Sen. Kavanaugh defends mattress recycling EPR bill as colleagues press concerns about hidden costs and auditing
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers pressed the sponsor of S.1463 on whether a mattress extended producer responsibility (EPR) program would shift hidden costs to consumers and create new auditing burdens. The sponsor defended New York's EPR model and the committee advanced the bill to the calendar.
Sen. Kavanaugh defended a bill to establish a mattress collection program under an extended producer responsibility (EPR) model after colleagues raised concerns about consumer costs and the need for new auditing systems.
At the Senate standing committee on environmental conservation, Sen. Spector questioned the bill's design, arguing it could hide costs from consumers. "I'm concerned about the hidden costs that the structure of this program will have," Sen. Spector said, adding that manufacturers typically pass collection costs to consumers and that other states use point-of-sale fees to make those costs transparent. He also noted opposition from industry groups, including the International Sleep Products Association and the American Chemistry Council, and asked whether the sponsor had discussed adjustments with such organizations.
The sponsor replied that mattress collection and disposal already impose significant costs on taxpayers and that setting a fixed point-of-sale fee can be economically inefficient. "There is no disputing that it costs money to collect and properly dispose of mattresses," the sponsor said, and argued New York's model assigns producers responsibility while allowing industry to identify efficient collection and reuse strategies rather than charging a mandated flat fee at purchase. He cited prior New York EPR efforts for carpeting and batteries as precedents and said conversations with industry and the governor's office have been ongoing.
Sen. Spector pressed for consideration of other states' point-of-sale approaches and emphasized the bulky nature of mattresses compared with products such as paint, arguing policy should be responsive to product differences. The sponsor said the bill was written to be "product-sensitive" and reiterated opposition to an artificial fixed fee that might discourage efficient collection and material reuse.
After discussion, a motion to advance S.1463 was made and seconded. The committee recorded multiple "ayes," one member "without recommendation," and one "nay," and the chair announced the bill will be advanced to the legislative calendar for further consideration.
The bill's next procedural step is to appear on the Senate calendar; the sponsor said he expects renewed consideration in the Assembly this year and that this would be the measure's third time moving from the Senate if it proceeds.
