A proposed anti-polystyrene measure in the Pennsylvania General Assembly could weaken the state’s economic competitiveness by eliminating existing and future jobs, income, and taxes, according to analysis from the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association (PMA).
And while there’s little traction in the Republican-controlled state legislature for House Bill (HB) 2560 — introduced in July by state Rep. Tim Briggs (D) to ban the use of polystyrene food containers in all Pennsylvania-based food establishments — the PMA wants to stop any similar proposals from ever making it to the state capitol in Harrisburg.
“This is alarming to us in Pennsylvania right now,” Carl Mararra, PMA’s vice president of government affairs, told Pennsylvania Business Report. “We need to make a statement about this to show how important polystyrene manufacturing is in the Commonwealth. And it’s pretty damn important.”
Under HB 2560, the state’s manufacturing industry stands to lose 4,000 jobs, nearly $240 million in labor income, and more than $1 billion in overall total economic output, according to Polystyrene Ban Economic Impact Analysis: Manufacturing Activity. Mararra authored the analysis for the state House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, which is currently considering HB 2560.
Mararra said that manufactured goods derived from natural gas liquids are basically anything having a name that starts with ‘poly’ and ends with an ‘ene,’ including polystyrene single-use foam or plastic food service containers, such as cups, bowls, plates, clamshell-style containers, cutlery, straws, cup lids, and a foam cooler that’s not encased in another material.
The statewide polystyrene ban proposed under HB 2560 also wouldn’t apply just to restaurants around the Commonwealth, but to “all outlets, stores, shops, or other places of business which operate primarily to sell or convey food directly to the ultimate consumer,” according to the PMA analysis.
Mararra said there’s no appetite from either state House or Senate members so the PMA doesn’t foresee HB 2560 getting much traction. Nevertheless, the bill “is alarming to us,” he said, “because the polystyrene manufacturing industry in the Commonwealth has a vast, established footprint.”
“Furthermore, this industry is ripe for investment as the plastics industry continues to expand due to the discovery, development, and enhanced accessibility of natural gas liquids and plastic feedstock inputs” across the state, Mararra wrote in the PMA analysis.
Pennsylvania has a deep reserve of natural gas. What it’s struggling to develop further are end users, not just residents who pay for natural gas to cook or heat their homes, Mararra said, calling their use “a small blip in overall use.”
“True end users are manufacturers,” he said.
Manufacturers of products coming from natural gas liquids could be Pennsylvania’s modern steel industry, “and we’re trying to bring them here,” Mararra said.
“If something like this bill gets passed, it would send all the wrong signals to the manufacturing industry,” he added.
Paul Poe, regional manager of government affairs and the Environment Department at Dart Container Corp., agrees.
The privately held company manufactures cups, plates, containers, lids, and straws made from such materials as expanded polystyrene foam, solid polystyrene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), paper and sugar cane. Dart has more than 40 locations in six countries and employs 15,000 people worldwide. The Mason, Mich.-headquartered company has two locations in Pennsylvania, a 24-hour plastics fabrication site in Leola, Pa., and a warehouse location in Lancaster, Pa.
“Manufacturers consider multiple factors when considering operating a business in any given location,” Poe wrote Pennsylvania Business Report in an email. “Manufacturers look to locate their facilities in places that promote a stable and vibrant business environment and, ideally, near their customers.
“The truth is if this legislation or similar anti-business legislation becomes law, Pennsylvania manufacturers, not only Dart, may no longer be competitive and have to take a hard look at the current business environment in the Commonwealth,” wrote Poe.
Planning, Poe explained, is key to business operations, so manufacturers prefer a stable, predictable environment. “If anti-business legislation were to pass, in a cost-benefit analysis, some businesses may seek out other states that provide a more robust business environment and seek to provide family-sustaining jobs,” he said.
In addition to the losses PMA estimated could impact the Pennsylvania manufacturing industry, Poe cited the association’s data showing that HB 2560 also could reduce state and local tax revenues by more than $2 million and could decrease federal tax revenues by nearly $10 million.
“These economic figures only show the disastrous impact this legislation would have on the manufacturing industry; however, it does not take into account the negative economic impacts on the food service and retail industry, which would have to pay for more expensive substitute products,” Poe wrote.
Since 1964, Dart has been providing safe, well-paying, long-term jobs in Pennsylvania, he told PBR, adding that the company operates “as a responsible corporate citizen” that has continually lived up to this standard.
“Dart has expanded its two facilities in Pennsylvania several times,” Poe wrote in his email. “Today, we reside under 3.5 million square feet spread over 21 buildings and employ approximately 2,000 hourly employees; 7 production managers; 28 shift supervisors; and, not to forget, a facility manager, assistant facility manager, 3 operation managers, and a quality manager.”
The company manufactures expanded polystyrene foam 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week, he wrote, comparing Dart to thermoforming operations that he said normally operate for the same number of hours, but only have five-day work weeks.
“As with any potential legislation that would negatively impact a business’ existing operations, Dart will take a hard look at the possible negative impacts” of HB 2560, Poe explained. “Dart has been in Pennsylvania for over 50 years, continues to expand its physical footprint and hire more Pennsylvanians.
“Dart has no desire to put this long history aside,” he wrote. “However, all options will need to be reviewed should this legislation pass.”
Such a response is why the proposed polystyrene ban “is the antithesis of the economic dynamism that our Commonwealth ought to be deploying,” according to the PMA analysis.
With the state’s abundant and affordable access to natural gas liquids, placing a ban on the manufactured goods derived from those liquids would “drive investment and prosperity out of our state and into a competitor state,” Mararra said.
“Having a proposal floating around in the state House to ban the very manufacturing industry we’re trying to bring here, is not a sound economic idea,” he said, adding that polystyrene manufacturing also sustains other industries in Pennsylvania, like building trades and aerospace. “There would be unintended consequences.”