California has paid out nearly $1.5 billion on 3 billion pounds of e-waste

California's e-waste program has processed close to 3 billion pounds of devices and paid recyclers nearly $1.5 billion since 2003 — and regulators still cannot say where the material ends up. That admission, delivered at the E-Scrap Conference in New Orleans on Oct. 26, framed a session on the widening gaps between state electronics recycling systems while a federal battery framework sits unreleased in Washington.

The U.S. EPA's voluntary battery extended producer responsibility framework, required under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and developed with the Department of Energy, has not been published. EPA originally targeted summer 2026, said Kathy Lett, environmental protection specialist at the agency.

How far apart are the state programs?

The collection patchwork starts with product lists. New Jersey's electronics program accepts computers, monitors, TVs, desktop printers, fax machines and tablets — but not cell phones. Maryland's program does. New York goes further, covering 3D printers, servers and digital picture frames. Connecticut and Pennsylvania largely mirror New Jersey.

Diane Gard, chief of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Recycling and Hazardous Waste Management, said the state-by-state differences confuse residents at drop-off sites. Aligning product lists across states is "really important" because regulators would have clearer direction for residents, Gard said.

Naomi Manahan, director of EPR operations at Reverse Logistics Group, opened the session by acknowledging that no two EPR laws are the same. The goal, she said, is to harmonize outcomes even if the laws are not.

Where are the gaps most severe?

Embedded batteries, and vapes in particular. Gard recounted a story about a resident who brought two garbage bags of vapes to a county recycling event and was turned away.

"That person now has two garbage bags full of vapes in their house, and you know that can be very dangerous," Gard said, citing the risk of thermal runaway with damaged batteries. Household hazardous waste events also split: some accept covered electronics, others reject them.

New Jersey lawmakers are weighing S681, the Electronic Cigarette Extended Producer Responsibility Act. The bill would require e-cigarette producers to form a single producer responsibility organization and submit a stewardship plan to NJDEP. A Senate committee advanced it with amendments on Oct. 8. Gard declined to comment, citing pending legislation.

What makes California's system different?

California runs its program as a fee-and-payment system, not EPR. Consumers pay a fee at checkout; CalRecycle pays recyclers per pound on the back end.

SB 1215 added covered battery-embedded products, with the fee taking effect Jan. 1. It is set at 1.5% of retail price, capped at $15. CalRecycle has proposed dropping the cap to $1 starting Jan. 1, 2027, while keeping the 1.5% rate.

Alan Ilusorio, environmental program manager who oversees CalRecycle's e-waste branch, said manufacturer notices now cover roughly 64,000 device types, ranging from electric toothbrushes to copiers. A contact recently forwarded him a Nike slipper with a built-in battery that heats and massages the foot.

The fee and the payouts do not line up. A device taxed at sale this year may not reach a recycler for six or seven years.

"We're playing this teeter-totter event of managing the fund," Ilusorio said.

Paying by the pound creates its own distortion. AirPods and a 40-pound printer earn the same per-pound rate, and recyclers tell CalRecycle that small devices are difficult and sometimes unsafe to open. Some question whether an electric toothbrush is worth the labor at all.

State law gives CalRecycle authority starting in 2028 to split its payment rate into multiple product categories — a change Ilusorio called necessary so recyclers do not chase only the heaviest items.

Material is also leaking out of state. Ilusorio said Department of Toxic Substances Control restrictions on how recyclers treat and process material are pushing some of it across the border into Nevada.

Are states hitting their targets?

New Jersey sets manufacturer targets based on sales. The program collected 53.2 million pounds in 2024, above its 52 million-pound goal, according to NJDEP data. Collections topped the goal in three of the last four reported years.

Manufacturers routinely tell NJDEP the state's collection goals exceed what they can reach. They keep reaching them anyway, and the department cannot explain the gap.

"We're not quite sure what the disconnect is," Gard said.

Both states measure success by weight. Gard said that does not show whether material becomes a new product, "or is it just ending up overseas and being somebody else's problem."

Public awareness is a weak point, she added. New Jersey routes outreach funding through its Clean Communities program to municipalities, which she said are best positioned to tell residents what is accepted and where.

California's visibility ends at the downstream vendor. The state cannot confirm whether recovered material went into a new product, or whether a device designed to last five years lasted only two.

"I'm a huge data person, but really the only thing that we're able to track and manage is the sales, and then how much comes through our program," Ilusorio said.

What could a federal framework deliver?

Over roughly 18 months of stakeholder meetings, EPA found that collection is where states most need flexibility, given differences between rural and urban states and between the East and West coasts.

Asked how national producers can comply without weakening state goals, Lett said EPA has no lessons learned yet because no national program exists.

"Unfortunately, I don't have any great answers at this point," she said.

Where EPA sees room for consistency is messaging. Whatever the delivery, the core lines should hold: keep batteries out of the trash and curbside bins, and treat a swollen or odd-smelling battery as damaged.

Matt Flechter, recycling market development specialist at the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, said from the audience that he sat on a harmonization panel about 18 years ago. Eight states had e-scrap laws then, and it was already clear harmonization was not coming, he said. He asked the panel what prevents it now.

Ilusorio said he is not the decision-maker. California's battery-embedded program was built off its video display device program, and the fit is not perfect. He did not rule out state EPR legislation.

"I do know what it'll look like next year and the year after, right? And the year after that," Ilusorio said. "But after that, right? I mean, it's something that we have to continue to engage in."

Gard noted that New Jersey's e-waste rules contained contradictions when first passed, which NJDEP worked through with manufacturers before returning to the legislature for fixes.

"Whenever a law gets passed, I like to say, beg, borrow and steal from whatever state you can," she said.

The near-term markers are fixed: EPA's framework release, the New Jersey Senate's movement on S681, and CalRecycle's proposed $1 cap effective Jan. 1, 2027.