Transcript Highlights:

• Plastic bags.
• plastic bags when bags are not available or reusable bags, which do more environmental impact.
• plastic bags when bags are not available or reusable bags, which do more environmental impact.
• So you're using plastic bags? How much do you charge for the plastic bags or for paper bags?
• So you're using plastic bags? How much do you charge for the plastic bags or for paperbacks?

Bills: HB1420, HB2233, HB2271, HB2212, HB2284

Keywords: textile responsibility, recycling, sustainability, environmental impact, consumer protection, waste reduction, environment, retail, bags, pollution, consumer products, plastic, environmental policy, postconsumer waste, microplastics, environmental protection, washing machines, water quality, litter reduction, public health

Summary: The committee heard a series of waste and recycling bills. House Bill 2212 would require microfiber filters on commercial and industrial washing machines starting in 2028, with Ecology potentially setting residential requirements later if cost conditions are met. Supporters, including the sponsor, students, environmental advocates, and the Seattle Aquarium, said washing machines are a major source of microplastics and that filters are a practical source-control solution. Opponents, including appliance manufacturers, laundromat representatives, business groups, and Ecology, raised concerns about feasibility, safety, technology readiness, costs, and the lack of certified commercial systems. No vote was taken. House Bill 2233 would phase out reusable plastic carry-out bags in 2028, raise the paper bag pass-through charge from 8 cents to 20 cents, and make related changes for retailers, manufacturers, and benefit-card users. Supporters argued the current thicker-bag approach has not reduced plastic waste enough and that a full ban would better protect waterways, wildlife, and public health. Opponents from grocery, retail, hospitality, and paper interests said the bill would raise consumer costs, create operational and safety issues, and should wait for more data on the current fee increase. The hearing was suspended without a vote. House Bill 1420 would establish an extended producer responsibility program for textiles, requiring producers to form a producer responsibility organization to manage collection, reuse, repair, recycling, and related planning. The sponsor and supporters said textiles are a major and growing waste stream and that the bill would build circular-economy infrastructure and reduce landfill and export dumping. Ecology, counties, Goodwill, and recycling groups were generally supportive, while business, retail, hospitality, and medical-device representatives opposed or sought changes, citing complexity, costs, governance concerns, and possible unintended coverage of uniforms, absorbent products, or medical items. The committee also heard House Bill 2271, which would expand and tighten post-consumer recycled content requirements to additional plastic products and packaging, increase penalties, and add labeling and certification requirements; the sponsor said it would close the loop on Washington’s recycling laws and drive more recycled-content use. The transcript ends during discussion of that bill, with no final action recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, the sale and distribution of single-use plastic carryout bags and reusable film plastic bags is
• First, the sale and distribution of single-use plastic carryout bags and reusable film plastic bags is
• However, that bag ban allowed for the use of thicker plastic bags, believing that those thicker plastic
• And so is this all plastic in general, all plastic bags, or... okay, they're shaking it.
• They do not allow plastic bags to come in.

Bills: SB5965, SB6030, SB5975, SB5941

Keywords: environment, retail bags, sustainability, pollution, customer impact, plastic bags, retail, waste reduction, cookware safety, lead regulation, consumer protection, interstate trade, health standards, SB 5941, Washington State Energy Code, State Building Code Council, renewable energy, solar panels, school district exemption, public school construction

