NAED, NAW React to Oregon Recycling Law Decision

Following last week’s decision by a federal judge in Oregon to uphold the state’s recyling law, both NAED and NAW issued the following statements:

NAED Statement on Oregon’s EPR Ruling:

Wes Smith, president and CEO of the National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED), issued the following statement in response to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon’s decision in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon.

“The National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED) is disappointed by the federal district court’s decision upholding Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act in the case brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW).

NAED supports responsible efforts to reduce packaging waste and improve recycling. However, ordinary warehousing, transportation, and order-fulfillment activities should not, by themselves, trigger EPR obligations.

Furthermore, the court’s decision does not eliminate concerns relating to Oregon’s unclear producer definitions, opaque fee-setting, and procedures for reviewing and challenging assessments.

Poorly designed EPR programs risk unfairly burdening distributors, will complicate supply-chain operations, and will increase costs for consumers. NAED will continue to forcefully advocate for our members against programs which impose unnecessary costs, inconsistent definitions, or unclear compliance obligations.”

NAW Statement:

NAW Stands Firm Against Unconstitutional EPR Mandates Following Oregon Decision

NAW strongly disagrees with the district court’s decision in NAW v. Feldon, the first federal case to test the constitutionality of a state Extended Producer Responsibility law. While we are disappointed with the outcome, we were prepared for it. District courts are generally reluctant to overturn laws enacted by state legislatures, and we have always understood that this is part of a bigger fight. NAW is reviewing its options for next steps.

The court’s ruling does not change the facts established at trial or NAW’s position that these laws are unconstitutional. Oregon’s law forces businesses to join a state-approved Producer Responsibility Organization and pay mandatory packaging fees as a condition of doing business in the state. NAW’s Legal Policy Center challenged the law because it gives a private, self-interested organization extraordinary fee-setting authority without meaningful oversight or an effective avenue for businesses to challenge its decisions.

NAW members testified that they received invoices months after the underlying sales occurred, based on rates they could not predict or verify. Oregon’s own regulator confirmed under oath that it had never seen the algorithm used to calculate those fees and could not reconstruct the calculations. In our view, the trial record demonstrated exactly what the Constitution prohibits: a state compelling businesses to pay nearly unchallengeable packaging taxes dictated by a private organization operating without adequate transparency or accountability.

The district court’s ruling is not the final word. NAW remains committed to challenging these unconstitutional laws and protecting businesses from regulatory schemes that impose mandatory costs without adequate accountability or meaningful recourse. As NAW considers its next steps in Oregon, we will continue making that case in our challenges to similar EPR laws in California and Colorado.