Committee advances plastics bill after debate on composting, cost and exemptions

The Alaska House Labor and Commerce Committee on March 14 reported House Bill 25 out of committee as amended after extensive public testimony and multiple amendments.

House Bill 25 would prohibit restaurants from using polystyrene (styrofoam) food-service containers and initially required that replacements be compostable or biodegradable. The committee heard opposing and supporting testimony from business groups, environmental advocates and community members before adopting amendments that changed the bill’s language and clarified exemptions.

Lindsay Stilwell (testimony attributed to the American Chemistry Council) testified in opposition, saying that the bill’s requirement that alternatives be compostable or biodegradable would be ineffective in areas lacking industrial composting capacity. “Since this bill requires restaurants switch to compostable or biodegradable food service ware, it's important to note that in Anchorage, the solid waste services curbside compost program and community compost drop off sites do not accept food service containers or materials labeled compostable due to processing limitations,” Stilwell said.

Britney Robbins, a Wrangell civic-engagement coordinator and former business owner, testified in support and provided cost comparisons she gathered from suppliers: an “eco-friendly entree container would cost about 20 to 25¢ per container, whereas the styrofoam would be 13 to 15¢,” she said, adding that a difference of roughly 10¢ per container was her largest price example. Robbins urged the committee to pass the bill.

Katie Capozzi, president and CEO of the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, testified in opposition, citing lack of composting infrastructure and potential financial burden on restaurants. “Without access to an industrial composting facility, these alternatives will likely end up in landfills, largely negating intended environmental benefits,” Capozzi said, and she asked for clearer standards for the bill’s “undue hardship” exemption.

Deoni Chapman, state director for Alaska Environment, testified in support, describing microplastic contamination found in local water samples and urging action on polystyrene as a persistent pollutant.

Amendments adopted by the committee changed the bill’s scope and clarified exemptions. Representative Colom’s amendment 2 (adopted) explicitly allows patrons to bring reusable containers to restaurants for takeout (the amendment authorizes regulations allowing restaurants to accept reusable customer-provided containers but does not require restaurants to accept them). Representative Colom’s amendment 4 (adopted) adjusted effective-date language so businesses can work through existing inventory rather than be forced to immediately discard pre-purchased polystyrene items. Representative Colom’s amendment 6 (adopted) removed the bill’s requirement that alternatives be strictly compostable or biodegradable, giving restaurants flexibility to choose suitable replacement materials. Later, a conceptual amendment inserting the words “financial and logistical” before “hardship” was adopted to give the Department of Environmental Conservation more specific factors to consider when granting exemptions for undue hardship.

Co-chair Fields and committee members said they reviewed the amendments with the sponsor and with department staff. The committee ultimately moved HB25 out of committee “as amended with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.” Representative Clow briefly objected to parts of the bill on business-burden grounds but removed his objection after discussion.

Why it matters: the bill addresses environmental concerns about polystyrene and food-service waste but also raises questions about existing waste-management infrastructure and costs to restaurants—issues lawmakers said the amendments aim to balance.

What’s next: HB25 leaves committee with amendments that (a) allow reusable customer containers by regulation, (b) permit businesses to exhaust existing inventory, (c) broaden acceptable replacement materials, and (d) clarify the undue-hardship exemption to financial and logistical hardship; the bill proceeds with committee recommendations and fiscal notes.