Summary: The committee first heard SB 5965 on retail bags, which would prohibit single-use plastic and reusable film plastic carryout bags, raise the paper bag pass-through charge from 8 cents to 20 cents, preserve exemptions for SNAP/WIC-related transactions, and add penalties for manufacturers and distributors. The sponsor and supporters argued the current law has led to thicker plastic bags that are not being reused as intended and are contributing to litter, microplastics, and ocean pollution. Environmental groups, local governments, health advocates, and some retailers supported the bill, while grocery, hospitality, retail, packaging, and manufacturing groups opposed it, saying the 20-cent paper fee is regressive, the plastic ban could create food-safety and delivery problems, and the state should wait for more data on the current 12-cent fee. The hearing ended with the chair noting 1,240 people chose not to testify, with 541 pro, 695 con, and 4 other sign-ins. The committee then heard SB 6030, a competing bag bill that would allow film plastic and paper carryout bags if they meet recycled-content standards, keep paper bags at 8 cents, and reduce the plastic bag fee from 12 cents to 8 cents while eliminating the reusable-bag thickness requirements. Staff explained that most of the prior carryout bag restrictions would be repealed, though recycled-content standards and the SNAP exemption would remain. There was no public testimony on the bill, and the chair noted 208 non-testifiers, with 192 pro, 11 con, and 5 other. Next, the committee took up SB 5975 on lead in cookware, which would narrow the covered cookware definition, delay the drop to a 10 ppm lead standard until 2030, and allow compliance through FDA or European testing methods. Supporters said the current law is hard to implement, lacks a clear test method, and should be aligned with practical enforcement standards; opponents from Ecology, Health, environmental groups, and consumer advocates said the bill would weaken Washington’s current protections, create broad exemptions, and allow high-lead cookware to remain on the market. The hearing ended with 609 non-testifiers, including 54 pro, 552 con, and 3 other. Finally, staff briefly introduced SB 5941, which would direct the Building Code Council to exempt certain small school districts in central and eastern climate zones from on-site renewable energy system requirements, and the sponsor said the bill is intended to provide flexibility rather than eliminate the code.

Transcript Highlights:

• Plastics, better known by the fun name of nurdles.
• It requires TCEQ to consider pre-production plastic.
• The plastic can attract other toxins onto the surface of the plastic because it's porous, and so it transmits
• about deals with pre-production plastic.
• Pre-production plastics are not a bad thing. In fact, these plastics...

Bills: HB1341, HB1674, HB4028, SB2321

Keywords: hydrogen sulfide, public health, environmental regulation, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, ground level concentrations, emissions limit, emissions limits, ground-level concentrations, air quality, PFAS, agriculture, environmental protection, health risks, criminal offense, chemical regulation, preproduction plastic, water quality, pollution control, industrial waste, emissions

Transcript Highlights:

• I see that the only one is the book bags here, but uh yeah. Okay.
• only one<01:20:07.760><c> is</c><01:20:07.840><c> the</c><01:20:08.000><c> book</c><01:20:08.159><c> bags
• </c> one is the book bags here, but uh yeah. one is the book bags here, but uh yeah.

Bills: HF331, HF916

Keywords: school supplies, sales tax exemption, use tax, sales and use tax, back-to-school, classroom supplies, education tax relief, tax holiday, retail exemption, Minnesota sales tax, school materials, binders, calculators, notebooks, pencils, backpacks, book bags, local tax revenue, taxable sales base, income tax

Transcript Highlights:

• Will the duffel bags stay with the child, or will the duffel bags be with DHS, and then they'll bring
• No, the duffel bag will remain the property of the child once they're given the bag.
• No, the duffel bag will remain the property of the child once they're given the bag.
• And I'm sorry, I do not know if there's going to be different duffel bags.
• So I do not know if there's going to be different duffel bags.

Bills: SB169, SB201, SB1290, SB1377, SB1991, SB2060

Keywords: longevity pay, state employees, Oklahoma government, salary increase, emergency declaration, minimum salary, education funding, teacher compensation, Oklahoma education, salary schedule, 2-1-1 services, revolving fund, Department of Human Services, crisis pregnancy, abortion, legal funding, foster care, duffel bags, personal belongings, children's welfare

Summary: The committee took up several Senate bills and adopted multiple amendments, including a contested amendment process on Senate Bill 201. An objection was raised that an amendment had not been filed by the prior-day deadline under Rule 76C, but the chair ruled the objection not well taken, citing the chair’s authority to waive the timing requirement. The amendment to the amendment, offered by Speaker Hilbert, deleted Section 2 of the bill, removing statutory language that tied the teacher-pay measure to House Bill 3705 and the broader budget agreement. Members discussed that the underlying agreement still linked the measures politically, including a $25 million increase to the Parental Choice Tax Credit and a $2,000 increase to the minimum salary schedule for teachers. After clarification that the bill applied to certified personnel except for positions listed in the amendment, SB 201 passed the committee 29-0. The committee then approved Senate Bill 1290, which strengthens the 211 hotline system by clarifying oversight, improving coordination and service delivery, addressing access gaps, and supporting better funding and emergency responsiveness. Senate Bill 169 also passed after amendment; it increases longevity pay for state employees by 50% for designated years of service beginning in fiscal year 2027. Senate Bill 1377, which requires DHS to provide duffel bags to children in foster care as part of the budget, passed after members asked whether the bags would remain the child’s property and whether the bags would be standardized; the sponsor said the bags would belong to the child but did not know the procurement details. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 1991, described as an OMES/Oklahoma cleanup bill that consolidates existing functionality and revenues under a common umbrella without changing the substantive sources or purposes of the funds. After a question confirming it was only a cleanup measure, the bill passed 29-0. Senate Bill 2060 was laid over until the next day, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Will the duffel bags stay with the child or will the duffel bags be with DHS and then they'll bring and
• The duffel bag will remain the property of the child once they're given the bag.
• My question is about the duffel bags and not to drill into.
• Bag is available.
• And I do not know if there's going to be different duffel bags.

