Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bottle Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel debates handling fees and PRO authority in proposed bottle bill overhaul
Summary
Committee walked through a draft of H915 that restructures the state bottle bill: it retains a 5¢ deposit, raises handling fees, creates duties for a producer responsibility organization (PRO), and triggers debate over a statutory handling-fee floor, negotiation authority, and enforcement tools to protect redemption centers.
The Senate Natural Resources & Energy committee conducted a line-by-line review of H915, a comprehensive rewrite of the state’s bottle bill. Speakers and staff walked members through definition changes, stewardship-plan requirements, point-of-redemption rules and proposed handling-fee adjustments.
The draft keeps the 5¢ deposit and revises definitions including a new statutory description of "fair compensation" for redemption locations. It raises handling-fee levels in the draft: co-mingled containers would move from 3½¢ to 4½¢ per container and non-co-mingled handling from 4¢ to 5¢. The bill also would require the producer responsibility organization (PRO) to submit a stewardship plan by April 1, 2028, with convenience requirements such as at least three points of redemption per county (including at least one immediate-return site) and one point of redemption in municipalities with 7,000 or more residents unless the secretary grants a waiver.
Much of the committee's time focused on how redemption centers will be paid and what enforcement tools ANR would have if the PRO falls short. The draft includes a provision allowing the PRO to charge participants administration fees and to negotiate separate compensation agreements with redemption locations; it also contemplates that ANR could run the program and bill deposit initiators for actual costs plus a 10% surcharge if the PRO fails or is revoked.
Committee members and witnesses raised three central concerns: whether a statutory floor (for example, 4½¢ per container) would "freeze" inadequate compensation and disincentivize innovation; whether the 10% administrative surcharge and other enforcement options give the agency sufficient ‘‘teeth’’ if the market fails; and whether differential handling fees should apply to single reverse-vending machines (RVMs) versus staffed redemption centers. Several members asked for updated cost testimony, and staff agreed to provide historic economic analyses and to seek additional testimony on the costs and operations of differing redemption models.
The committee did not vote on H915 and asked staff to prepare draft options that could include a differential rate for single-feed RVMs, clearer contingency or enforcement language for ANR, and cost estimates to inform any statutory handling-fee choices.
