The University could be affected by a new law which holds municipalities and manufacturers responsible for the collection and recycling of old computer monitors and televisions, and places a six dollar per unit fee on the retail sale of all televisions.
The concern is that computer vendors may be reluctant to do business in a state where it is required to pay for producing and recycling its products as well.
The bill passed 34 to 1 on April 16 in The Maine State Senate was nationally controversial and the only one of its kind in the states.
University Computing Technologies is responsible for approximately 500 computers on the USM campuses. UCT replaces about 125 of these a year, which means that the department buys about 125 new computers every year.
Mert Nickerson, director of University Computing Technologies, says he does not know if the vendors who currently sell to USM plan to comply with this new regulation.
Hewlett-Packard has publicly supported the bill. Bryant Hilton, Spokesperson for Dell, said in a phone interview that the law probably wouldn’t stop that company from selling to the University.
“I can’t imagine that we won’t comply with the terms of the law,” Bryant said. He added that legislation of this sort requires a partnership between the consumer and the manufacturer, “if we work together we can be that much more effective.”
Nickerson said that since the law only applies to Maine, it puts consumers here in a potentially awkward situation. Some vendors, he worries, might decide not to sell, or might charge higher prices.
“I think it’s going to put Maine in a difficult position, vis-?-vis who we can purchase equipment from.”
Dudley Greeley, USM’s Environmental and Economic Sustainability Coordinator, downplayed that concern.
“This is a step in a better direction and it is very exciting that Maine’s doing it,” he said. “What’s exciting about this bill is that it is a first step in this country, and it is just a first step, of moving American manufacturing away from the indiscriminate externalization of the costs of their products and services.”
This bill divided Maine’s House of Representatives almost straight down party lines, with 92 percent of all voting democrats supporting the bill and 88 percent of all voting republicans voting against it. In the Senate, the bill passed 34 to 1, with Kenneth Blais (R – District 20) as the lone naysayer. In an e-mail statement, Blais said he rejected the bill because an amendement was rejected by Democrats.
“We’d heard from some of Maine’s oldest retailers, such as Marden’s, about potential negative impacts on their business if the legislation were not carefully implemented,” he wrote.
Senator Michael F. Brennan (D – District 27), in a phone interview, said that this was not true and that changing the terms would only “slow down the process” and “slow down the ability [of the senate] to implement the law.”
This bill is unique in the United States because it places the cost and responsibility of recycling the products on the manufacturer. Germany passed the first such laws in 1991 due to landfill shortages. The Extended Producer Responsibility laws, or EPRs, have now been passed throughout Europe, parts of Asia, Canada, and Australia.
Joseph Thompson can be contacted at [email protected]