For more information, contact:

PLASTICS' Government Affairs
Full Versions of The Hopper is only available to PLASTICS members.

Breaking News – Important Tax Bill Just Reintroduced

Bipartisan legislation (H.R. 1304) to repeal the research and development (R&D) amortization provision has just been reintroduced in the House of Representatives. The amortization provision, enacted in the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, is set to go into effect in 2022. PLASTICS has been seeking the repeal of the provision since 2018, and this is the last opportunity for repeal before companies will need to begin amortizing their domestic R&D expenses over a five-year period beginning in the next tax year. The same bill was introduced in the last Congress with lead sponsors Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Rep. Ron Estes (R-Kan.). They have sponsored the legislation this year and are joined by Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) and Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.). All are members of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Repeal of R&D amortization remains a top legislative priority for PLASTICS.  

Continue To Full Version Here

Build Back Better—A Campaign Slogan and More

From what PLASTICS’ Government Affairs staff is hearing and seeing from the new administration and from congressional Democrats, Build Back Better is more than a campaign slogan—it is the bold economic agenda that will consume Washington for the next four years.

A Closer Look at the “Coordinated Effort” to Make Plastic Producers Pay

State-level packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation has been having a moment this February. From a glowing feature in the New York Times to an article in POLITICO just this week, EPR has been making headlines. Despite media fawning over the concept of “making plastic producers pay”, many of these EPR bills are much more nuanced in their approach. Let’s take a closer look in this article.

Putting a Price on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

What is the impact of one ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the environment and human health? And how do you determine an associated cost? As the new Administration reassesses a monetary value for the adverse impacts of climate change, stakeholders looking at industry emissions are contemplating how this may impact regulatory initiatives towards the goal of making the U.S. carbon neutral by 2050.

Continue To Full Version Here


Click here to view past editions of Advocacy Regrind