Sen. Cutter’s bill to codify appeals for EPR producer dues advances out of committee

The Senate Transportation and Energy Committee voted 6–3 to advance Senate Bill 192, a measure from Chair Sen. Cutter that would clarify that Colorado’s producer responsibility advisory board may review appeals of ecomodulated dues assessed under the state’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) recycling program.

Sen. Cutter told the committee the bill “reaffirms and makes abundantly clear the advisory board's authority to review appeals of EPR dues” and said the 2022 EPR law is expanding recycling access to roughly 700,000 households while shifting program costs to brand owners rather than taxpayers. She moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Why it matters: SB 192 would codify in statute the appeals structure tied to ecomodulation — the formula that adjusts producer dues based on packaging choices — and aims to ensure producers have a clear process to contest assessments. Supporters said codification reduces ambiguity about who may review disputes; opponents warned the proposal places an advisory body at the center of what could be quasi‑judicial proceedings.

Industry witnesses including a representative of the American Chemistry Council and Erin Radin of the Consumer Brands Association urged amendments or opposed the bill, saying the producer advisory board is not an appropriate body to adjudicate disputes. “The Advisory Board is not a neutral decision making body,” the American Chemistry Council speaker said, warning that the board’s membership — which includes local governments, haulers, recyclers and consultants — could create conflicts of interest and raise confidentiality and antitrust concerns.

Radin said the board’s public‑meeting requirements could force the disclosure of proprietary producer data and argued the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), which already enforces the program, would be a more appropriate entity to administer appeals while protecting confidential information.

Representatives of smaller lubricant producers and trade groups said an appeals path is important for smaller businesses that feel dues assessments are unfair. Greg Bailey, executive director of the Colorado‑Wyoming Fuel Marketers, said his members are being assessed dues under a PRO called LPMA and noted smaller producers may face disproportionate cost increases, estimating a container of motor oil could rise by about $0.30–$0.40 under current assessments.

CDPHE’s Wolf Cray testified in support of SB 192, saying the bill reaffirms the Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission’s authority and the rule (18.2 0.7) that was adopted unanimously in November 2025; he described an extensive stakeholder process in which the department notified roughly 700 stakeholders and hosted more than 200 participants. Cray said the advisory board’s review role is to conduct a review hearing and make a recommendation to the department, and noted the board’s 13 voting members do not include producers.

Opponents and some trade groups argued the bill was introduced late in the legislative session and needs more stakeholder work to ensure the appeals process is legally durable and neutral. Jeffrey Leiter, general counsel for the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association, told the committee that for many lubricant producers ecomodulation functions as a fixed cost rather than a behavioral incentive, and that an appeals process cannot substitute for meaningful participation by small and midsize producers earlier in rule or program design.

The committee record shows the Attorney General’s office provided a legal opinion supporting the rule’s validity; Sen. Cutter cited that support during her closing remarks. After discussion, the committee recorded a roll call: Basley — No; Catlin — No; Exum — Aye; Linstead — Aye; Malacca — Yes; Elton — No; Sullivan — Aye; Cutter — Yes; Ball — Aye. The motion passed 6 to 3, and SB 192 will proceed to the Committee of the Whole.

The committee adjourned after the vote. The bill’s next formal step is consideration by the Committee of the Whole.