MCTA works for you, our members. If it is important to you, it is important to us. We will track any legislative or regulatory topic that matters to you, including issues related to specific chemicals or materials.

Massachusetts operates on a two-year legislative cycle. The current cycle began January 1, 2025, and ends December 31, 2026. That means MCTA must be active and diligent as bills go through rewrites, consolidation and other mechanisms as the session progresses. Regulatory activities are active throughout the year.

For further information about these or any other issues, please contact MCTA’s Executive Director Katherine Robertson at Katherine@Masscta.org or our Legislative and Regulatory Advisor, Robert Rio, Esq. at Bob@rarstrategies.com.

PFAS:

In the 2023-2024 legislative session, two omnibus bills were filed that would have banned PFAS in products manufactured, imported, or sold in Massachusetts. Neither bill was acted on after industry fought back and provided feedback on the economic impacts of the proposed bans along with their negative impact on industries whose products benefit public health (biotech, medical devices, clean energy, etc.). However, Massachusetts did ban firefighting products containing PFAS at the end of 2024.

For the 2025-2026 session, two identical bills – H.2450 and S.1504 - An Act to protect Massachusetts public health from PFAS were filed that would ban some consumer and children’s products, food packaging and other products that contain PFAS. In addition, manufacturers and users of all other products containing PFAS would be required to publicly disclose their products through a state registration process.

While these new bills are not as onerous as those filed in the previous session, MCTA still has concerns with some of the provisions.

Toxics Use Reduction Act – Fee Increases and Review of the Program

The Toxic Use Reduction Act (TURA), enacted in 1989 and amended in 2006, requires certain manufacturers and users of listed chemicals to report the use of these chemicals to the Commonwealth, pay a fee and develop plans to reduce or eliminate their use. Today there are less than 450 filers, down from a peak of just under 750.

After decades of complying with the law, many MCTA members have reached their limits in finding places to reduce or eliminate their use – short of leaving the state. At the same time, the TURA program finds itself short of revenue and has indicated that large fee increases are necessary to sustain the program.

While the TURA program is not sustainable in its current form without additional revenue, MCTA believes industry cannot continue to bear the cost of the program which offers limited, if any, benefits to our members. (MCTA Letter December 20, 2024)

As a result, MCTA opposes any fee increase not accompanied by a complete review of the program and changes that eliminate unattainable goals, unnecessary costs, and bureaucracy.

To address some of these issues, MCTA worked with Representative John Mahoney (D-Worcester) and Senator Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) to file identical bills – H.998 and S.593 - An Act to Reform the Toxics Use Reduction Act. The proposed legislation would update the TURA law in ways that will save members money. Only then, MCTA believes, can fee increases be discussed.

MCTA is currently in talks with legislators and regulators to use H.998 and S.593 as a starting point for discussions related to reducing the burden of TURA compliance on a dwindling universe of filers and TURA’s push for fee increases.

Toxics Use Reduction Act – Addition of Regulated Substances Under TURA:

Under the Toxics Use Reduction Act, the program is considering listing additional chemicals for inclusion as toxic and hazardous materials. That designation would trigger reporting, planning requirements and fees. Those currently under discussion include:

• Certain Nanomaterials; • Certain QACs;
• Certain Flame Retardants
• Certain PFAS

Please contact us if you are interested in any of these proposed listings. MCTA will add updates throughout the year and notify you of any changes.

Energy and Climate:

Any MCTA member who has paid an electric or natural gas bill recently knows how volatile and onerous energy prices have become.

Much of these costs are due to the costs of policy related programs mandated by the state in order to reach greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030 and beyond. In addition to its high cost, natural gas has been banned in some communities, coupled with other more restrictive regulations and building codes. The restrictions are designed to push users to abandon natural gas and switch to electrification for their buildings and processes.

One problem. As of December 2024, Massachusetts has the highest electricity prices in the continental United States, making switching not only impractical but costly.

On March 12, 2025, MCTA filed comments (MCTA DPU letter) to the Department of Public Utilities in opposition to a draconian measure that would virtually eliminate any utility cost-sharing on new or modified natural gas extensions for facilities. The draft policy would require that the applicant pays the ENTIRE cost of any new gas lines or electrify all processes, an unrealistic option for most manufacturers.

To help members understand their electricity costs, MCTA is a founding sponsor of WhatsInMyElectricBill.com, a site that helps residents and businesses see what charges are driving their costs higher.