Bills: SB169, SB201, SB1290, SB1377, SB1991, SB2060

Keywords: longevity pay, state employees, Oklahoma government, salary increase, emergency declaration, minimum salary, education funding, teacher compensation, Oklahoma education, salary schedule, 2-1-1 services, revolving fund, Department of Human Services, crisis pregnancy, abortion, legal funding, foster care, duffel bags, personal belongings, children's welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• They also harm our environment, containing plastic, toxic chemicals, and lithium-ion batteries with no
• They also harm our environment,<00:59:19.120><c> containing</c><00:59:19.560><c> plastic,</c><00:59:20.359
• ><c> toxic</c> environment, containing plastic, toxic environment, containing plastic, toxic chemicals
• Those are non-biodegradable plastic and metal.

Bills: HB1573, HB1645, HB1875, HB1898, HB2121

Keywords: electronic smoking devices, e-liquids, certification, FDA, state law, penalties, compliance, directory, public health, nonprofit, child welfare, liability, insurance, legal protections, Hawaii, health care, reproductive rights, gender-affirming care, privacy, civil liability

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1573, which would create state enforcement authority over unauthorized e-cigarette products and related tobacco enforcement. Supporters including SHPDA, the Department of Health, the Attorney General’s office, Hawaii Public Health Institute, and others said the bill would help protect youth from unauthorized vaping products, give the state tools to enforce an FDA-authorized product list, and add penalties and inspection authority. A committee member asked whether enforcement staff were available and what penalties would apply; the response was that existing tobacco investigators would take on the work, and the bill includes civil penalties, seizure authority, and possible license revocation referrals. The measure drew both support and opposition testimony, but no vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 1645, relating to liability for child welfare service providers. The Insurance Division said it was aware of the insurance-cost problem, had raised the issue with the NAIC, and was exploring a captive insurance option, while suggesting the legislature consider additional appropriations to DHS to cover higher contract costs. Supporters, including Parents and Children Together and Hawaii Insurance Council, argued the bill would help child welfare providers obtain insurance and continue critical services. Opponents, including the Hawaii Association for Justice, warned that removing joint and several liability could leave victims undercompensated and might not actually lower premiums. The insurance commissioner said other states have done tort reform in this area, but the committee was told it is not clear the bill would reduce insurance costs. Finally, the committee heard extensive testimony on HB 1875, which would protect access to gender-affirming care in Hawaii and shield patients and providers from out-of-state legal actions. Support came from the Hawaii State Youth Commission, LGBTQ+ and public health groups, medical professionals, ACLU Hawaii, Planned Parenthood, and others, who said gender-affirming care is evidence-based, medically necessary, and important for patient privacy, provider stability, and continuity of care. Several witnesses asked for amendments to the bill’s definition language. Opposition testimony came from individuals and groups including Hawaii Christian Coalition, Leeward Republican Women’s Club, and others, who argued the bill could expose children to irreversible decisions and that more research is needed. The chair noted roughly 176 supporters and about 40 opponents testified. No final action or vote was reported in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, ubiquitous use of plastic bottles.
• Where we have concern is with the proposed funding mechanism, the plastic bottled excise tax.
• Um, I will also just say that plastic is also contaminating our water.
• Um, I will also just say that plastic is also contaminating our water.
• I am not attacking plastic. I am attack. I am not attacking plastic.

