Senate hears proposal for industry‑administered beverage container refund program to boost recycling
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 728 would establish an industry consortium to administer a beverage container refund program and a trust fund to support redemption centers, education and grants; proponents argued it would reduce litter and import dependence, while opponents warned of implementation risks.
Senate Bill 728, sponsored by Senator Roland Johnson, would create a beverage container recycling refund program administered by an industry consortium and funded through refunds and related program revenue. The bill would establish the Recycling Refund Trust Fund and authorize expenditures for redemption center construction and operation, refund payments, education, and disaster response reimbursements.
Senator Johnson framed the measure as an industry‑administered, voluntary program to recover valuable feedstock and reduce litter. “This is a bottle bill. This is a beverage container recycling program...It is industry administered,” he said, arguing the program would convert what he described as “a stack of trash” into economic value and reduce litter in waterways.
Supporters included the Container Recycling Institute and local redemption center operators, who cited decades of data from states with deposit systems showing higher beverage‑container recovery and reduced litter. Cameron Merritt and other manufacturers told the committee that local manufacturing — for example, fiberglass plants — struggle to secure glass cullet and currently import significant feedstock.
Opponents and cautious witnesses warned of implementation risks and pointed to California’s experience with fraud and complex administrative rules. Leonard Lang, who has worked with California’s program, said administrative rules and enforcement determine outcomes and urged careful drafting to protect participants. Material experts and public‑interest witnesses urged including broad industry participation in the consortium and clear anti‑fraud safeguards.
Committee testimony concluded with more than a dozen witnesses on both sides. No vote was taken; the chair left the bill pending for further drafting and stakeholder negotiation.
