Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate on hotel toiletry plastics bill spotlights cost and waste concerns
Summary
Members debated a standing‑committee bill (report 664) that would limit single‑use toiletry plastics in hotels; opponents argued for market choice, supporters cited hotels’ experience with refillable dispensers and environmental benefits.
Representative Paul Pirrick opposed the measure on free‑market grounds, arguing that hotels should be allowed to choose larger shared dispensers where cheaper. “If a product is cheaper for the hotel, let's say a big bottle of shampoo versus a small bottle, let the open market dictate their choices in purchases,” Pirrick said on the floor.
Representative Tam spoke in favor, telling colleagues that many hoteliers have already moved to reusable containers and that the change can be cost efficient for hotel operations. “The bill that is before us, is trying to eliminate many of the plastic waste that's going around in our environment,” Tam said, noting that only two individuals had submitted testimony in opposition and that neither represented hotels.
The transcript shows both policy and economic arguments were raised: opponents framed the bill as an unwarranted purchase mandate on private businesses, while supporters emphasized environmental waste reduction and cost efficiencies reported by some hotels that have adopted refillable dispensers.
The discussion on this measure occurred during consideration of standing committee report number 664 within a broader omnibus package. The transcript does not record a roll-call vote specific to this bill; the item was included in the package that the House moved to adopt later in the session.