Bills: HF3793, HF3699, HF793, HF3322, HF3426

Keywords: groundwater, water use permit, data centers, public health, environmental regulations, municipalities, state park license plate, specialty license plate, Minnesota DNR, Department of Natural Resources, license plate design contest, North Shore, Lake Superior Agate, AI-generated art, artificial intelligence, Minnesota resident, state parks, specialty plates, vehicle registration, contest requirements

Transcript Highlights:

• established new producer or new post-consumer recycled content, or PCRC, requirements for certain types of plastic
• also amended the state's existing program with respect to PCRC requirements for three categories of plastic
• There was a provision that provided basically a 1.5 multiplier credit for certain types of plastic resin
• post-consumer recycled content laws that we passed in 2021. ...to include rigid products and flexible plastic

Bills: HB2436, HB2322, HB2343, HB1420, HB2426, HB2271, HB2215, HB2421, HB2301, HB2296

Keywords: oil tanker, tank vessel, restricted waters, Puget Sound, San Juan Islands, Rosario Strait, Admiralty Inlet, Discovery Island, New Dungeness, tug escort, pilotage, marine safety, spill prevention, oil transport, petroleum shipment, coast guard authorization, Board of Pilotage Commissioners, articulated tug barge, bunker vessel, refueling vessel

Summary: The Environment and Energy Committee heard testimony on several bills, including HB 2436, which would update tug escort horsepower requirements for certain oil tankers in Puget Sound waters. The sponsor and the Washington State Board of Pilotage Commissioners described it as a technical cleanup to align statute with existing rulemaking and industry practice, with the goal of better protecting the Salish Sea and southern resident killer whales. The hearing on HB 2436 was then closed. The committee also heard extensive testimony on HB 2322, which would change Clean Fuels Program rules and the timing of tax incentives for alternative jet fuel. Supporters, including the sponsor, 12, the City of Moses Lake, and U.S. Oil & Refining, said the bill would provide needed certainty for large-scale sustainable aviation fuel investment and clarify how electricity carbon intensity is calculated, including treatment of hydro power. Ecology opposed the bill, saying it would weaken the clean fuels program’s ability to drive new renewable generation and that it was willing to work on concerns through rulemaking. The hearing on HB 2322 was then closed. In executive session, the committee advanced HB 2343 on water discharge permits for publicly owned animal facilities, HB 2426 allowing Pollution Control Hearings Board appeals to be heard by a single member or alternate panel by agreement, HB 2271 on post-consumer recycled content requirements for plastics, HB 2215 on Climate Commitment Act fuel-supplier thresholds, and HB 2421 on 6PPD restrictions in tires. HB 2421 saw an unsuccessful amendment to exempt rural eastern Washington counties before passing. The committee deferred action on HB 2301 and HB 2296 until a later meeting. Most measures were reported out on party-line or near-party-line votes, with HB 2343 passing unanimously and the others passing by recorded vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• DCFS has already started implementing, changing, transitioning kids from the trash bags to duffel bags
• giving that same child a different duffel bag.
• They will stop using trash bags when they transition to the home and use actual bags when they take them
• Not the funds, the duffel bags. And the funds.
• I'm talking about the bags themselves.

Bills: HB184, HB235, HB546, HB557, HB584, HB747, HB902, HB930

Keywords: charitable pharmacy, healthcare fees, outpatient prescription, exemption, Louisiana Department of Health, sewerage systems, individual systems, community systems, local governance, legislation, installation regulations, protective custody, peace officers, mental health, emergency medical services, involuntary admission, long-term care, healthcare, pharmacy, residents

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:08:53.120><c> and</c><00:08:53.279><c> lithium</c> plastics, toxic chemicals, and lithium plastics
• So inside, the outer is made out of a non-biodegradable plastic or metal housing.
• Inside of that is more plastic parts ranging from buttons, switches to moldings.
• Inside of that plastic or metal housing.
• :11:36.959><c> ranging</c><00:11:37.440><c> from</c> is more plastic parts ranging from is more plastic

Bills: HB1924, HB2121, HB1928, HB1979, HB1650, HB1543, HB1981, HB1982

Keywords: mattress recycling, waste management, producer responsibility, environmental health, steafardship program, electronic cigarettes, disposable devices, environmental protection, plastic pollution, lithium batteries, pollution control, public health, deposit beverage container, bottle bill, container deposit law, container redemption, recycling refund, extended producer responsibility, EPR, deposit return system

