the firm’s Textile Circularity Practice. “Then they would rip it up and just use it as cleaning rags in their home. And then they would finally throw it away.”

Mechanical recycling, which RRS defines as the physical form of recycling textiles in which fiber is cut, shredded, garnetted (pulled apart), melted or extruded for new manufacturing, also has a long global history. The Italian city of Prato is renowned for generations of wool recycling expertise, for example. The process involves pulling apart used wool clothing and re-spinning the wool back into a usable yarn. It uses textiles as feedstock and produces yarn for new textiles at the end. There are similar processes for cotton as well.

“There is just a maximum number of cycles you can go through, because the natural cellulosic fibers become shorter and shorter and they’re harder to spin, so it’s lower quality,” Adler said. “So you need a really good, pure, high, high-quality input in order to do a mechanical yarn-to-yarn recycling process, which is why it is not more common now.”

Mechanical recycling is more complicated for synthetic and blended fabrics. As the Textile Exchange noted in a report last year, “mechanical recycling requires clean textile inputs free from contaminants, and it is difficult to process textiles containing more than one material type.” Pulling apart and separating fabrics by their component material is costly and labor-intensive, the group added.

That’s partially why nearly all of the mechanically recycled polyester used in new textiles comes from PET bottles rather than textiles, and it’s also contributing to industry interest in chemical recycling.

The Textile Exchange, in a comprehensive report on synthetic textile recycling issued last year, cautioned that short of a dramatic reduction in production and consumer buying trends, moving away from polyester would be virtually impossible.

Amid these challenges and others, chemical recycling, the group of technologies that process a plastic down to its basic components, has emerged as what industry stakeholders say is a promising tool to cut down on one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world.

–by Colin Staub

Breaking down chemical recycling

Chemical recycling, the umbrella term for a wide array of processes that break down the molecular chains of plastic polymers, has been a contentious topic for years, drawing debate over its role, how to regulate it and where it fits into the larger picture of resource circularity.

But even stakeholders on opposite sides of the debate found common ground in recent interviews, sharing concerns that the technology has been overpromised on one hand as well as ideas for how it can complement, rather than replace, conventional mechanical recycling on the other.

“We now have routinely seen facilities operating at reduced capacity, delays getting online, things like that,” said Anja Brandon, director of plastics policy at the Ocean Conservancy, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that doesn’t support chemical recycling. Brandon cited the April 2024 closure of Agylix’s joint PS recycling venture, Regenyx, in Oregon, among other facility closures and disruptions, as evidence that the technologies aren’t the “get-out-of-jail-free card they were promised to be.”

“I think the false promises that were made of ‘we can accept all of your plastics, and it’s really cost-efficient, and you’ll get plastics back immediately’ — folks are starting to see through those lies, and because of that, some of the smart chemical recycling companies are now changing their language,” Brandon said. Now she’s hearing chemical recycling advertised as “just a part of the puzzle.”

Brian Bauer, CEO of California-based chemical recycling company Resynergi, agreed that early claims that pyrolysis could handle anything weren’t helpful. The company uses microwave energy to break down HDPE, LDPE, PP and PS and announced in February that it had raised $18 million toward commissioning its first commercial-scale chemical recycling plant.

“Some players said, ‘We can take everything,’ and it’s like — come on, guys,” Bauer said, adding that the industry needs to show people that chemical recycling works.

“Otherwise they’re feeling lied to,” he said. “We’re not making the claim we’re going to do all plastic for everyone. We’re doing our part.”

Brandon and others also agreed that chemical recycling could play a beneficial role in managing end-of-life plastics, though Brandon said that role is limited and even shrinking, while industry players took a much more ambitious view.

“A robust chemical recycling industry is essential to achieve significantly greater recycling rate targets, such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s 50% by 2030 National Recycling Goal,” Ross Eisenberg, president of American Chemistry Council’s plastics division, wrote in an email. “While mechanical recycling should be prioritized for the plastics it is suited to recycle, chemical recycling is needed for the many types of plastics that can’t enter the mechanical recycling stream.”

Chemical recycling includes processes that use heat, pressure and solvents to break polymers into liquids or gasses that can then be processed into fuels, oils, waxes, new plastics or other chemical products. It’s also commonly referred to as advanced recycling, non-mechanical recycling and molecular recycling. Whatever the term, it’s typically used to describe three main technologies: purification, depolymerization and conversion.

