Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Epr Bottle Deposit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations hears bottle‑deposit overhaul: higher handling fees, producer responsibility and grants proposed
Summary
The committee reviewed a bill to raise handling fees, require manufacturers to form a producer responsibility organization (PRO) with minimum redemption sites, and authorize startup grants from the clean‑water fund; staff will prepare a fiscal note.
The Senate Appropriations Committee on May 20 examined a proposed overhaul of the state’s bottle‑deposit system that would raise short‑term handling fees and require manufacturers and distributors to form a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to operate a stewardship plan.
Michael Grady of Legislative Council described the short‑term changes as largely technical and said the bill would increase handling fees to address inflation and keep redemption centers viable. “The bill raises the handling fee... from 3 and a half to 4 and a half for [one tier] and from 4 to 5 cents for [another tier],” Grady said, summarizing the proposal’s tiered handling rates for commingled and non‑commingled containers.
Under the long‑term proposal, deposit initiators (manufacturers and distributors) must form a PRO that submits a stewardship plan meeting minimum convenience requirements. The bill would require at least three collection points per county (one that provides immediate deposit return) and at least one immediate‑return site per municipality with 7,000 or more residents; vending machines or mobile collection alone would not satisfy the requirement. Grady said existing high‑performing redemption centers should be maximized in any PRO plan.
The proposal also authorizes grants from the clean‑water fund to reimburse PRO start‑up and modernization costs: $1,000,000 authorized in each of the first two fiscal years and $750,000 in each of the following two fiscal years, with the grant program ending in 2033. Staff noted potential shifts in clean‑water fund receipts depending on redemption‑rate changes; historical redemption rates were cited as about 70% in some prior years, but staff said rates have fluctuated.
Committee staff flagged fiscal and administrative questions, including how the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) would be reimbursed for oversight if the PROs do not form, the potential need for additional FTEs for ANR oversight, and the near‑term cost impacts of higher handling fees on distributors and redemption centers. Members asked staff to prepare a fiscal note and provide more detailed projections; no vote was taken.