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to waste, recycling, and environmental review. On HB 1924, which would establish a mattress stewardship program, the Department of Health said it stood on written testimony and offered comments, while Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and one individual supported the bill and the International Sleep Products Association opposed it. No questions were raised and the committee moved on. A large portion of the hearing focused on HB 2121, which would prohibit the sale of disposable vapes in Hawaii. The Department of Health supported the measure but suggested the bill may be better placed in a different part of state law because the cited waste-management section regulates products after consumption, while still praising the effort to remove disposable vapes from the market and environment. Testimony in strong support came from the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii COPD Coalition, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, the City and County of Honolulu, and many individuals; supporters emphasized youth vaping, toxic waste, lithium battery fire risks, and environmental harm. There was at least one opposing individual and the International Sleep Products Association was listed in opposition. The committee noted there were many written testimonies and no immediate vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 1928 on the deposit beverage container recycling program. The Department of Health stood on written testimony. The Solid Waste Task Force of Hawaii Environmental Change Agents and Upstream supported the bill but urged amendments to better integrate reuse and reusables, strengthen enforcement, clarify definitions, and protect existing redemption centers. The Hawaii Food Industry Association supported the concept of a backdrop program but preferred strengthening the existing program and raised concerns about undefined fees, existing infrastructure, and future audit costs. The Chamber of Commerce Hawaii supported the bill, and the chair said the measure needs work and that decision-making would occur in a few days. Finally, the committee took up HB 979 on environmental review and HB 1650 on environmental assessments. For HB 979, OPSD offered amendments, HCDA supported the bill but suggested clarifying the affordable-housing definition, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative supported it, and Earthjustice was asked about the court process for environmental challenges; the chair asked about shortening the challenge period and the relationship between environmental court, the intermediate court of appeals, and the Supreme Court. For HB 1650, OPSD and the State Historic Preservation Division stood on written testimony, OHA asked to retain historic sites, and several groups and individuals testified in support or opposition. Opponents argued that removing Wiki special district and historic sites from Chapter 343 trigger language would weaken environmental review and risk impacts to iwi kūpuna and historic resources.

Bills: SB6171, SB5965, SB5982, SB6004, SB6010, SB5941, SB6050

Keywords: energy facilities, large energy consumers, regulation, environment, sustainability, retail bags, pollution, customer impact, consumer-owned utilities, clean energy, port districts, market customers, energy transformation, renewable energy, public entities, electric generation, contracting, SB 6010, Washington energy siting, EFSEC

Summary: The committee first moved into executive session on Senate Bill 5941, which would direct the State Building Code Council to exempt certain small school districts from the Washington State Energy Code requirement for onsite renewable energy systems on large new commercial buildings or additions. An amendment narrowing eligibility from districts with 1,000 or fewer students to 500 or fewer students was adopted, and the bill was then advanced from committee with a due pass recommendation to the Rules Committee. The committee then held a public hearing on Senate Bill 6171, a proposed substitute bill addressing emerging large energy use facilities, primarily data centers. Staff described provisions requiring utilities to adopt tariffs or policies to prevent cost shifts, require long-term contracts and curtailment/demand-response terms, add reporting and sustainability requirements, impose renewable energy targets, change cap-and-invest allowance treatment, and create a fee to fund energy assistance, weatherization, and higher education. The sponsor said the bill is intended to protect ratepayers, preserve grid reliability, improve transparency, and ensure data centers pay their full costs while supporting affordability and workforce investments. Testimony was mixed. Supporters included community action organizations, environmental groups, some utilities, state agencies, and student advocates, who emphasized ratepayer protection, transparency, clean energy planning, and funding for low-income energy assistance. Opponents and some local governments, ports, utilities, and industry representatives argued the bill is too prescriptive, could harm economic development and competitiveness, may conflict with existing utility practices and contracts, and could create problems with the Climate Commitment Act and CETA. No vote was taken on SB 6171, and the hearing closed with the bill left pending further committee action.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the plastic sector, we call these recycled materials post-consumer resins, or PCRs.
• Equally important is that SB 2689 will focus on all types of recyclable materials, not just plastics,
• As our previous testimony on the bill before this pointed out, we have all of this plastic, aluminum,
• I assume this is the glass, no matter the color, and plastic bottles is what we're talking about.
• The most, industry-wide, whether it's any material, plastic, or glass, clear is going to be.

