The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (PRRIA), a bill designed to curb plastic pollution by imposing fees on companies for waste, failed to secure a vote in the New york assembly. Despite having 78 sponsors—enough to pass with two votes to spare—the bill was not brought to a vote by Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie.
The bill has been a contentious issue for three years, pitting powerful industry groups against environmental advocates and some Democratic lawmakers. The failure to vote on the bill has raised questions about the influence of lobbying and the transparency of the legislative process.
Lobbying Efforts and Close Ties to the Speaker
Environmental advocates have criticized Heastie for not bringing the bill to a vote, citing intense lobbying efforts against the bill. Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics, expressed disappointment that the bill had sat on the Assembly floor since January. She argued that supporters of the bill were outgunned and outspent by special interests.
At least three lobbyists who oppose the bill have close ties to Heastie. In late May, Rebecca Lamorte, a lobbyist romantically linked to Heastie, led a rally opposing the bill. Lamorte, who works for the lobbying firm Brown and Weinraub, represents numerous clients opposed to the bill. At the rally, she urged attendees to Don’t pass PRRIA.
Lamorte is not listed as a lobbyist for the clients opposed to the bill in the firm’s lobbying filings. Heastie’s office has not responded to questions about whether he has adopted a conflict-of-interest policy concerning Lamorte’s new position at Brown and Weinraub.
Other Influential Lobbyists
Patrick Jenkins, one of Heastie’s campaign advisers, also lobbied against the bill. Jenkins, who has been a close friend and former college roommate of Heastie, disclosed lobbying on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, a group staunchly opposed to the bill. Jenkins claimed that he was successful in convincing many members of the Assembly that the bill was not in their best interest.
The American Chemistry Council has spent millions of dollars lobbying against the bill. Last fall, the group facilitated visits for lawmakers to tour advanced recycling plants in Atlanta. Jenkins declined to specify whether he or his lobbying firm played a role in facilitating the trips or to say which lawmakers attended.
The Bill’s Provisions and Industry Opposition
The PRRIA sought to decrease single-use packaging by 30 percent over 12 years, charge companies for those materials, and ban the use of suspected cancer-causing chemicals in the manufacturing of plastic. The money generated from the fees would have gone toward supporting municipal recycling infrastructure across the state.
The chemical industry has pushed for so-called advanced or chemical recycling to count toward companies’ reductions. These technologies use heat and solvents to break plastics down into fuel and other plastics. Environmental advocates generally oppose chemical recycling because it creates hazardous waste and other pollutants.
Industry lobbyists argue that the bill would increase costs that would be passed on to consumers. Advocates, however, contend that it would shift waste collection costs from consumers to manufacturers.
Heastie’s Decision and Legislative Culture
This is the third year in a row that Heastie has not brought the bill to a vote. In the last two legislative sessions, the bill passed the Senate but did not make it out of the Assembly. This year’s delayed budget gave lawmakers just a few days to pass non-budget bills, and the Senate chose not to vote on the bill either.
Heastie has stated that he does not bring bills to the floor that do not have the support of the majority of the Assembly Democratic conference or enough votes to pass the full chamber. However, the vote-counting process largely happens behind closed doors, making it difficult for the public to know why any particular piece of legislation dies.
The developments reflect Albany’s well-established culture of secrecy. Heastie allowed his members to avoid taking a potentially controversial vote, keeping any concerns about the legislation from becoming public three weeks ahead of Assembly primary elections.
The Impact of Lobbying and Future Prospects
Some lawmakers emphasized that despite the bill’s support on paper, industry and business lobbying seemed to have hit home with some lawmakers who face elections this month. Assemblymember Anna Kelles, who cosponsored the bill, suggested that some co-sponsors may have become reluctant to vote for it.
Assemblymember Dana Levenberg, another co-sponsor, blamed the industry for pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into lobbying efforts to convince her colleagues that the bill would raise prices in grocery stores and for their constituents. Senator Pete Harckham, who introduced the bill alongside Assemblymember Deborah Glick, stated that he would continue working with all stakeholders out of session to refine the bill and address the concerns of Assembly members.
The failure of the PRRIA to secure a vote highlights the complex interplay of lobbying, legislative culture, and political relationships in Albany. As the state grapples with its growing waste crisis, the future of plastics legislation remains uncertain.