House Appropriations Committee backs H915 after fiscal briefing on handling fees and producer-organization provisions

The House Appropriations Committee voted to support H915 on May 27 after hearing a detailed fiscal briefing and questions from members. Chair (whose name was not stated in the transcript) introduced the bill and asked Michael Brady to summarize changes; Brady described increases to handling fees, timing for an extended producer responsibility organization (PRO), and a higher penalty intended to encourage producers to form their own PRO rather than have the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) serve that role.

Michael Brady, who the chair introduced to present the bill, told the committee the senate version adds an increase in the handling fee for commingled containers from 3.5 cents to 4.5 cents and that the house-passed change raising the handling fee for non-commingled containers from 4 cents to 5 cents remains. "In the senate proposal, the handling fee for commingled is increased from 3.5 to 4.5," Brady said, and he noted these handling fees apply only until a producer responsibility organization is established (scheduled in the bill for 03/01/2029), after which a bridging period runs to 07/01/2030 at 4.5 cents for any container.

Ted, the Joint Fiscal Office analyst who presented the fiscal note to the committee, described the money impacts as modest for state accounts but potentially meaningful to entities that administer bottle-redemption. He told members the increase in handling costs for liquor bottles (from 3.5 to 4.5 cents) is "estimated to cost about $35,000 more per year" for DLL. The committee also discussed a multi-year estimate of roughly $1.8 million in additional costs to manufacturers or distributors spread over the implementation period; fiscal staff described that total as an industry-level cost, not a state budget appropriation.

The bill keeps the deposit level consumers pay at 5 cents. Committee members and analysts emphasized that the deposit amount is not increased by H915. Ted and Brady repeatedly distinguished between handling fees (payments between manufacturers/distributors and redemption points) and the consumer deposit, which the bill does not raise.

Members questioned whether manufacturers or distributors would pass handling-fee increases on to consumers. Ted and Brady said pass-through depends on market price elasticity and business arrangements; "it's really hard to know" whether and how much of the increased handling fee would become a higher shelf price, they said.

The bill retains a transfer from the Clean Water Fund to a Solid Waste Management Assistance Fund but adds a cap on that transfer; committee discussion referenced Clean Water Fund targets (discussants cited a target range near $40 million to $50 million annually) and an illustrative total being transferred of about $3.5 million over the multi-year period. Members pressed whether that transfer would jeopardize statutory obligations tied to TMDL implementation; Brady and fiscal staff said they did not expect the transfer to impair the Fund's statutory obligations.

H915 also increases a recycling-market-development assessment intended as a penalty if ANR must serve as the PRO rather than producers forming a PRO themselves. Ted summarized that the senate version raises that assessment from 10% to 25%, a change intended to boost the incentive for manufacturers and distributors to form a private PRO and reduce the likelihood that ANR would need to serve as the PRO. Fiscal staff warned that if ANR served as PRO, oversight and administration costs could be much larger.

After questioning, the committee moved to support H915. Chair opened for a motion to support the bill; a motion was made and seconded. Committee members provided a roll-call-style set of responses (Representative Lumley: Yes; Representative Takeus: No; Representative Peltas: Yes; Representative Kosesca: Yes; Representative Roecky: Yes; Representative Nigro: Yes; Representative Squirrel: Yes; Representative Stevens: Yes; Representative Jagadoni: Yes; additional members were recorded as Yes during the readout). The motion passed and the bill was marked as a stop-hold to be announced on the floor.

The committee's action was procedural: the committee recorded support to send H915 forward; the bill's substantive implementation details (dates, fee levels, and the capped transfer) remain as described in the senate amendment. Committee members asked staff to watch for future budget or oversight implications if ANR were to serve as the PRO long-term. The committee adjourned after scheduling follow-up items, including S64 later in the day.

Sources: Committee hearing transcript, May 27, 2026.