Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Bottle Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances changes aimed at curbing cross‑border bottle‑redemption fraud
Summary
After extended debate about cross‑border redemption and administrative burdens on redemption centers, the Environment Committee voted to send Senate Bill 1115 to the floor for further consideration.
Get email alerts on the Environment Bottle Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Connecticut General Assembly Environment Committee members voted to move Senate Bill 1115 to the floor after lawmakers debated revisions intended to limit fraud at bottle‑redemption centers and reduce administrative burdens that could inhibit the number of centers operating across the state.
Supporters said the measure is a necessary step to address what some described as organized, cross‑border collection of returnables. Representative Callahan thanked the bill’s sponsor for bringing the issue forward and said testimony and meetings with grocers and redemption centers demonstrated “we have a major problem.” Representative D’Amico, however, urged the committee to push for solutions that also involve manufacturers and distributors, saying, “By not having state specific labeling, you’re inviting fraud.”
Members discussed how prior changes to the state’s bottle‑deposit law — including raising the deposit from 5 cents to 10 cents — affected incentives and cross‑border flows. Some lawmakers expressed concern that revisions could impose significant paperwork on small redemption centers and recommended engaging manufacturers on technical remedies such as state‑specific labeling or reverse‑vending machines. Others warned that more enforcement capacity will be needed if the statute is tightened.
The committee recorded a roll call on SB 1115 and moved the bill JFS (joined for a second reading) to the floor. The roll call is recorded in the committee transcript.
The committee will consider next steps at later stages of the legislative process, including enforcement responsibilities and whether technological or voluntary labeling schemes could be part of a longer‑term solution.

