House panel hears competing views on bill to tax unused PFAS remediation funds

The House Ways & Means Committee on March 7 heard testimony for and against HB 1212, a bill that would prioritize PFAS remediation by taxing remediation payments that are not spent on cleanup.

Sponsor Chairman Stevens told the committee the proposal is meant to prevent ‘‘windfall payments’’ that leave contamination in place and to steer settlement proceeds toward actual cleanup. Stevens asked the panel to "focus on the word cleanup" and said the bill would ensure money awarded for remediation is used for remediation.

Supporters described the measure as an incentive structure. Britney Hall, vice president of government affairs for the Georgia Association of Manufacturers, said the bill "creates a clear financial incentive to do so," explaining it would apply only to damages explicitly intended for PFAS abatement and allow landowners three years to spend settlement funds on remediation or place them in a dedicated trust to avoid the excise tax. Greg Blunt, environmental counsel for the association, said Georgia currently lacks PFAS-specific regulatory standards and that courts are playing a large role in remediation decisions.

Trade groups reiterated support. Trey Paris of Freeman Mathis said the bill would "establish[] a responsible framework ensuring judgment and settlement proceeds that are intended for PFAS abatement will actually be spent on addressing environmental concerns and remediation."

Opponents said the bill would amount to a tax on victims and could hamper efforts to obtain settlements or judgments large enough to fund cleanup. Tom Cosby, an attorney who represents landowners and municipalities, said passage as written would "penalize the very people who are seeking to address the problem," arguing three-year deadlines and gross‑value taxes do not account for litigation expenses and could produce reduced net recoveries for plaintiffs. Nick Jackson, who represents more than 1,100 Georgians affected by PFAS, called the measure "a tax, a penalty" on citizens and raised concerns about impacts on small cities and counties. Dan Snips with the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association added that settlements often do not label funds by type and taxing gross settlement amounts would be legally and practically problematic.

Committee members asked witnesses whether tax proceeds should be directed into a hazardous‑waste trust and whether the bill should require remediation to begin within a three‑year window rather than be completed. Tom Cosby said a clearer mechanism that dedicates any collected tax revenue to remediation would ease his concerns, but he remained skeptical that the bill as written protects plaintiffs' net recoveries or accounts for litigation costs.

The session was a hearing only; the committee did not take final action on HB 1212. Sponsor Stevens said he viewed the measure as "a beginning conversation" focused on ensuring cleanups proceed rather than allowing funds to be diverted.

The committee hearing closed with the sponsor thanking witnesses and noting other related proposals elsewhere in the legislature to address remediation funding.