Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Textile Epr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views on textile extended producer responsibility bill
Summary
HB 14-20 would require producers to form a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to manage apparel and textile end-of-life, with needs assessments, advisory committees, and requirements to address export dumping. Supporters praised reuse and infrastructure gains; retailers and industry raised concerns about timing, governance and costs.
The Environment & Energy Committee heard hours of testimony on HB 14-20, a proposed extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for textiles that would require producers to form a producer responsibility organization to manage collection, repair, reuse and recycling across the state.
Committee staff summarized major elements: producer registration and PRO designation, an initial needs assessment and recurring five‑year assessments (including public awareness and equity studies), an advisory committee to advise the PRO and the Department of Ecology, requirements to curb the export dumping of collected textiles, resubmission of PRO plans every five years, and provisions directing local development regulations to allow collection infrastructure when necessary for program performance.
Rep. Christine Reeves, the bill's prime sponsor, told the committee that textiles represent an important share of municipal solid waste and that upstream producer responsibility could reduce landfill volumes while boosting repair and recycling economies. "Seven-point-seven percent of all municipal solid waste that's landfilled in the U.S. is made up of textiles," she said, calling for updating contracts and RCWs that were designed for a linear economy.
Supporters included Seattle Public Utilities, Goodwill, trade groups representing recyclers and the American Circular Textiles coalition, who said industry-led PROs could ensure consistent collection and reduce export dumping while creating local repair and recycling jobs.
Business and retail groups, including the Association of Washington Business, Washington Retail Association and national apparel trade associations, urged caution. They cited California's nascent textile EPR rollout as a reason to pause, worried about duplicative reporting, governance (retailer representation on PRO boards), supply-chain reporting burdens, and possible coverage of nonconsumer or regulated products (for example, some medical textiles). The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and medical-device representatives flagged unintended coverage for FDA‑regulated products unless exemptions were clarified.
Agency testimony from the Department of Ecology supported the concept of a textile EPR program but warned of fiscal impacts to the agency not included in the governor's budget and offered technical corrections for reporting deadlines and definitions.
Committee members questioned costs to consumers, the extent of existing infrastructure to process apparel and textiles domestically, and which entities would shoulder start-up costs. Several witnesses recommended a robust needs assessment and learning from California's implementation before full statewide rollout.
The committee closed the hearing without a vote and indicated the bill will continue through stakeholdering and follow-up work during the session.