Purification covers technologies that use solvents to dissolve plastic and separate it out from additives. The plastic can be recovered without changing the basic molecular structure, but the process requires highly pure feed stocks and can only be used for certain types of plastic.

Depolymerization is a broad category that uses solvents, heat, catalysts or a combination thereof. It also requires pure feed stocks and is also limited to very specific types of plastics called condensation polymers, such as nylon and PET. Methanolysis, using methanol, is one of the most common types.

Conversion technology has been around for decades for turning plastic into fuel. Two types of technologies are widespread today: pyrolysis and gasification. Pyrolysis uses high heat and pressure to break apart chemical bonds in plastic to create what’s called pyrolysis oil, which can be used as fuel, to create new plastic and in other applications. Gasification uses heat and pressure to break chemical bonds to produce mainly synthetic natural gas.

Many chemical recycling companies have started up over the past five years, with companies like Cyclyx, Brightmark and PureCycle building or planning more than 1 billion pounds of processing capacity in the U.S. and other countries. There are also some oil heavyweights in the ring, such as ExxonMobil, and chemical companies such as Eastman.

Alterra, a chemical recycling company with a plant in Akron, Ohio, that has been operating since 2013, highlighted how chemical recycling could support extended producer responsibility programs by bringing less commonly recycled materials, such as multi-layer packaging and contaminated plastics, into the system.

“One of the greatest strengths of chemical recycling lies in its diversity. No single technology can process all types of discarded plastics, but collectively, chemical recycling solutions can address a wide range of materials that would otherwise go to landfill or incineration,” the company said in a written statement.

On the other hand, Brandon with the Ocean Conservancy argued that it could be beneficial to shift the focus of the chemical recycling conversation — for example, even though most of the conversation in the U.S. is about packaging, which is nearly 40% of the plastics used globally and a high contributor to marine pollution, “there are other plastics out there that we’re not talking about that will be really challenging to mechanical recycling.”

–by Marissa Heffernan

The Design Guide turns 30

In the three decades since its first printing, the Association of Plastic Recyclers Design Guide, an instruction manual for calibrating plastic packaging to best suit reclaimers’ needs, has evolved from a basic list of dos and don’ts, patched together by a handful of PET companies, to an internationally cited online litmus test of PET, HDPE, polyethylene and polypropylene recyclability.

APR, the owner of this magazine’s publisher, marked the guide’s 30th anniversary at the 2025 Plastics Recycling Conference. The inaugural APR Recycling Leadership Awards recognized packaging designers, manufacturers, researchers and innovators who have made significant contributions to the guide’s mission.

The recognition caps off years of both tinkering and overhauling, said APR Chief Operating Officer Curt Cozart, who has led those efforts for about a decade with continuous guidance from APR’s many technical committees of industry scientists and other experts.

One of the overarching goals when Cozart began was to make the guide simple and consistent. The APR team also worked to expand the guide’s scope to account for the capabilities of materials recovery facilities, covering every step of the recycling process from sorting to remanufacture.

The guide’s latest online version, unveiled last fall, allows users to search among several varieties of PET, HDPE, PE and PP and hone in on aspects of a package that range from the mundane, such as color and labeling, to the technical, including resin melt flows and densities. It then provides acceptable baselines for each as well as testing protocols and referrals to testing laboratories. In March, APR announced the guide was also translated into French, with Quebecois users in mind.

Taken together, the guide gives a packaging maker the tools to either tweak an existing product or craft an ideal one from the ground up.

“We’ve really come a long way,” Cozart said.

–by Dan Holtmeyer

This article appeared in the April 2025 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

As extended producer responsibility continues expanding in fits and starts around the U.S. — for carpet and paint here, batteries and packaging there — the implements of renewable energy are emerging as another EPR frontier.

Washington is the only state with a solar panel EPR policy in place, according to the Product Stewardship Institute, but similar bills have been proposed this year in Connecticut, New York, and Georgia, and New York’s Niagara County has had its own scaled-down version since 2022. A proposal covering wind turbine blades has been introduced in Illinois, and another for both solar and wind is up for consideration in Minnesota.

EPR policies in general require the manufacturers of certain goods to contribute money and other resources toward programs that collect and recycle those items, often in increasing proportions over time.

