Only 10 percent of post-consumer plastic waste is recycled in the United States, and federal regulators are moving to remove what industry groups call the single biggest permitting obstacle for chemical recycling: the Clean Air Act's classification of some advanced recycling processes as "incineration."

An op-ed by Thomas Aiello, vice president of federal affairs at National Taxpayers Union, published May 20 in Plastics News, argues that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin should be commended for updating regulations to clarify that advanced recycling is a manufacturing process, not waste combustion. The reclassification would end most of the bottlenecks now facing new projects.

The stakes are quantifiable. Under the current "incineration" designation, facilities face stricter permitting, emissions controls and monitoring requirements — longer approval timelines, higher compliance costs and more legal uncertainty. Twenty-five states have already passed laws recognizing advanced recycling as manufacturing rather than incineration; the federal fix would align Clean Air Act implementation with that state-level framework.

What does the reclassification change?

Chemical, or advanced, recycling breaks down complex plastics that mechanical systems cannot process. Instead of melting materials — which yields limited reuse potential — these technologies convert plastics into basic chemical building blocks for remanufacture into packaging, clothing and bags.

Mechanical recycling depends on a narrow range of clean, carefully sorted resins. Material outside those parameters currently has few viable outlets, which is one structural reason the national plastics recycling rate sits at 10 percent.

Aiello also frames a feedstock argument: diverting plastics from virgin polymer production frees oil and gas for refining into transportation fuels and power generation, a step he says could make a small but meaningful difference for energy prices.

What is the economic case?

A trade association analysis cited in the piece projects that redirecting half of the plastics now landfilled to recycling facilities would deliver:

• 173,200 jobs
• $12.8 billion in annual payroll
• $48.7 billion in additional annual economic output

The report does not break out how much of that figure depends specifically on chemical versus mechanical capacity, and the trade association behind it is not named in the source.

Where does the legislation stand?

Reps. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, and Gary Palmer, R-Ala., are sponsoring the Recycling Technology Innovation Act, which would codify advanced recycling standards into federal law. National Taxpayers Union earlier this year organized a coalition of 26 conservative organizations backing the bill.

"The greatest barrier to growth in advanced recycling is not a lack of technology, but burdensome and inconsistent regulation, particularly under the Clean Air Act and state laws that misclassify modern recycling methods," the coalition argued.

Aiello writes that supporters hope the bill passes the House before the end of summer or gets rolled into a broader permitting reform package.

What to watch

Two deadlines now frame the sector's regulatory outlook: the timing of EPA's formal rule change reclassifying advanced recycling under the Clean Air Act, and the House calendar for the Recycling Technology Innovation Act. Aiello's position is explicit on the policy mix — the industry should grow "without government roadblocks or government subsidies."

For project developers tracking permitting timelines, the EPA rulemaking is the nearer-term variable. The state-level precedent — 25 jurisdictions and counting — has already given operators a patchwork framework; a federal manufacturing designation would standardize the emissions and permitting pathway for new chemical recycling capacity.