Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Handling Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders warn H.915 language replacing per-container handling fee risks closing redemption centers
Summary
Technology vendors and redemption-center advocates told the Senate committee that removing a statutory per-container handling fee in H.915 without clear guardrails — e.g., a fee floor, arbitration, or periodic updates — could leave local redemption centers undercompensated and force closures.
A central flashpoint at the April 8 Senate Natural Resources & Energy hearing on H.915 was the bill’s proposal to shift statutory handling-fee language toward an agency-approved "fair compensation" model tied to a producer responsibility organization (PRO).
"Without this, redemption centers would close," Mike Noel, public affairs director at TOMRA, told the committee. Noel said the introduced draft removes or narrows the existing statutory per-container handling fee for containers managed by a PRO and replaces it with a less-specific approval process. He urged specific guardrails: an arbitration mechanism (as in Quebec), a quasi‑public body to set compensation (as in Alberta), or a requirement that any compensation be reviewed and adjusted at least every two years to reflect inflation and operating costs.
Paul Burns of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group echoed the need for safeguards. Burns said handling fees for co-mingled containers were last adjusted in 2008 and that inflation and wage increases have eroded the fee's real value, leaving many small redemption operators financially squeezed. He recommended maintaining at least a floor (he and other witnesses discussed 3.5¢ as a reference point), enabling local negotiation where technology reduces operating costs, and strengthening penalties for producers who fail to form a PRO (the bill’s 10% assessment, he argued, may be too low).
Industry and technology witnesses described compromise options that would preserve incentives for a PRO to invest in new machines while protecting small operators: require product registration (so automated systems can validate containers), make compensation contracts transparent, preserve minimum convenience standards (hours and geographic access), and require periodic re-review of the compensation amount. Several witnesses said these details could be achieved through explicit statutory language or regulation rather than leaving the mechanics to agency discretion.
Committee members acknowledged the tension: both modernizing the system and protecting redemption center viability are important. Members asked witnesses to submit written amendment language and agreed to hold additional testimony from redemption-center owners before finalizing any committee draft. The committee took no vote on H.915 during the April 8 session.
The outcome will hinge on whether the committee inserts explicit compensation guardrails into the bill—mechanisms that stakeholders said are necessary to ensure modernization does not inadvertently shutter the statewide network of return locations.
