HB 2062 creates a battery extended producer responsibility program in Oregon. It requires producers of covered batteries and battery-containing products to join a battery producer responsibility organization and participate in a statewide program for collecting, transporting, processing, recycling, and otherwise managing covered batteries. The bill defines covered batteries, covered products, producers, collection sites, processors, responsible end markets, and related terms, while excluding certain batteries such as those in some medical devices, motor vehicles, battery energy storage systems, recalled batteries, and some lead-acid batteries.
The measure directs the Department of Environmental Quality to administer and enforce the program. A producer responsibility organization must submit a detailed plan for DEQ approval, including collection networks, public education, fee structures, performance goals, and financial planning. Approved plans last three years and must be updated; DEQ may require changes, reject plans, or order a program to cease if it cannot be implemented successfully. The bill also establishes the Battery Producer Responsibility Fund, authorizes fees to cover administrative and enforcement costs, and adds civil penalties for violations, including a specific penalty for covered producers that fail to join an organization.
HB 2062 also sets minimum service standards for collection access across the state. For portable batteries, the program must ensure broad geographic access, including collection sites in every county and in cities of specified sizes, with special attention to rural, lower-income, and historically underserved communities. For medium-format and damaged or defective batteries, the bill requires no-cost collection options in each county through household hazardous waste sites or annual collection events. It also requires public education, a toll-free number and website, annual reporting, record retention, and coordination among any multiple producer organizations operating in Oregon.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it adds a new regulatory framework to ORS chapter 459A and amends ORS 459.995 to create enforcement authority and penalties tied to battery stewardship. It also makes it unlawful to knowingly dispose of a covered battery in mixed municipal solid waste, with an exception for disposal sites that post required signage. In addition, the bill includes an antitrust immunity provision for producer collaboration within the program and a confidentiality process for certain submitted information.
The overall sentiment appears generally favorable, at least at the committee level, as reflected by the 11-1 vote to pass the bill with amendments and refer it to Ways and Means. The structure of the bill suggests strong policy support for battery recycling, producer accountability, and environmental protection. The main points of contention likely involve compliance costs for producers, the scope of mandatory participation, the breadth of collection obligations, and the new fees and penalties, though no transcript excerpts are available to show specific objections.
HB 2062 would add a new battery producer responsibility regime to Oregon law, primarily by creating new provisions in ORS chapter 459A and amending ORS 459.995 to authorize civil penalties for noncompliance. It would require covered battery producers to join a producer responsibility organization, fund and operate collection and recycling systems, and comply with DEQ-approved plans, reporting, and public education requirements. The bill also establishes a dedicated fund and gives DEQ and the Environmental Quality Commission rulemaking, approval, inspection, and enforcement authority over the program.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received positively in committee, with a strong 11-1 do-pass recommendation with amendments and referral to Ways and Means. That vote indicates broad support for the bill’s environmental and product-stewardship goals, while also signaling that fiscal or implementation issues may still need to be addressed. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no direct record here of floor debate or detailed stakeholder testimony.
The most likely areas of contention are the costs and administrative burdens placed on battery manufacturers, importers, and other covered producers, since the bill requires mandatory participation, membership fees, detailed reporting, and compliance with statewide collection obligations. Additional friction points may include the scope of covered products and exemptions, the requirement to provide convenient collection access in rural and urban areas, the no-cost collection mandate for certain batteries, and the bill’s civil penalties and antitrust immunity provisions. Because no transcript excerpts are available, specific opponents or supporters cannot be identified from the provided record.