Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Textiles Circularity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears debate over textile needs‑assessment substitute; retailers seek more study
Summary
Senate Bill 6,174's substitute would require a needs assessment and create Textile and Apparel Coordinating Organizations (TACOs); municipal and nonprofit advocates supported the assessment, while retail and industry groups warned the substitute presumes an EPR outcome and could burden retailers and employers. No vote was taken.
The Senate Environment, Energy and Technology Committee received extensive testimony on Senate Bill 6,174, a substitute that would require textile producers to participate in a coordinating organization (TACO) that would carry out a needs assessment to inform any future extended producer responsibility program.
Alicia Kinney Claussen, committee staff, said the substitute requires producers to appoint a TACO by Jan. 31, 2027; Ecology must approve a TACO that meets requirements by March 15, 2027; and by June 1, 2027 producers of covered products must be members of a registered TACO. The TACO would prepare and fund a needs assessment — to be submitted to Ecology by March 2028 and to the Legislature by September 2028 — designed to inform budgets, measurable performance standards and implementation steps.
Supporters emphasized the scale of the textile waste stream and the limits of existing resale markets. Senator Humbley said U.S. textile production and global markets have large environmental footprints and that the bill provides a framework for Washington to address the state's portion of that waste. McKenna Morrigan of Seattle Public Utilities urged support for the substitute as a first step, saying it would align Washington with work already underway in California and help chart a path toward reuse, repair and recycling infrastructure.
Retailers and industry trade associations urged caution. Crystal Leatherman of the Washington Retail Association said a needs assessment is the right first step but argued the substitute contains provisions (fines/fees and other language) that make it not wholly neutral; she warned that, in practice, responsibility in some EPR programs can fall on retailers. Peter Godlowski of the Association of Washington Business suggested pausing to let Ecology complete rulemaking under the state's recent Recycling Reform Act before advancing another complex program.
Andrew Pappas of the American Apparel and Footwear Association similarly urged more time to learn implementation lessons from California and other states. Jessica Franken of SMART (the Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association) said the substitute repeatedly references "recycling" without defining it, risks undervaluing clothing‑bin and local collection systems, and may favor certain nonprofit collection models over for‑profit ones.
Carrie Dolan of the Washington Hospitality Association said her members are concerned about inclusion of employer‑purchased uniforms in the definition of covered products; she warned that a restaurant required to provide uniforms could be treated as a producer and face reporting and fee obligations that would burden low‑margin businesses.
Committee members did not vote; the chair closed the public hearing after recording sign‑in tallies. The substitute remains subject to further stakeholder work and potential amendment.
