Lawmakers consider rewriting Vermont’s bottle bill to shift to producer stewardship, add transition grants and arbitration for pay disputes

Senate Natural Resources & Energy examined a new draft of H.915 on April 17, which would overhaul parts of Vermont’s bottle bill to establish a producer stewardship organization (PRO) model and add guardrails intended to protect small redemption centers.

The bill moves the term “deposit initiator” into the statute’s general definitions to identify the entity responsible for including the deposit in a beverage’s price and for program participation. The presenter said that the deposit initiator could be a distributor, a manufacturer that initiates its own deposit, or, if none of those parties initiates a deposit, the first distributor to place the container into Vermont commerce.

Sponsor testimony also keeps the current per-container handling fee in place until March 1, 2029, the implementation date for the PRO. The agency said the handling fee will remain while the state transitions to a stewardship model, then be replaced by the PRO’s funding approach.

A central change requires stewardship plans to include a methodology describing what constitutes “fair compensation.” The agency official described the standard on the record as one that must “cover your costs and you’re receiving some reasonable rate of return.” The draft adds a neutral third-party arbitration process to resolve disputes over compensation and requires the PRO to submit a mid‑term (two years and six months) report evaluating compensation and proposing any adjustments during the PRO’s five‑year plan term.

To ease transitions for small, rural redemption centers that may not receive capital investments from the PRO, the draft creates a four‑year transition grant program. It would provide up to one‑half cent per container to eligible centers, with an annual aggregate cap of about $350,000 and payments distributed on a first‑come, first‑served basis. The presenter said the grants would be paid from the Solid Waste Management Assistance Fund and that the bill increases certain transfer authorities from the Clean Water Fund by $350,000 to support the program.

Retail and redemption terminology would be standardized: retailers and current redemption‑site language are replaced with “points of redemption,” and the draft clarifies that a PRO must accept all labeled containers at locations included in the plan (universal redemption). Minimum operating standards for collection points are proposed (35 hours per week; at least six hours on Saturday; at least one weekly evening to 7:00 p.m.), though some presenters urged flexibility on specific clock times.

Redemption‑center operators urged the committee to tighten the fair‑compensation standard and to consider interim financial relief. Shane Switzer of Lindor Redemption testified: “Fair compensation is a must for us,” warning that centers may not survive until the PRO is fully operational in 2029 without clearer guarantees or nearer-term relief. Ethan Hayes, general manager of Wonderful Beverage, said fair compensation “needs to be rock solid so that we know what it’s going to be.”

Committee members and agency staff discussed whether interim increases to the handling fee or earlier distribution of transition grants would be feasible and noted constraints tied to available fund balances and appropriation processes.

The draft sets the PRO formation date and staggered effective dates to align statutory duties, with PRO formation planned for January 1, 2027 (a six‑month grace period for registrants) and program implementation on March 1, 2029. The bill also shifts reporting and audit deadlines (financial audit moved to 2030, performance goals adjusted to July 1, 2030 and July 1, 2033) to allow time for data collection before legislative review.

No formal committee votes on H.915 occurred during the session. Staff said they will prepare a revised draft that adds clearer language on fair compensation and any other agreed changes; committee members asked for the new draft and indicated further review will follow.

The committee recessed briefly after the H.915 discussion and then moved to other bills on its agenda.

Ending: The presenter said he would circulate an updated draft incorporating compensation language and stakeholder comments; the committee requested time to review that draft before taking further action.