Question Title

1. Please provide your name. (Required.)

Question Title

2. Please provide the name of the organization you represent. (Required.)

Question Title

3. What interest holder group best represents you? Select all that apply. (Required.)

Question Title

4. General Eco-Modulation: Do you support implementing additional, attribute-based (ex. carbon black plastics, intentionally added PFAS, flame retardants and toxic materials, etc.) eco-modulation measures in Oregon, including both incentives and disincentives, beyond the current LCA bonus program and fee adjustments?

Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

5. High Recycling Rate Bonus: A proposed bonus would reduce producer fees for materials that achieve high recycling rates in Oregon. The intent is to encourage the use of materials that are successfully recovered and recycled.

Do you support providing fee reductions for materials with high recycling rates?

Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

6. Non-Recyclability Material Malus A: A proposed malus would apply to materials designated as "Not-Accepted" (excluding SIMs – Specifically Identified Materials) in Oregon's recycling system.

Do you support charging higher fees for packaging materials that are not accepted (and that are not SIMs) in Oregon's recycling system?

Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

7. Eco-Design Improvement Bonus: A proposed bonus would reward producers that redesign packaging to improve recyclability based on recognized recyclability design standards.

Do you support a bonus for packaging redesigns that improve recyclability based on recognized recyclability design standards?

Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

8. Eco-Design Improvement Bonus: Which packaging design improvements, if any, do you believe should receive the highest bonus values?

Question Title

9. Detrimental Elements/ Hazardous Materials Malus: A proposed malus would apply to packaging containing certain problematic materials or additives (such as PFAS, oxo-degradable additives, PVC elements or undetectable carbon black plastics).

Do you support higher fees for packaging that contains materials known to disrupt recycling or create environmental concerns?

Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

10. Detrimental Elements/ Hazardous Materials Malus: Do you believe some packaging attributes should be subject to higher malus penalties than others?

Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

11. Post-Consumer Recycled Content (PCR) Bonus: A proposed bonus would reduce fees for packaging containing post-consumer recycled content. The bonus could vary based on factors such as material-specific thresholds, certifications obtained and/or geographic source of input material.

How important is it to incentivize the use of PCR content in Packaging?

Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

12. Post-Consumer Recycled Content (PCR) Bonus: Which bonus eligibility requirements should there by for material awarded the PCR bonus? (select all that apply)

Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

13. CAA is considering an eco-modulation bonus for packaging that provides residents with clear and accurate instructions on where and how to manage packaging at end of life (e.g., curbside recycling, depot return, or disposal). The incentive could apply to on-pack labels and/or digital solutions.

Do you support introducing this type of incentive?

Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

14. LCA Bonuses: Do you support increasing the LCA bonus values? Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

15. If the bonus values were increased, how likely would you be to apply for the LCA Bonus? Additional comments are welcome.

Question Title

16. Are there any other eco-modulation factors you feel are important to consider, and why?

T