“The reason I brought this bill, when a lot was happening with green energy, was because I knew there needed to be a plan for the end of life for this stuff,” said Minnesota State Rep. Peggy Scott (R-Andover), adding she wants to avoid a repeat of a $22 million hazardous waste cleanup in her district several years ago. “These blades are huge. And I knew there were some pretty powerful chemicals involved.”

The original language of Scott’s bill would have mandated producers of these renewable energy systems to implement a product stewardship program for the collection and recycling of discarded materials and prohibited the sale of such products in the state unless producers were part of a stewardship plan approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Progress on the renewables EPR front has been bumpy and uneven, however. Shortly after Scott’s bill was introduced, she enacted a delete-all amendment, which stripped out everything except a moratorium on disposing of wind and solar infrastructure in landfills, pointing to a recent report from the MPCA on the topic that she and other state officials are reviewing.

“In talking to the MPCA, they were supportive of the plan and thought it was an important first step, but they needed more time to figure out if this needed to be done with legislation or more administratively,” Scott added. “I think more will happen in the future. People want this to be addressed, and I told the MPCA I want to continue to work with them on this.”

And while Washington’s law was approved in 2017, the state has yet to enforce it, said Dave Bennett, communications manager for the solid waste management program run by the state’s Department of Ecology.

The Photovoltaic Module Stewardship and Takeback Program requires solar panel manufacturers to provide a convenient, environmentally sound recycling system for panels bought after the law’s passage. It also requires manufacturers of panels sold in the state to have a state-approved stewardship in plan as of July 1, 2025. Noncompliance carries a fine of up to $10,000 per panel sale.

“Many solar panel manufacturers missed the July 2024 deadline to submit a stewardship plan,” Bennett said. “While (the Department of) Ecology is working to bring manufacturers into compliance, we believe the majority will continue to disregard the law or decide to stop selling panels into Washington.”

Challenging panels

Solar panels and wind turbine blades contain valuable metals and highly refined semiconductor materials that can be recovered and used in new products. But both are currently difficult to recycle through existing methods due to their durability and composite construction. More than two-thirds of panels meet the legal definition of hazardous waste under the EPA, according to Scott’s office.

“One of the most pressing concerns with improper solar panel disposal is the presence of hazardous metals, including lead, cadmium and selenium,” said Brett C. Henderson, CEO and co-founder of Solar Panel Recycling, which has facilities in North Carolina, Georgia and Texas.

“Solar panels are designed to be durable and well-encapsulated, making them safe while in use on rooftops or in the field,” Henderson said. “However, when a panel’s protective encapsulation is compromised — whether through improper landfill disposal or incomplete recycling practices — the risks increase significantly.”

Beyond environmental pollution, the landfill disposal of solar panels is a growing concern due to capacity constraints as more and more panels reach their end of life, he added.

New York’s Niagara County became the first local government in the U.S. to pass an extended producer responsibility law relating to solar panels. As of Aug. 1, 2022, Local Law No. 4 requires all manufacturers of solar panels to finance the takeback and recycling of photovoltaic modules.

The county was home to several environmental mishaps, most notably the Love Canal toxic chemical dump that was discovered leaking in Niagara Falls in the 1970s. That “unsettling environmental legacy,” along with the state’s growing solar energy presence, prompted action, said Dawn Timm, director of the county’s Division of Environmental and Solid Waste. New York is ninth in cumulative solar production in the nation, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

“The (county) Legislature made an effort to preserve the long-term environmental legacy of the community amid the proliferation of solar development,” Timm said. “We’re taking proactive steps now to prevent mismanagement in the future.”

Companies must come into compliance within 30 days of their first solar panel sale in the county by developing a stewardship plan to ensure panels are taken back safely and at no additional cost to residents. Plans must include:

• A description of how manufacturers will finance and adequately fund the takeback and recycling system.
• Details on how the program will minimize the release of hazardous substances and maximize the recovery of components.
• Stipulations for product takeback at convenient locations within the county.
• Performance goals requiring 100% of panels recaptured by 2026 and 85% of that material being recycled by 2031.
• Assurances of enough available money to finance the program.
• Annual reports documenting implementation.

The law charges companies $1,000 for an initial stewardship plan fee and then $250 per year afterward. Violations carry a penalty of up to $100 per module per day. The county can also seek injunctions against developers that continue projects without a plan.

The law was written in conjunction with the Product Stewardship Institute, a nonprofit that works to reduce the impact of consumer products on health and the environment.