Bills: SB410, SB795, SB2510, SB728, SB2689, HB143, HB143

Keywords: Gulf Coast Protection District, navigation safety, special districts, state governance, Texas legislation, Gulf Coast, flood protection, storm risk management, coastal restoration, natural resources, prescribed burns, self-insurance, fire management, liability protection, rural land management, beverage container recycling, deposit return system, container deposit, bottle bill, recycling refund

Transcript Highlights:

• and plastic containers.
• Their unique product can replace plastics that was once used in food packaging.
• and plastic containers.
• </c> replace pasas and plastic replace pasas and plastic containers<00:01:47.119><c> the</c><00:01:47.280
• So that's converting metal or glass or plastic into fiber-based packaging.

Bills: HF1621, HF1701, HF1796, HF1676, HF40, HF1428, HF1540

Keywords: HF1621, CelluComp, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, appropriation, grant, commercialization, fiber-based barrier packaging, packaging materials, PFAS, perfluoroalkyl substances, polyfluoroalkyl substances, plastic reduction, sustainable packaging, environmental health, materials innovation, bio-based packaging, food packaging, agriculture finance, one-time grant, state subsidy

Transcript Highlights:

• reusable plastic film bags.
• Now, this is the thin plastic bags.
• Now, this is the thin plastic bags.
• We find a lot of plastic bags.
• Now, do plastic bag bans and fees Study as well by Ecology. Now, do plastic bag bans and fees work?

Summary: The committee held a work session on state environmental policy act (SEPA) implementation and carryout bags. Ecology staff Diane Buterak described the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) completed for utility-scale solar, onshore wind, and green hydrogen, plus a new PEIS underway for sustainable aviation fuel. She explained that PEISs provide broad planning-level analysis to help developers and agencies avoid or mitigate impacts, but do not replace project-level review. Members asked about permitting timelines, greenhouse gas emissions from different hydrogen production methods, water use, agricultural land conversion, battery fire risk, and tribal consultation. Buterak said the PEISs identify potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures, including fire response planning, early tribal outreach, and agrovoltaics as an option for solar projects. EFSEC’s Amy Hofkimer then presented the transmission-facility programmatic EIS required by SB 5165 for 230 kV and higher transmission projects. She said the statewide review covers new lines and certain upgrades/modifications, analyzes impacts to water, cultural and tribal resources, habitat, and other areas, and uses general measures, design considerations, avoidance criteria, and sensitivity maps to guide siting and corridor planning. She said the final document would be issued in early October. Questions focused on reconductoring, tribal lands, scenic areas, and whether the review could affect existing lines crossing tribal lands. A Grant County planning director, Jim Anderson Cook, said Ecology’s PEIS would help with cumulative impacts for clustered solar projects, but noted tight local review timelines and the need for strong pre-application coordination, especially on cultural resource studies and decommissioning plans. Yakama Nation attorney Shona Leverett argued SEPA is only an assessment tool and said tribes face barriers from short comment periods, limited confidential tribal input, weak cumulative impact analysis, and challenges in the FSEC process; she urged better upfront developer diligence and more effective tribal coordination. Puget Sound Energy’s Sarah Leverett said the utility needs efficient and predictable permitting to meet clean energy mandates while maintaining reliable service and aging infrastructure. She described the scale of needed clean energy and transmission buildout, including a 10-year process for the Energize Eastside transmission rebuild, and said more consistent SEPA and PEIS processes could