Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would rebate resource recovery facilities for recyclables removed from waste stream; environmental groups raise concerns
Summary
Senate File 3336 would create a rebate from the solid waste management tax for recovery facilities that extract recyclable or compostable material from waste, a proposal county officials say would fund deeper recycling work but environmental groups warned could encourage incineration.
Senate File 3336, presented by Senator Kupak on behalf of Senator Westrom, would establish a rebate from the state's solid waste management tax to owners and operators of resource recovery and waste‑to‑energy facilities for the quantity of recyclable and compostable materials they remove from incoming waste.
Sponsor and county officials described the bill as a targeted, accountable way to encourage additional recycling. Dave Senjem, Olmsted County commissioner, said the bill is intended to address the "low hanging fruit" that counties have already collected and to provide resources for more advanced recovery efforts. Otter Tail County representative Chris McCahon, chair of the Minnesota Resource Recovery Association, said SCORE grants and current funding have not kept pace with costs, and the bill ties rebate payments to documented recovery reported to the Pollution Control Agency.
Lucy Malaney, vice president of policy at Eureka Recycling, testified in opposition in its current form. She said directing limited public resources to post‑disposal recovery could divert money from upstream strategies such as reuse, source‑separated organics collection and expanded equitable access to recycling. Malaney also warned the bill's rebate for waste‑to‑energy ash repurposed for construction "creates a troubling incentive to burn waste instead of reducing it," citing potential hazardous constituents in ash and long‑term environmental risks.
Sponsor and county witnesses said the bill had been revised from earlier versions to use a "rebate" model tied to reporting and not to reduce the general fund. They told senators the rebate is intended to complement — not replace — investments in upstream recycling.
Committee members asked for clearer language on approved uses for incinerator ash and how the rebate would interact with SCORE funding priorities. The committee laid the bill over for further refinement and to consider suggested changes from municipalities, counties and recycling advocates.
Next steps include addressing concerns about perverse incentives for incineration, clarifying eligible uses for ash and ensuring the rebate complements, rather than competes with, upstream waste‑reduction programs.