“Solar panel recycling is a new frontier, and as the first generation of solar panels comes out of commission, this type of forward-thinking policy will be needed by other communities, counties and states,” said Scott Cassel, PSI’s CEO.

To date, the county has approved nine plans, Timm said — one manufacturer plan, for LG Electronics, and eight project-specific approvals.

“As the first in the nation to establish such a law, Niagara County has continuously responded to the curiosity of other states, governments and related organizations by providing insight and feedback about our experiences,” Timm said. “Early on, developers and installers were less than pleased. However, we have demonstrated a reasonable approach to implementation and feel we equally support development while preserving the integrity of our community.”

Mixed perspectives

Henderson at Solar Panel Recycling said that while EPR has proven effective in electronics recycling, he has concerns about its practicality and overall effectiveness in the solar industry, and a straightforward landfill ban on solar panels would be more effective.
North Carolina has a ban on solar disposal in construction and demolition facilities that goes into effect this December, for example, and a broader landfill ban has been proposed in Illinois this session.

“This would naturally drive stakeholders — including manufacturers, asset owners, true solar recyclers and collectors — to develop the most efficient methods for collection and proper recycling,” he said. “An open-market approach would drive continuous research, development and innovation in solar recycling and collection, fostering the most efficient and cost-effective solutions without the constraints of EPR mandates.”

One of his concerns is the effectiveness of enforcing EPR policies on foreign solar manufacturers, who produce the vast majority of panels sold in the U.S., based on data from the U.S. International Trade Commission. He said the greatest improvements could come from innovating new applications for recovered materials, such as refining silicon into nanoparticles for various industrial applications.

A.J. Orben, co-founder of We Recycle Solar, a Yuma, Arizona-based company that handles recycling of solar panels and often advises on proposed state policy, noted that outside of Washington the cost of recycling is borne by the asset holder.

“It’s costly,” he said. “The economics don’t make sense. It costs more to break the panels down than the value of the recovered materials.”

Balancing that math is one of Washington’s struggles, Bennett said, along with limited recycling options in the Pacific Northwest and hazardous material concerns. A pair of bills before the state legislature in March would let the industry continue to operate legally in Washington while fixes are developed, delaying the effective date until at least 2028.

“Our legislative proposal will establish a facilitated advisory committee to identify concerns with the law and develop recommendations to overcome setbacks,” Bennett said.

“Modifying the law will make the solar takeback program stronger and remove barriers to increased deployment of solar in Washington, helping the state achieve clean energy goals.”

But not everyone agrees that more time is needed. The Energy Fair Trade Coalition, a nonprofit advocating for accountability in the energy sector, sent a letter to Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in October calling for immediate enforcement of the law. Executive Director Bret Manley cited a potential recycling cost of up to $67.5 million for panels that have been sold in Washington since 2017, a cost companies aren’t on the hook for.

“This glaring oversight threatens consumers’ ability to responsibly recycle their solar panels,” he said in the letter. “Washington resources are precious, and ensuring a clean environment for future generations is paramount.”

A solution for wind turbines

It’s no coincidence Minnesota is considering turbine EPR, as the state and its neighbor to the south have been the site of several disputes over wind turbine disposal.

In September the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission extracted a pledge from wind power developer NextEra Energy to move dumped turbine blades after several years of complaints. Around the same time, the Iowa attorney general filed suit against Global Fiberglass Solutions, a blade-recycling venture based in Washington, over claims of improper blade disposal.

Wind turbine blades primarily consist of fiberglass, balsa wood and foam, along with other trace material that is held in shape using an epoxy resin. But blades have been notoriously difficult to recycle because of the epoxy resin that coats the fiberglass, said Jeff Woods, director of business development for Regen Fiber in Fairfax, Iowa.

The company recycles end-of-life wind turbine blades and virgin scrap material left over from wind blade manufacturing to create reinforcement fibers for industrial applications. Additionally, the company operates a facility in Des Moines that recycles scrap from new blades and maintains a blade processing plant in Lubbock, Texas. Its products can be used in concrete, asphalt and composite applications.

Regen’s recycling process is mechanical, with blades arriving at its facilities after shredding. Instead of trying to remove the resin, which can be a chemically and energetically intensive process, the company takes advantage of the epoxy’s positive benefits like alkali resistance and added strength and durability.

“We’re addressing a critical need in the wind industry by offering a truly sustainable recycling solution that diverts blades from landfills or being burned,” Woods said.