Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Single Use Bags topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks 10¢ cap on municipal paper bag fees as committee hears mixed reactions from retailers and counties
Summary
Delegate Tolles presented House Bill 947 to limit local paper carryout bag charges to a maximum of 10¢ where jurisdictions authorize a fee. Supporters said the cap would create consistency for consumers; retailers and county associations raised concerns about local authority and retailers’ costs under plastic‑bag bans.
House Bill 947, introduced by Delegate Tolles, would limit the charge a local jurisdiction can authorize retailers to impose for paper carryout bags to no more than 10¢ per bag. The Environment and Transportation Committee heard proponents and opponents during the hearing.
Sponsor’s case: The sponsor told the committee the bill does not change local ability to set a fee floor, but would cap the maximum charge retailers can impose where a jurisdiction already authorizes a fee. She said the current patchwork — jurisdictions with 5¢ floors and others with 10¢ floors, and locally higher retailer charges — creates inconsistent costs for shoppers. “Charging at least 10¢ means a retailer can charge 10¢ today, 25¢ tomorrow, and even a dollar for a carryout bag,” she said, arguing consumers deserve predictability.
Support and opposition: Environmental advocates such as the Sierra Club told the committee fees reduce single‑use bag use and urged retention of local flexibility. Retail representatives, including Sarah Price of the Maryland Retailers Alliance, and the Maryland Association of Counties said the shift would preempt local authority and could cap retailers’ ability to set fees that cover higher-cost paper bags. Retailers said paper bags often cost about 10¢ for basic grocery bags but can cost substantially more for branded or reinforced bags used by boutique stores; they asked the committee not to curtail retailers’ discretion to set fees tied to actual bag costs.
Specific concerns discussed in the hearing: - Whether a cap would unintentionally boost plastic-bag use in places that still allow plastic as a cheaper alternative; the sponsor said local bans on plastic would remain possible and the bill would not overturn plastic bans. - Administrative complexity and county revenue: MACo noted jurisdictions vary; some jurisdictions retain part of bag fees, and local officials asked that county discretion be preserved.
Outcome: The hearing recorded a range of views and technical questions; no formal committee vote was recorded in the transcript.