help. Members asked about future generation sources, reliability, and hydropower as a firming resource; she said PSE is pursuing an “all of the above” approach and would welcome more firm, dispatchable clean energy options. The committee then shifted to carryout bags. Staff Jacob Lipson and Tracy Taylor reviewed Washington’s bag law, its preemption of local ordinances, the current 8-cent charge, the scheduled increase to 12 cents, and the 2025 change delaying the 4-mil thickness requirement until 2028 while adding a temporary 4-cent penalty for thicker bags. Ecology’s Peter Lyon said the agency emphasizes education and complaint-based enforcement, has received 872 reports, and has not yet imposed any fines. Commerce’s Kirk Esmond summarized a WSU study finding fewer plastic bags distributed but more plastic by weight, and said Commerce and Ecology support keeping the 2.25-mil standard and not allowing thinner single-use bags again. Retail industry testimony from Brandon Housekeeper said grocers comply with the law but oppose the added 4-cent penalty and thicker-bag requirement, citing higher costs and confusion in the policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current law, the pass-through charge for plastic bags is 12 cents and paper bags is 8 cents.
• First, the sale and distribution of single-use plastic carryout bags and reusable film plastic bags is
• However, that bag ban allowed for the use of thicker plastic bags, believing that those thicker plastic
• And so is this all plastic in general, all plastic bags, or— ...they’re shaking it.
• They do not allow plastic bags to come in.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on several bills, beginning with SB 5965 on retail bags. Staff explained that the bill would prohibit single-use plastic and reusable film plastic carryout bags, raise the paper bag pass-through charge from 8 cents to 20 cents, exempt certain assistance-program customers from bag charges, and add manufacturer/distributor penalties. The sponsor and supporters, including environmental groups, Seattle Public Utilities, Tacoma, county solid waste representatives, and health advocates, argued the current law has led to thicker plastic bags and more plastic pollution, microplastics, and recycling contamination. Opponents from hospitality, grocery, retail, paper, and plastic bag industries said the bill would raise costs, create checkout confusion, burden food delivery and takeout operations, and amount to a de facto ban on paper bags as well; several urged waiting for more data on the current 12-cent fee. The hearing ended with a reported 1,240 non-testifiers on SB 5965, with 541 pro, 695 con, and 4 other. The committee then heard SB 6030 on plastic bags. Staff said the bill would allow film plastic and paper carryout bags if they meet recycled-content standards, keep the paper bag fee at 8 cents, reduce the plastic bag fee from 12 cents to 8 cents, and remove the minimum thickness standards for reusable film plastic bags while retaining recycled-content requirements and the SNAP exemption. No public testimony was taken on the bill, and the chair noted 208 non-testifiers, with 192 pro, 11 con, and 5 other. Finally, the committee heard SB 5975 on lead in cookware. Staff described it as a third-round update to the state’s cookware lead law, narrowing covered cookware, delaying the 10 ppm lead standard to 2030, and allowing compliance through FDA or European testing methods. Supporters, including some industry representatives, said the current law is unclear and difficult to enforce, that a workable test is still being developed, and that the bill would provide certainty and avoid unintended coverage of safe products. Opponents from Ecology, Health, environmental groups, and consumer advocates argued the bill would weaken Washington’s existing protections, create broad exemptions, and allow high-lead cookware to remain on the market; they also criticized shifting from total-content testing to leach testing. The hearing closed with 609 non-testifiers on SB 5975, with 54 pro and 552 con.

