House hearing on HB 451 spotlights industry-backed paint takeback plan

House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee members heard testimony on HB 451 on an industry-run program to collect and recycle leftover paint.

Representative Karen Ebel, sponsor of HB 451, told the committee the bill would establish a post-consumer paint stewardship program run by manufacturers and funded by a small surcharge at point of sale. "This bill would create a post consumer paint stewardship program," Representative Ebel said, noting she chaired the Solid Waste Working Group and had distributed the group's interim report to the committee.

The bill would let consumers and businesses bring leftover paint to participating retailers or municipal collection locations for recycling at no charge to the person dropping off product. Under the model used in other states, manufacturers create and fund a nonprofit stewardship organization (PaintCare) that develops collection networks, contracts haulers and processors, and submits a program plan for state review.

Why it matters: supporters said HB 451 would divert a large portion of household hazardous waste from landfills, reduce municipal disposal costs and reduce improper disposal that can threaten soil and groundwater. Representative Judy Aaron, a co-sponsor and chair of House Environment and Agriculture, said the program would keep “toxic paint waste out of our landfills” and could allow some recovered latex paint to be reused.

Details and funding: Representative Ebel and Heidi McAuliffe, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for the American Coatings Association, said the program is funded entirely by an assessment added to paint at the time of sale and paid to the stewardship organization. McAuliffe described how manufacturers would calculate sales and remit funds to PaintCare, which would then set budgets, issue contracts to transporters and processors, and pay the Department of Environmental Services (DES) an administrative fee for oversight. "100% of the revenue that funds this activity is that fee for service," McAuliffe said.

Stakeholder support and process: sponsors and witnesses presented the bill as a collaborative product of the Solid Waste Working Group, DES, paint manufacturers and municipal groups. Representative Peter Bixby, ranking member of House Environment and Agriculture, said the current draft improves on earlier models and urged passage. Representatives of municipal recycling groups and waste companies — including Reagan Bissonnette (Northeast Resource Recovery Association), Mark Morgan (Casella Waste Systems) and Henry Mailloux (Waste Management) — described municipal costs for household hazardous waste events and said paint represents a large share of collected material by weight.

Program operations and recycling outcomes: McAuliffe and other presenters said operational plans would be submitted to DES for approval; transporters would be hazardous-waste certified contractors and processors would separate materials. McAuliffe said about 75–80% of collected latex paint is typically recycled into paint or other products; solvent-based paints that cannot be recycled are routed to waste-to-energy facilities. She said containers are accepted and metal cans are recycled where capacity exists, while plastic container recycling depends on regional infrastructure.

Questions and clarifications from members focused on fee collection, collection of legacy (pre-program) paint, treatment of containers, and whether small businesses would have pickup service. Representative Miles, Representative Speer and others pressed how the surcharge would be collected at retail and on internet sales; McAuliffe and sponsors said manufacturers remit fees to PaintCare based on state sales and that retailers would reflect the fee in price. Representative Ebel and McAuliffe emphasized that program budgets and the per-can assessment would be established once contracts and state sales figures are known; McAuliffe noted the typical program average in other states is about $0.75 per gallon but sponsors cited statutory caps and language that would limit the fee.

No formal committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Supporters asked the committee to advance the bill for further consideration and rule-making with DES oversight.

Ending: The committee concluded public testimony after a series of supportive municipal and industry witnesses. Sponsors and industry representatives said they would supply additional program data and case studies from states that have implemented paint stewardship programs.