Reuse and refill systems study

Full Title:
REUSE Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill requires the EPA Administrator to prepare and publish a report on reuse and refill systems within two years. The report must describe feasibility and best practices for reuse and refill systems across sectors the Administrator chooses. The broad goal is to collect information that could guide expansion of refillable and reusable product systems and identify barriers, costs, and support needs.

  • Main change: EPA must produce a public report on reuse and refill systems (what works, costs, equity, jobs, barriers, and needed support).
  • Scope: The report may cover food service, consumer food and beverage products, cleaning and personal care products, shipping and transportation, and public schools and universities, among other sectors the EPA chooses.
  • What the report must evaluate: system types and scales, equitable distribution, job opportunities, economic costs and benefits for businesses and waste managers, needed local/state/federal support, and existing barriers.
  • Process: EPA must consider state, local, and foreign examples and consult relevant stakeholders.
  • What is unclear: The bill does not provide funding, specify which sectors must be covered, or require any follow-up action after the report.

What it means for you#

  • Producers and manufacturers
    • EPA will study how refillable and reusable product systems could work for producers. This could inform future guidance or policy that affects packaging designs, logistics, or take-back programs.
  • Businesses that sell or refill products
    • Businesses may get new information on best practices and cost factors for running or adopting reuse/refill systems. The report itself does not require changes, but it could be used by others to push for changes later.
  • Waste collection and management entities (municipalities, haulers, recyclers)
    • The report will evaluate economic impacts on parties responsible for waste handling. Municipalities may be asked to provide information during consultations.
  • Consumers
    • Consumers may eventually see more reuse/refill options if stakeholders act on the report. The bill does not create immediate rights or requirements for consumers.
  • Public educational institutions
    • Schools and universities are listed as possible subjects. The report might identify pilot ideas or best practices for campuses.
  • EPA and federal government
    • EPA staff must carry out the study, collect information, and publish the report within two years. The bill does not itself create new regulatory powers.

If you are not in one of these groups, the bill mainly affects how the federal government studies reuse/refill systems and does not directly change services or rules you use today.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill does not include a budget or specific funding for the EPA to prepare the report.
  • Preparing the report will likely require EPA staff time for research, stakeholder consultation, and publication. This could raise administrative costs for EPA.
  • Stakeholders (states, local governments, businesses, institutions) may spend time or money to participate in consultations or provide data.
  • The bill does not authorize grants, new programs, or funding to implement reuse/refill systems.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to gather clear, centralized information on how reuse and refill systems can work in different sectors and at different scales.
  • Supporters may argue that the report would help identify best practices and barriers before creating policy, reducing guesswork for businesses and governments.
  • The bill could be seen as a way to identify job opportunities linked to reuse and refill systems.
  • The report could reveal what local, state, and federal support would be most effective to expand reuse and refill options equitably.
  • Considering state, local, and international examples could speed adoption of successful models.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is the absence of funding: the bill requires a report but does not provide money to produce it, which could strain EPA resources or slow the work.
  • The bill only orders a report; it does not require any follow-up actions, regulations, or programs. This may limit practical impact unless further steps are taken.
  • The definition of which sectors to study is broad and gives the Administrator discretion; it is unclear which industries will be prioritized.
  • The bill does not explain how the report will avoid duplicating existing studies or efforts at federal, state, or local levels.
  • The two-year deadline may be seen as too long or too short depending on stakeholders; the bill does not set milestones or require public interim updates.