NEPSI MEETS IN SEATTLE FOR CRUCIAL SESSION

But with industry group split over financing model and with disagreements among other stakeholders, chances of model’s emerging that’s embraced by most of key players appears remote at best. Some stakeholders, especially from govt. group, are apprehensive that even if agreement came out of meeting, kind of support it would get from key industry would cast doubt on its viability. But what govt. group called good news emerged with the announcement of Apple and Dell participation in Seattle meeting. “That’s fine with all of us. Much preferred actually,” said Sego Jackson, principal planner of Snohomish County (Wash.) and local govt. representative on NEPSI. “It will be the first time that either of them are there and not participating through the EIA,” said Scott Cassel, dir. of the Product Steward Institute (PSI) and representative of state govts. on NEPSI. Their participation would show “stepped-up level of commitment from them,” he said.

“It’s hard to predict anything,” EIA Environment Policy Dir. Heather Bowman said of today’s meeting. She admitted the industry group was split on the 2 models that the subgroup had narrowed down for consideration of full NEPSI body. Differences existed within industry group, she said, because of “different business models and because of the different ways that the companies are doing business and what some companies can do that other companies can’t do.” “Political viability” of advance recycling fee (ARF) model that calls for including costs of collection and recycling in purchase price of product is “something we question,” Bowman said: “Even if it [ARF] is a much-preferred option of some of our members, it may not be politically viable.” As for 2nd model that envisages ARF to start with and then transitions to partial cost internalization, she said group would have to come up with financing system other than ARF to cover govt. costs. That was preferred model of part of industry, she said. Calling on states to “step up and do their part,” Bowman blamed environmental groups for becoming involved in NEPSI to get manufacturers “to do everything.” Industry had made it clear that only thing it was willing to work toward was “something that is based on shared responsibility where everyone plays their part working on their core competencies.”

Hewlett-Packard, whose willingness to support state e-waste legislation has changed dynamics of Cal. e-waste bill, has all but rejected 2 financing proposals under consideration at NEPSI. Enunciating company’s position, HP Public Policy Dir. David Isaacs had said that company supported partial cost internalization (PCI) model under which manufacturers would internalize part of recycling and transportation costs into their cost of doing business and local govts. could pick up the rest of the costs to pay for collection and transportation. “We are disappointed by the lack of progress in the [NEPSI] process to date, but we recognize this is a complex, difficult issue and it takes time to work out a comprehensive solution,” he said. HP would have “preferred to work with NEPSI” to achieve a consensus, Isaacs said, but “HP is actively working in a constructive manner with California and other states to develop state recycling laws that promote the efficient, environmentally sound management of used electronics. We will continue that work whether or not NEPSI continues to move forward.”

Panasonic’s David Thompson said he was hopeful that consensus agreement could be reached and “we can continue to move forward toward enacting that agreement.” Panasonic is comfortable with 2 models under consideration, he said. Asked whether process could move forward given opposition to models by companies such as HP, Thompson said: “All I can say is that I will do my best [at meeting] to be conciliatory and compromising and I hope that we can all do the same.”

“I honestly don’t know,” Jackson said in response to question whether he expected agreement to emerge from meeting. There could either be major agreement, complete collapse of NEPSI, or “we could limp along with a couple of options,” he said. However, NEPSI is supposed to get to single model that it could pursue after meeting, he said. Some stakeholders weren’t happy with either of 2 models on table, he said. HP for one wasn’t satisfied and neither were nonprofit groups, he said. Of HP’s opposition, Jackson said company had had more than year to “sell everyone else on what they would like and they really have not been forthcoming with helping solve some of the various stakeholder concerns.” If NEPSI fails to reach agreement, Jackson said, “you can expect a lot of state legislation.” And that would be unfortunate, he said, because NEPSI afforded every stakeholder opportunity to come up with viable national solution.

While there’s hope for agreement, the question is to what degree that agreement will represent full range of stakeholders, Cassel said. “I would like to think that we can satisfy as wide a range of voices as possible, including those from the environmental community and those manufacturers who prefer cost internalization,” he said. But that would take “bending” on all sides, he said. Asked whether solution based on agreement that didn’t include major players such as HP would be viable, he said manufacturers should agree on industrywide solution. Split in industry has made it difficult to form agreement, he said. Even if agreement did emerge from meeting, “we will not know what percentage of the industry would be represented in support of that agreement,” Cassel said: “It will be helpful for us to get greater clarity at the meeting as to what percentage of industry would be supportive of any agreement that we are able to reach.”

Two financing models on table aren’t preference of govt. agencies either, he said. But they were recommended by NEPSI subgroup as having greatest chance of getting agreement from widest range of stakeholders. “So that’s how we are left with these 2 models that are on the table.” On EIA call to govts. to step up to their responsibility, Cassel said what industry was saying was that govt. must “step up to the plate and share financial responsibility. They are also saying that governments need to be prepared to raise taxes to expand government programs to meet needs created by their products. That’s the way the government agencies hear that statement that governments need to share in the financial responsibility.” If agreement emerges from meeting, states would have opportunity to work on individual state legislation until there’s a “defined piece” of national legislation, Cassel said: “I would expect there to be a greater focus on state legislation without a national agreement.”

Environmentalists have all but given up hope that anything workable will come out of NEPSI, said Mark Murray, exec. dir. of Californians Against Waste (CAW), the prime sponsor of Cal. e- waste legislation (SB-20) that has passed state Senate. Some industry representatives had referred to “potential viability of a NEPSI solution” in their opposition to SB-20, he said in statement: “I'm sure there will be some desperate attempts to keep the dialog alive as a foil against state legislation in California and elsewhere.” Industry is trying to “coax” some of state govt. representatives with talk of “some kind of vague/modest” national advance disposal fee proposal, he said: “The environmentalists aren’t buying and neither are most of the government types. Even if a plurality of NEPSI participants accept an ADF proposal, there is little likelihood that Congress or the Administration will take it on.”