DELL AND HP FIRM ON ALTERNATIVE E-WASTE FINANCING MODEL

Dell and HP, both of which have their own recycling infrastructures in place, oppose fees on their products and are seeking flexibility in how they are collected and recycled. However, others, mostly TV manufacturers, are opposed to exempting some products from fees, sources said.

The EIA is working with manufacturers on language that would allow for the kind of flexibility sought by HP and Dell, Environment Affairs Dir. Heather Bowman said. She said she was confident that the Portland meeting would come up with a “guidance document” suggesting federal legislation that “embodies the idea of an advance recovery fee with the flexibility to have an alternative option” so manufacturers that wanted not to have a fee on their products could comply with their collection and recycling obligations in a different way.

Complaining about a recent “slacking off” in manufacturer commitment, state representatives were less optimistic. States were interested in working with HP and Dell on an “opt-out” provision in any NEPSI agreement that the companies could be part of, said Scott Cassel, dir. of the Product Stewardship Institute and representative of states on NEPSI. The problem, he said, was that over the last 6 months there had no been no opt-out proposal that industry as a whole could agree on: “We keep hearing that there is no alternative system to which all the manufacturers have agreed on. There seems to be an impasse within the industry itself.” The govt. group could entertain an opt-out proposal that moved toward more individual responsibility, he said, because that would give greater incentive for design changes. “That’s something that the government group would be interested in seeing,” he said, “but we have not seen a proposal that has the nod from all the manufacturers.”

Saying the HP and Dell proposal wasn’t an opt-out but an alternative to the fee approach, Bowman conceded that the delay in formulating a proposal was the difficulty in coming up with language that “suggests a voluntary approach that’s mandated.” However, she said she was working with manufacturers on “some language and I think we are almost there.” Bowman said she expected to have language ready by the Feb. meeting, although “we may not at that point have the actual legislative language put together.” The flexibility to have an alternative system would find mention in the memorandum of understanding (MOU), she said. Asked whether she was confident that the EIA could get the manufacturers to resolve their differences over the financing model by next month’s meeting, she said EIA was a stakeholder to help the member companies, but it wasn’t seeking to build a consensus. “So if there is a difference between our membership, whether or not it is a right approach, we just kind of step back so that they can voice their opinions directly.”

Opt-out is one of the key issues for HP, Public Policy Dir. David Isaacs told us: “We do not support a fee and therefore we want some system that gives us the flexibility to run our own recycling program.” That, he said, would be the “key determinant” for HP whether would sign on to any NEPSI agreement. However, there were “some prospects for success,” he said, and “we are hopeful that we will be able to reach resolution.” Dell is working on an opt-out proposal, spokesman Bryant Hilton said, because “one-size-fits-all is not necessarily the answer.” Saying Dell had been more involved in NEPSI now than in the past, he said the key to an agreement would be offering “some flexibility on how we address this [e-waste] problem.” Because different companies might come up with different solutions to the problem, he said, “it’s important that we allow some flexibility and reward the behavior of recycling.” There also would have to be assurance that any solution didn’t burden consumers with extra costs, Hilton said.

“It’s very hard to say” whether an agreement would emerge at the Feb. meeting, Cassel said. That was in part because many issues remained unresolved, he said: “We have not developed performance goals for the system, we haven’t worked out the uniformity issues and the preemption issues that are so critical for the manufacturers who want to make sure that there is no duplication on the states’ part or multiple advance recycling fees.” The scope of products to be covered also hasn’t been determined. “So there is a number of very big items that need to be addressed and we have only 5 weeks to the last meeting to make some very real positions.” That, he said, was a “tall hurdle” to come up against.

There also has been some reluctance on the part of the manufacturers to “engage” with the govt. group without the Environmental Protection Agency’s participation, Cassel said. The EPA had pulled out of the NEPSI process citing rules that forbade its staff from being associated with any lobbying activity for legislation. EIA’s Bowman agreed that the EPA’s pullout “certainly has had an impact” on manufacturers. The industry was concerned that if EPA wasn’t a signatory to the MOU, and wasn’t going to “help us in promoting this idea, I'm not sure where it’s going to go.” However, she wouldn’t let that stop the group from putting together “something that makes sense and be a step forward,” she said. It was hoped that the EPA could be convinced later that “this is the right way to go and that the Administration should get involved if that is what all the companies want,” Bowman said.

Asked whether the govt. group would sign on to an agreement even if a sizable number of manufacturers opted to stay out, Cassel said if a significant number of manufacturers didn’t sign on, states would have to assume any legislation that would come out of it would have a very weak chance of passage and “they need to put their effort into multiple, diverse state legislation.” Bowman called on all stakeholders to “compromise in ways that will allow us to sign on to it [agreement].”