Committee backs producer-responsibility e-waste bill after hours of testimony on fires, county costs and producer obligations

The Minnesota Senate State and Local Government Committee on March 11 voted to recommend Senate File 1690, a comprehensive update to the state’s electronic waste and battery recycling system, and referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee.

Senate File 1690 would replace parts of Minnesota’s existing electronics recycling framework with a producer responsibility program that requires manufacturers and importers to organize or contract with a nonprofit stewardship organization to fund and operate statewide collection, recycling and education for products containing batteries, cords or circuit boards. The bill expands covered items to reflect modern electronics and would incorporate battery-specific provisions designed to reduce fires at recycling facilities.

Supporters from local governments and recyclers said the current system leaves counties and local collectors to absorb substantial costs and safety risks. Brian Martinson of the Association of Minnesota Counties said costs to counties can be large: “In Itasca County, $50,000 a year… Hennepin County spends over $300,000 a year on just battery management.” Miriam Holzinger, co-president of Eureka Recycling, described repeated lithium-battery fires at sorting facilities, sometimes weekly, and said catastrophic losses have forced large insurance increases; she cited a transfer-station destruction in Blaine in 2018 as an example. Maria Jensen of RECA highlighted the economic opportunity: Minnesota’s e-waste stream contains an estimated $3.1 billion in recoverable metals annually and increased collection could create jobs and greater local processing capacity.

Industry groups raised concerns. Andrew Morley of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Tony Koulas representing the Consumer Technology Association opposed the bill as drafted, saying it would expand obligations beyond existing programs, impose new fees and make Minnesota a national outlier in scope. Morley noted a high level of existing coverage and warned of added business costs. Koulas said manufacturers support recycling but object to the bill’s expanded definitions and a stewardship organization model of this scale.

Agency and administrative witnesses described program mechanics and enforcement. Kirk Kudalka, assistant commissioner at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, said manufacturers are not fully meeting current statutory obligations, that roughly 20% of collected materials are not covered by producer programs, and that lithium batteries are not adequately managed today. He said the bill includes an optional rulemaking authority for MPCA to administer the new program and address technical issues.

Committee members pressed on constitutional and fiscal questions: whether requiring manufacturers to contract with or form a nonprofit stewardship organization raises legal or contract-clause issues; how costs would be apportioned among producers; and whether costs would change consumer prices or push sales to neighboring states. Assistant Commissioner Kudalka and witnesses said the stewardship organization would set member fees and apportion costs internally, and that similar programs exist in other states though the bill’s scope is broader than existing models. A formal fiscal note had been requested but not completed at the hearing.

After extensive questioning and discussion, the committee adopted the bill’s amendments and, on a voice vote, recommended Senate File 1690 for passage and referred it to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.