MCTA will remain at the table in discussions related to energy costs, climate change, and environmental justice and continue to oppose policy changes that restrict the use of natural gas and other fuels that increase the cost of energy and eliminate your decision to use the fuel that best suits your business needs.

Solid Waste, Extended Producer Responsibility:

Landfills in Massachusetts are reaching capacity, making the disposal of solid and other waste more expensive. The state’s 2030 Solid Waste Master Plan (SWMP) is now undergoing a mid-course review slated to be finished by the end of 2025. It is expected this review will include discussion about further waste bans and takeback programs.

As part of this review, in accordance with recent law – An Act Promoting a Clean Energy Grid, Advancing Equity and Protecting Ratepayers (Chapter 239 of the Acts of 2024 – Section 108) the Commonwealth formed a special commission to recommend changes to laws surrounding Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies for paint, mattresses, electronics, lithium-ion batteries, plastics and other packaging. If past recommendations are any indication this could include disposal bans, takeback programs or additional fees on these products.

MCTA will remain engaged in the discussions surrounding the SWMP mid-course review and the EPR commission.

In addition, MCTA is tracking several Extended Producer Responsibility and similar legislation including:

H.1038 - An Act relative to enhancing circularity in recycling
H.1019 - An Act relative to the reduction of plastics
H.926 - An Act to save recycling costs in the commonwealth
HD3678 - An Act relative to chemical recycling
H.916 - An Act to reduce single use plastics in the environment
S.1588 - An Act relative to chemicals in food packaging
S.571 - An Act to reduce waste and recycling costs in the commonwealth
S.630 - An Act to reduce single-use plastics from the environment

Medium and heavy-duty (MHD) truck engines and vehicles:

While MCTA is known for its advocacy related to the products used inside your facility, our advocacy doesn’t stop there. Companies need to receive raw materials from suppliers and ship finished products to customers.

That means you need medium and heavy-duty trucks.

In 2021, Massachusetts adopted California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule. The CARB requires truck engines to meet new emission standards while the ACT rule requires manufacturers to sell an increasing number of zero emission medium and heavy-duty vehicles (ZEVs). Both of these regulations were originally to take effect for model year 2025.

MCTA heard loud and clear from our members that this was unacceptable – that such deadlines would be impossible to meet as the new vehicles were simply unavailable or only available at high cost (about double that of existing models). Members also expressed concern over the lack of charging infrastructure in Massachusetts and throughout the country, and the cost of driver downtime as they charge the vehicles.

Recognizing that timely action was needed, MCTA, both by itself (MCTA December 12 letter) and as part of a consortium led by the Trucking Associations of Massachusetts (TAM), asked for a year delay, until model year 2027. Facing backlash, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) delayed CARB compliance to model year 2026 and established limited enforcement of the ACT rules until 2027.

This delay did not help MCTA or its members.

As a result, MCTA is continuing its outreach and working with legislators who understand the issue and are advocating for additional delays. Along with changes in Washington, we are hoping that our continued advocacy will result in national changes and delays to these programs until technology is available.

Groundwater & Surface Water Discharge:

Both EPA and MassDEP have been working on instituting stormwater and surface water programs that could affect your facility.

• General Permit for Private Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Stormwater Discharges in the Charles, Mystic, and Neponset River Watersheds in Massachusetts: Requires NPDES Permits for stormwater sources that would other be unregulated in violation of water quality standards.
• MSGP Update: Permittees required to maintain Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, implement control measures, and meet inspection and monitoring requirements. The proposed MSGP will replace the 2021 MSGP that is set to expire in February 2026.
• Groundwater and surface water permit changes: In addition, the PFAS Legislation mentioned above makes changes to industrial groundwater and surface water permits to address PFAS. MCTA recently held a webinar on these changes.

The presentation may be accessed here.

Air Operating Permit Fees:

The federal Air Operating Permit Program requires large emitters of certain pollutants to file reports to the state and pay emissions based fees to run the program.

With the decrease in emissions (down 91% since 2000) and filers (down 50% since 2000) the program (like TURA mentioned above), finds itself short of revenue. Estimates are that fees would need to increase 500% to sustain the program.

MCTA finds that unacceptable to manufacturers, a group that represents only 15% of the total emissions in the program. Most of the emissions are from power plants and waste to energy facilities that can easily afford higher fees, should they be necessary at all.

MCTA has made our concerns known (MCTA June 20 letter) and will continue to remain at the forefront of this issue and argue that manufacturers are simply not in the position to fund such an outdated program.