Committee adopts substitute to add aerosol paint cans to paint stewardship program

The House Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources on Wednesday adopted a substitute to a paint stewardship bill that adds aerosol-containing paint cans to the list of products that may be included in an annual, department-approved paint stewardship program.

Committee Chair Farnon moved adoption of the substitute and then moved that the House Committee substitute for House Bill 12-16 be voted “do pass.” After brief questions about the scope and fees associated with adding aerosol cans, the committee adopted the substitute and later voted the committee substitute out of committee by a recorded tally.

The substitute adds language allowing aerosol paint cans to be included in the manufacturers’ annual program plan, subject to approval by the department. A committee member asked where the cans would be recycled and what fees users would pay. Michael Gibbons, representing the American Coatings Association, told the committee that while he did not know the exact fee, “the cost typically for a gallon is under a dollar. And so it'll be something less than that.” He described the recycling process for pressurized cans: “You had to have a device that punctures it because of the pressure under it and then smush it and then they can go off and recycle it.”

Representative Jordan asked for clarification on whether the cans would be recycled or reused; a committee witness replied, “That that's my understanding, yes.” Representative Taylor and others pressed for more information about potential fees and the transportation costs to specialized recycling facilities. One committee member said he was “troubled” by the uncertainties and wanted more concrete cost data before passing the bill.

Supporters of the change said the amendment was intended to give the department regulatory flexibility so it would not need to return to the Legislature to add new paint product types later. A sponsor described the addition as an accommodation after follow-up discussions and discovery that aerosol-containing household-type paint cans can be recycled in limited locations.

Votes at a glance: the committee adopted the substitute and later voted the committee substitute out of committee. The committee reported the substitute favorably by a tally of 9 ayes and 3 noes (substitute adoption noted in committee; final committee passage recorded in the hearing record). The committee then proceeded to public testimony on the next bill.

The bill text delegates to the department the authority to approve manufacturer program plans and to propose additional paint products for inclusion in future plans. The committee discussion made clear that the department will be responsible for any fee structure and for approving logistics such as transport and handling; committee members repeatedly asked the department and industry witnesses to provide more detail on projected fees and where cans would be processed.

The committee did not record a departmental cost estimate or a specific per-can fee during the hearing. Members requested that staff or witnesses provide follow-up information on likely per-can fees and the identity or location of recycling facilities before further floor action.

A final vote to report the substitute to the full House was recorded in committee minutes (tally reported to the committee).