Michigan House Bill HB4366

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/22/25
• Refer: 4/22/25

Caption

Criminal procedure: sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for certain excess discharges into waters of the state; modify. Amends sec. 13c, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.13c).

Summary

House Bill 4366 would amend Michigan’s sentencing guidelines statute, specifically MCL 777.13c in Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to update the list of environmental and public-safety felonies that are covered by the sentencing grid. The bill’s caption indicates it is intended to modify sentencing guidelines for certain excess discharges into waters of the state, and the text shows it applies to a range of offenses involving water pollution, air pollution, hazardous waste, solid waste, septage, liquid industrial by-products, hazardous substances, and underground storage tanks. The bill does not create the underlying environmental crimes; instead, it changes how those offenses are treated at sentencing by assigning or revising offense classes and statutory maximums for the listed violations. In practical terms, that affects judges, prosecutors, defendants, and environmental enforcement agencies by aligning sentencing consequences with the severity of the specified conduct. The bill also includes a tie-bar provision, meaning it would not take effect unless another specified bill is enacted into law.

Impact

HB4366 would amend Michigan’s criminal sentencing guidelines to incorporate or revise felony classifications for a set of environmental offenses under Chapter 324 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. This would affect the sentencing range and offense severity scoring for crimes involving pollution, hazardous waste, infectious waste, false statements in environmental filings, and related public-safety violations, while leaving the substantive environmental statutes themselves in place.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a technical but policy-significant update to sentencing treatment for environmental offenses, likely framed as a public-safety and enforcement measure rather than a controversial substantive rewrite.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the bill’s effect on punishment levels for environmental crimes: supporters would likely view the changes as necessary to strengthen deterrence and better match penalties to harms to water, air, and public health, while opponents might argue that the revised classifications could increase criminal exposure or create harsher sentencing outcomes for regulated entities and individuals. The tie-bar to another bill also suggests the proposal is part of a broader legislative package, which can sometimes be a point of procedural concern if the companion measure does not advance.