Connecticut House Bill HB05157

Connecticut 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/11/26
• Refer: 2/11/26
• Report Pass: 3/4/26
• Refer: 3/13/26
• Report Pass: 3/19/26
• Engrossed: 4/8/26
• Report Pass: 4/10/26

Caption

An Act Concerning The Tire Stewardship Program.

Summary

HB 5157 amends Connecticut’s tire stewardship law to require every retailer to join a tire stewardship organization by July 1, 2027. The bill is a narrow change to existing Section 22a-905i of the general statutes and does not create a new program so much as tighten participation requirements within the current tire stewardship framework. In practical terms, the measure would expand the obligations of tire retailers by making membership in a tire stewardship organization mandatory, regardless of any other provision in the section. The goal appears to be to strengthen the collection, recycling, and management system for used tires by ensuring retailers are tied into the stewardship network.

Impact

The bill directly amends CGS § 22a-905i by adding a new subsection requiring retailer participation in a tire stewardship organization no later than July 1, 2027. This would affect tire retailers operating in Connecticut and any tire stewardship organizations responsible for coordinating collection and recycling efforts, while reinforcing the state’s existing extended producer responsibility-style framework for tires.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received, at least in committee, where it advanced on a unanimous 33-0 ENV vote as a joint favorable substitute. It also passed the House 122-21, indicating broad support overall, though not complete unanimity. No committee transcripts were provided, so the record does not show detailed debate or public testimony.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the mandate itself: requiring all retailers to join a tire stewardship organization by a fixed date may impose new compliance costs or administrative burdens on tire retailers and could raise questions about how membership is structured and enforced. The recorded 21 no votes in the House suggest some lawmakers may have objected to the added regulatory requirement or its impact on businesses, even though the bill otherwise appears to have strong support.