Michigan Senate Bill SB0195

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/20/25
• Refer: 3/20/25

Caption

Environmental protection: pollution prevention; plastic bags and other containers; repeal act preempting local regulation of. Repeals 2016 PA 389 (MCL 445.591 - 445.593).

Summary

Senate Bill 195 would repeal Michigan’s 2016 PA 389, the law that preempts local governments from regulating the use, disposal, sale, prohibition, restriction, or taxation of certain containers. In practical terms, the bill removes the statewide restriction that currently limits cities, villages, townships, and counties from adopting their own rules on items such as plastic bags and other containers. By repealing the preemption statute, the bill would restore local authority to regulate containers through ordinances, including the ability to ban, restrict, or impose fees or charges on them, subject to any other applicable state or federal law. The bill itself does not create a new regulatory scheme; it simply deletes the existing state-level barrier to local action.

Impact

The bill would amend Michigan law by repealing MCL 445.591 to 445.593, eliminating the statutory preemption of local container regulations. This would affect local governments, retailers, manufacturers, and consumers by allowing local ordinances on plastic bags and other containers to take effect where previously barred by state law. It could also lead to a patchwork of local rules across the state if municipalities choose to act.

Sentiment

The available record does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s subject matter, the measure appears to be framed as a local-control or environmental policy bill, with likely support from advocates of municipal autonomy and plastic-waste reduction, and likely concern from business groups or opponents of regulatory inconsistency.

Contention

The main point of contention is the balance between state uniformity and local control. Supporters of repeal would likely argue that local governments should be free to address plastic pollution and waste management in ways that fit local conditions. Opponents would likely argue that repealing preemption could create inconsistent rules for businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions and could increase compliance costs or administrative burdens. No specific named stakeholders or recorded positions are provided in the bill materials.