The New York Legislature's 2027 session will decide whether pyrolysis and depolymerization count as recycling under the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act. The vote follows a public split between Senate Democrats over a technology the bill's sponsor calls "a farce."

State Sen. Pete Harckham (D) carries the measure in the upper chamber. He has broken with industry groups pressing Albany to recognize chemical recycling as part of the state's recycling infrastructure.

Anti-plastics advocates argue the technology diverts attention from reducing plastic waste, the central solution they favor. Industry is pushing to include chemical recycling in the state's plastic waste solution.

What does the bill require?

The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act would set reduction targets for packaging sold in New York and establish the recycling infrastructure framework to support those reductions.

The Senate version mandates reductions in plastic packaging and is positioned as the chamber's lead measure on packaging waste. Its definition of recycling is the central flashpoint, because the answer determines which infrastructure receives state recognition and investment.

The dispute runs through one definitional choice: whether "recycling" covers only mechanical sorting and reprocessing, or whether it also includes pyrolysis and depolymerization.

• Pyrolysis uses heat to break plastics into feedstocks.
• Depolymerization chemically reverses plastics to their building blocks.

Inclusion extends state recognition to chemical recycling. Exclusion concentrates funding on source reduction and conventional mechanical capacity, leaving pyrolysis and depolymerization operators without state-level policy cover.

Why is the Democratic caucus split?

Industry is lobbying for inclusion and positioning chemical recycling as part of the state's solution to the plastic waste problem.

Anti-plastics advocates counter that chemical recycling is a distraction from waste prevention. They point to facilities that are falling victim to economic and technological challenges and argue operators have not delivered on commercial promises.

"Chemical recycling is a farce," Harckham said. "These [facilities] are an environmental hazard. They don't do what they say."

The Senate's positioning signals trouble for chemical-recycling operators seeking state recognition. Whether the Assembly aligns with Harckham or with industry-aligned members of the caucus will determine the bill's final shape in 2027 and direct state infrastructure investment toward either advanced recycling capacity or conventional sorting.

What's the state of the technology?

Chemical recycling facilities are falling victim to economic and technological challenges that operators have not resolved at commercial scale. The sector's commercial track record has lagged industry projections, according to anti-plastics advocates tracking deployment.

E&E News reporting frames the technology as commercially unproven. The article does not name specific New York chemical-recycling sites.

Harckham's "environmental hazard" framing aligns him with advocates who argue the facilities have not lived up to industry promises on output and environmental performance.

What happens next?

The 2027 New York legislative session is the next decision point. Industry will press its case during committee hearings, while advocates push for a narrower definition of recycling that excludes advanced processes.

Lawmakers will negotiate whether the bill's definition of recycling includes chemical processes. They will also weigh which infrastructure investments qualify for state recognition under the framework.

That definitional vote — and the committee mark-up that precedes it — is the regulatory milestone that decides what happens next. Inclusion routes funding toward advanced recycling capacity in New York.

Exclusion concentrates the dollars in mechanical sorting, reuse systems, and upstream reduction commitments. Chemical-recycling operators would then have to seek permits and feedstock contracts on their own merits, with no state policy tailwind to support commercial deployment.