Committee hears measure to require island‑wide garbage service; agencies debate low‑income subsidy and funding timing

Senator Sabina Perez opened the hearing on Bill 30‑38, COR, saying the measure would implement an island‑wide collection program intended to curb illegal dumping, stabilize GSWA revenue and lower household collection rates. "This bill aims to ensure that every Guam resident's garbage is collected and properly disposed of through an island wide collection program," Perez said.

Nut graf: Bill 30‑38 would require residential subscription to GSWA collection, expand the customer base and, according to GSWA modeling, lower the per‑household monthly charge — from projected $33–$35 under current voluntary service to roughly $22.50 if island‑wide service is implemented and carts are procured. Witnesses at the hearing discussed funding for carts and trucks, enforcement of mandatory subscription, low‑income customer assistance, and the role of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in rate review.

Irvin Slake, general manager of the Guam Solid Waste Authority, testified that the island currently has about 21,000 households subscribing to curbside service and estimated roughly 41,500 households could be served island‑wide. He said GSWA’s consultant projected an island‑wide subscription rate of $22.50 per household if the authority can obtain about $4 million to buy additional carts (GSWA estimated needing roughly 40,000 carts). Slake explained the authority received about $10 million in ARPA funds and used part of it in late 2024 to buy trucks and equipment that had to be obligated by the ARPA deadline.

Slake cautioned that if GSWA must finance the cart purchase from rates, the authority’s model shows an interim need to keep a higher rate (about $30–$33) for a short period while the authority recoups the capital cost. He told the committee the authority intends to use GWA billing records to enroll households automatically, and that customers could instead show transfer‑station receipts or documented private hauler arrangements if they do not require curbside pickup.

The Guam Public Utilities Commission signaled support for the universal‑service concept but urged that any low‑income assistance program be set up and reviewed through the PUC rate‑setting process rather than established by the legislature in statute. Attorney Hiraki, presenting testimony for PUC Chair Jeffrey Johnson, said universal service is "just and reasonable" under utility rate principles and that PUC review would protect independence in rate setting. The PUC noted concern with draft language in Section 51A‑1106 that, as written in the bill, would set a legislative‑mandated assistance program and rates rather than leaving those details to PUC review in the rate case.

The Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Guam EPA) supported the bill and provided public‑health context: Guam EPA said it received 238 solid‑waste complaints last year, about half tied to household waste accumulation, and that roughly 80% of Guam EPA emergency responses with the Guam Fire Department related to illegal‑dump fires. Guam EPA described cases in which low‑income households lacked transport to transfer stations and said a subsidized, mandatory collection program could reduce illegal dumping and burning.

Committee members pressed GSWA on enforcement, penalties and privacy. Senators asked how noncompliant households would be identified and what penalties would follow. Slake said GSWA would track nonpaying households and refer violations to GIPA (Guam Inspection and Protection Agency) for enforcement; civil penalties for unlawful accumulation and illegal dumping in Guam statute can range up to $1,000 per violation depending on the offense. Senators also asked for data‑privacy protections for sharing GWA billing information; Slake said GSWA would request addresses or location data rather than full account detail when enrolling customers.

PUC and GSWA witnesses discussed options for financing low‑income assistance. PUC recommended that any customer assistance program be developed in the rate case so the commission can examine impacts across rate classes. GSWA said that if ratepayers are asked to subsidize a low‑income program, the authority’s modeled $22.50 rate would need to rise (GSWA estimated a roughly $27 monthly rate in that scenario) and that alternative funding — federal grants or legislative appropriations — would better preserve the lower base rate.

EPA and GSWA explained other operational details: GSWA said current transfer‑station fees had not been adjusted in a decade and that recommended increases would cover costs (one example noted: a small pickup fee rising from $7.50 to about $11.55). GSWA also noted investments in fleet and route optimization and workforce changes since exiting parts of receivership in recent years.

Ending: Committee members praised the measure’s aims and urged careful drafting on low‑income assistance and PUC jurisdiction. The committee left the record open for seven days to accept written testimony and asked GSWA and PUC to work with staff on technical edits and rate‑case considerations.