Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bottle Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee walks through technical edits and handling fees for H.915 bottle‑deposit overhaul
Summary
Committee reviewed multiple drafting changes to the bottle‑deposit bill H.915, including terminology updates, retailer anti‑refusal language, tiered handling fees (with a proposed parity for reverse‑vending machines), and increased ANR assessment from 10% to 25%; further technical edits were requested.
The Senate Natural Resources committee examined recent amendments to H.915, the proposed overhaul of the state's bottle‑deposit law, and discussed technical corrections, compensation mechanics for redemption centers, and administrator assessments.
Staff said several terminology changes were made ("point of redemption"/"point of collection" and references to extended producer responsibility). The committee considered language to prohibit retailers or redemption centers from refusing to pay the refund value and discussed conforming liquor‑bottle redemption language so both retailers and redemption centers must accept eligible containers.
Committee members reviewed a proposed tiered handling fee structure that would set a handling fee for single‑feed reverse vending machines at 3.5 cents per container and establish higher handling or negotiated compensation for manual or other redemption methods. Some members urged parity between single‑feed reverse vending machines and manual redemption, noting earlier testimony that cost differences were small; others asked for dispute‑resolution language to be narrowly limited to separate compensation agreements rather than to general fee collection.
Staff described an increase in the agency assessment on plans from 10% to 25% (page 16) and several technical fixes to waiver/waiver‑of‑immediate‑return language for towns of 7,000 or more. The committee agreed to continue drafting and to return to unresolved questions about compensation negotiation, dispute resolution scope, and convenience requirements for collection points.
No formal vote was taken; staff will circulate another draft reflecting technical corrections and clarified dispute‑resolution limits.
