MAJORITY OF STATES AND MANUFACTURERS SUPPORT NEPSI PACT

Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Dell didn’t support the concept of a hybrid financing system, sources said. Consolation was that they didn’t walk away from dialog, but agreed to continue to work with other stakeholders, they said. Environmental groups and state of Cal. also didn’t agree with majority, but state and local govts. offered to address concerns of dissenting parties while developing hybrid financing model, sources said.

“I think there was an explicit agreement [at NEPSI meeting] to try to address our concerns,” HP Public Policy Dir. David Isaacs told us. It wasn’t accurate to say that HP wasn’t part of agreement, he said: “There are some areas of disagreement among the various stakeholders and I think there is some overlap in our concept of what we should be doing going forward.” Sources said HP and Dell had opposed ARF, favoring partial cost internalization system that had no fee on it. Govt. groups were wary of such a system because that would have them covering costs of transporting obsolete products to consolidation point, they said. IBM supported ARF but not partial cost internalization, sources said.

Isaacs said there was “some agreement” with HP’s position as well as disagreement, “particularly with regard to whether the states should have a fee or not.” HP would continue to “try to work things through” in NEPSI, he said, but in meantime “we will be also working with the states that are considering legislation and trying to play a constructive role there as well.”

“I would say that most of the states were comfortable with this [agreement], or all the states except California,” said Scott Cassel, dir. of Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) and representative of state govts. on NEPSI. Cal. Environmental Protection Agency represented by Integrated Waste Management Board had floated alternative proposal at meeting that would be based on partial cost internalization with concurrent partial ARF to cover “orphan” wastes and other govt. costs. While govt. groups responded well to Cal. proposal, it met with opposition from manufacturers, he said.

Environmental groups said they saw little chance anything would emerge from the NEPSI process and urged states to move ahead with plans to resolve electronics waste (e-waste) issue. “There was a lot of pressure to try to keep this thing [NEPSI] afloat so it wouldn’t completely fall apart,” said Ted Smith, dir. of Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and NEPSI delegate representing environmental groups. Through Seattle agreement, NEPSI stakeholders succeeded in keeping dialog from falling apart, he said, but “they did it in such a way that things are fragmented in so many directions, and its pretty hard to see anything coming out.”

Agreement on hybrid model didn’t make sense, Smith told us, because it lacked “commitment to ever get to cost internalization.” It was written “very carefully” to “guarantee that it may never get there,” he said. Seattle meeting concluded with “several pages of to-do list” to be dealt with in next 6 months, he said. Even if a final draft emerges, Congress isn’t ready for this, Smith said. “There is no way that this is going through Congress. Our message is that you have to step up the work going on at the state level if anything is going to happen in the near term.”

“We cannot have a system go forward that does not include the major computer manufacturers,” said Sego Jackson, principal planner of Snohomish County (Wash.) and local govts.’ representative on NEPSI. Most govts., except for Cal., find hybrid financing model “acceptable option,” he said, although it isn’t necessarily preference for how it should be done. Agreement was good step forward, he said: “What we haven’t resolved is how we are going to deal with the whole product area.” NEPSI process will continue, Jackson said, admitting that there were “still obviously chances for total meltdown.”

Asked about charge by environmental groups that agreement lacked commitment to get to cost internalization, Cassel said transition language still needed to be worked out. Goal, he said, was to move toward type of cost internalization that would provide design incentives for products. However, govt. group wants ARF because it would cover orphan products and it would enable govts. to start their programs immediately upon implementation. But one of the biggest questions facing stakeholders is how likely is federal legislation, he said. In addition to working details such as transition goals for collection and recycling, state preemption to make system uniform nationally, verifying list of products covered and standards for recyclers, “we have to be concerned whether or not this can pass Congress,” Cassel said: “So California and other states will continue to work on their legislation and our organization [PSI] will certainly assist them in their efforts.” But in terms of national framework, NEPSI now has agreement that meets needs of a majority of states, he said.

“Overwhelming majority” of NEPSI stakeholders endorsed hybrid model, NEPSI spokeswoman said. Asked whether there was time frame for final agreement on financing model, she said it was proposed to have agreement by end of year. EPA has made it clear that it wouldn’t be able to fund NEPSI beyond end of year.

Generally, more TV manufacturers support ARF type of system, while on computer side more back cost-internalization system that they can design to take back their own products and recycle them in manner they consider fit, EIA Environmental Affairs Mgr. Jason Linnell said. Although hybrid model wasn’t best outcome that industry would have wanted, it had elements of compromise for 2 industry positions, he said: “We are glad that NEPSI took that step forward and did come up with one model to work on.” However, echoing position of other stakeholders, he said there were some very important details still to be worked out by end of year.

State and local govts. have they said they would like to have ability to charge upfront fee or ARF even after transition to partial cost-internalization to cover costs of collection and consolidation, Linnell said: “That is something we are very concerned about. We would not support a program like that.” EIA was “very positive” about chances that final agreement would come out of NEPSI by year end, he said. But that needed support of all stakeholders, especially states and non-govt. groups, he said. Asked whether he felt confident that differences within industry group could be resolved, Linnell said that besides consultations in NEPSI, lot of discussion were being held within industry and “they are making progress.” Very fact that NEPSI was able to work out hybrid with advantages for both sides of industry divide was “positive step forward,” he said. However, much of how industry’s position shapes up will depend on conditions such as fate of Cal. and Mass. e-waste legislation, Linnell said: “That could affect some of the companies’ positions.”