Chair Lively convened an informational session of the House Interim Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment to review implementation of the Recycling Modernization Act and hear industry testimony.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality official Cheryl Grabham summarized the RMA’s shared‑responsibility model: producers join a producer responsibility organization (PRO) that establishes collection networks and reports to DEQ, while DEQ oversees program effectiveness. She described two statutory exemption paths: a small‑producer exemption (for example, firms with under $5,000,000 gross revenue or fewer than 1 metric ton sold into Oregon in the most recent year) and product‑specific exemptions created through rulemaking. DEQ has opened a rulemaking period for producers to request exemptions in 2025–2026, and the Oregon Recycling System Advisory Council may provide recommendations during that process.

Kim Holmes, Oregon executive director of the Circular Action Alliance (the state’s PRO), told lawmakers the program has registered more than 2,600 producers and is already investing in system expansion. Holmes said the PRO has ordered more than 16,000 recycling carts, distributed about $8 million to material‑recovery facilities, put $2 million toward local contamination‑reduction work, launched pilot recycling centers in Southern Oregon, and anticipates at least 20 collection centers open by year‑end and roughly 140 statewide by 2027. Holmes said the PRO is building a contamination audit center expected to audit about 1,200 samples per year to inform data‑driven improvements.

Holmes also reported the 2026 budget developed by the PRO is coming in roughly 20% under the costs estimated in the program plan, and provided a per‑ton cost estimate of about $462 to $493 for producers depending on the year. She described a compliance workflow that includes direct outreach to identified obligated producers, a 90‑day period for them to register and report, and subsequent notification to DEQ if they do not comply.

Industry witnesses described differing concerns and requests. Jana McKamey of the Oregon Winegrowers Association supported the program’s goals but urged changes to how wine glass is treated. McKamey said the program’s classification of certain glass as a “specifically identified material” (SIM) imposes higher costs on wineries even though she argued Oregon’s glass recycling rate and end markets are strong; she noted the current glass fee in the program is 10¢ per pound (about 10–20¢ per wine bottle) and said winery members face additional administrative costs and potentially unrealistic annual life‑cycle study requirements to qualify for fee discounts.

Jeremy Jones of the American Coatings Association described PaintCare’s 15‑year program in Oregon (about 194 year‑round collection sites, roughly 650,000 gallons of paint collected annually and 98.3% of residents living within 15 miles of a site) and said his group has filed for DEQ exemptions that would recognize existing paint stewardship activities and better align aerosol and paint container handling.

Rick Tomlinson of the California Strawberry Commission defended PET thermoform clamshells as a recyclable packaging stream and warned that RMA fees and the lack of an implemented recycled‑content credit could meaningfully affect slim agricultural profit margins, in some cases prompting brand owners to stop shipping to Oregon or to raise prices. Terry Grill of the Coalition for Protein Packaging requested a categorical exemption for raw protein contact packaging, citing contamination and food‑safety concerns and pointing to other states’ carve‑outs and a referenced economic analysis used to underline the potential public‑health stakes.

Committee members asked for more information on early outcome metrics and comparisons with other states. DEQ and the PRO said they can follow up with comparisons (Holmes offered to supply a Colorado fee comparison) and more detailed implementation numbers. Chair Lively closed the panel and said the committee will continue to follow up in January.

The testimony outlined both operational progress—new collection infrastructure, audit capacity and producer registrations—and industry requests for targeted adjustments, exemptions, and financial relief tied to the way specific materials are classified under RMA.