Concerning an appeals process for producers to contest the eco-modulated dues assessed against producers to finance the producer responsibility program for statewide recycling.
Summary
SB26-192 creates a formal appeals process for producers that are charged eco-modulated dues under Colorado’s producer responsibility program for statewide recycling. The bill allows a producer, after receiving a final invoice and completing any required mediation, to request an administrative hearing before the producer responsibility program for statewide recycling advisory board to contest whether the assessed dues comply with the approved plan, commission rules, and the statute. The advisory board must hold the hearing and issue written recommendations to the Department of Public Health and Environment.
After receiving the advisory board’s recommendations, the department must decide within 45 days whether to approve or reject them. That decision is final agency action and may be reviewed in court. The bill also includes a legislative declaration stating that it clarifies existing law and reaffirms the authority of the solid and hazardous waste commission and advisory board to administer this appeals process.
Impact
The bill amends Colorado Revised Statutes sections 25-17-704 and 25-17-709 within the state’s recycling producer responsibility framework. It expands the advisory board’s duties to include holding hearings on disputed eco-modulated dues and establishes a defined administrative review path for producers, additional producer responsibility organizations, and individual producers in alternative collection programs. The measure affects producers of packaging materials and paper products that finance the statewide recycling program, as well as the Department of Public Health and Environment and the advisory board, by clarifying how disputes over dues are handled and when those disputes become subject to judicial review.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generally procedural and clarifying support rather than being highly controversial. The legislative declaration says the measure resolves ambiguity about the scope of authority for the commission and advisory board, suggesting the bill is intended to confirm existing administrative practice rather than create a new policy direction. The available context shows no recorded votes or committee testimony indicating organized opposition, and the bill advanced through the process with no amendments noted on the referenced House second reading date.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the scope of authority over appeals of eco-modulated dues: whether the solid and hazardous waste commission and advisory board already had authority to run this process, and how much discretion producers should have to challenge assessed fees. Producers may favor a clearer and more accessible avenue to contest invoices, while the administering agencies may be concerned with preserving efficient implementation of the recycling program and limiting disputes to compliance questions under the final plan and rules. The bill resolves that tension by channeling disputes through an administrative hearing and making the department’s decision final for purposes of judicial review.