Transcript Highlights:

• The oceans are full of plastic, and a large portion of these are plastic bags.
• Is your dog like plastic bags? Is your dog like plastic bags? I think it was someone else's dog.
• plastic bags when bags are not available or reusable bags, which do more environmental impact.
• So you're using plastic bags? How much do you charge for the plastic bags or for the paper bags?
• So you're using plastic bags? How much do you charge for the plastic bags or for the paperbacks?

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several waste and recycling bills. House Bill 2212 would require microfiber filters on commercial and industrial washing machines, with Ecology authorized to consider residential machine rules later if cost thresholds are met. Supporters, including the sponsor, students, environmental advocates, and scientists, said washing machines are a major source of microplastics and that filtration is a practical way to reduce pollution before it reaches waterways and human bodies. Opponents, including appliance manufacturers, laundromat operators, business groups, and Ecology staff, raised concerns about technical feasibility, worker safety, cost, and the lack of third-party certification for commercial systems. Ecology said the science is emerging and the proposal would create new agency work and costs. No vote was taken. House Bill 2233 would tighten the state’s carry-out bag laws by banning reusable film plastic bags, raising the paper bag pass-through charge to 20 cents, and extending certain requirements to manufacturers, distributors, and third-party sales platforms, while preserving protections for food assistance cardholders. Supporters argued the current thicker-bag approach has not reduced plastic waste, that plastic bags contribute to litter and microplastics, and that a stronger ban would better protect waterways and wildlife. Opponents from grocery, retail, hospitality, paper, and business groups argued the bill would raise consumer costs, create checkout and food-safety problems, and add operational complexity; some also said the state should wait to see the effects of the recent fee increase. Several local government and environmental witnesses supported the bill. No final action was taken. House Bill 1420 would establish an extended producer responsibility program for textiles and apparel, requiring producers to form a producer responsibility organization to manage collection, reuse, repair, recycling, and related infrastructure. The sponsor described the bill as a response to textile waste, overconsumption, and landfill impacts, and said the proposal had been refined through extensive stakeholder work. Supporters from environmental groups, local governments, Ecology, counties, Goodwill, and circular-economy organizations said textiles are a growing waste stream and that producer responsibility could improve collection, reduce dumping, and support repair and reuse. Opponents from business, retail, hospitality, apparel, and medical-device groups raised concerns about complexity, consumer and compliance costs, governance, supply-chain reporting, and possible unintended coverage of uniforms or medical products. The hearing also included a State Board of Health health impact review noting likely increased awareness and collection but limited evidence on large-scale reuse and recycling outcomes. No vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• bag reduction; and S 654, an act to reduce plastics.
• like plastic bags.
• We don't need plastic bags.
• Yes, I was going to say first on my plastic bag ban.
• In particular, action on plastic... ...plastic bags and polystyrene.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources held a heavily attended hybrid hearing focused primarily on plastics reduction bills, along with a few local and related waste-management measures. Chair Rauch and Chair Barber outlined strict testimony rules because of the large number of speakers. Before the plastics docket, the committee heard support for a local Sharon sewer-extension bill for a Sunrise Senior Living project, and the bill’s proponents said the project would help address senior housing needs and would still require MWRA and local approvals. The chairs also noted a separate local matter involving Sharon and the MWRA. A major portion of the hearing centered on the Plastics Reduction Act and related bills addressing single-use plastics, including plastic bags, polystyrene, black plastic, plastic beverage bottles, non-flushable wipes, skip-the-stuff provisions, and truth-in-labeling. Sponsors and supporters said the bills would reduce litter, microplastics, greenhouse gas emissions, and municipal waste costs, while creating statewide consistency and supporting environmental justice communities. Several speakers cited local bans already adopted by many Massachusetts cities and towns, and many urged the committee to advance comprehensive statewide action. The committee also heard testimony on a boat wrap recycling bill, a mattress recycling bill, and a bill to prohibit hotels from providing small plastic toiletries. Municipal officials and waste professionals supported extended producer responsibility for paint and labeling for non-flushable wipes, saying these measures would shift costs away from cities and towns and reduce strain on wastewater systems. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, Mayor Ruth Ann Fuller of Newton, and a Franklin County waste official all backed paint EPR and wipes labeling. Fire Chief Brian Nardelli testified for the Fire Chiefs Association in support of lithium-ion battery legislation, citing fire safety and disposal concerns. Other speakers, including environmental groups, local activists, and business representatives, supported bag and polystyrene bans, though the Retailers Association of Massachusetts urged any bag policy to be truly statewide and said any bag fee should be retained by retailers. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• With that being said, I am a big user of plastic bags, but I'm also a responsible user of plastic bags
• Dime bags are plastic containers? You're recognized to try to answer that. Yes.
• We have Andy Pelmer from America's Recycling Plastic Bag Alliance. You are recognized.
• , a plastic bag, or what we want.
• We use a plastic bag. We pick up trash and walk. So I’m a big advocate of...

Summary: The Natural Resources and Disaster Subcommittee met and heard several bills on boating, anchoring, plastics, coastal resilience, and permitting. HB 735, expanding the Boating Improvement Program to fund boat-trailer parking at public ramps and offering a submerged land lease discount for manufacturers using environmental best practices, drew no opposition and was reported favorably. HB 371, a nature-based coastal resilience bill, was amended with a strike-all and then reported favorably with committee substitute. HB 287, allowing building or plumbing permits to move forward while septic system permits are still under review, also passed favorably after testimony from the onsite wastewater industry and a brief debate about construction delays and final occupancy certification. The committee also took up HB 565 on auxiliary containers, which would preempt local regulation of items like bags, cups, and bottles and maintain statewide uniformity. The sponsor argued it protects consumer choice and business consistency, while environmental groups, PTA representatives, and others warned it would worsen plastic pollution, microplastics, and local cleanup burdens. Despite opposition and a 13-5 vote with several members opposed, the bill was reported favorably. Members also discussed HB 565’s policy background, including prior DEP studies and the tension between state preemption and local environmental regulation. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 565 in the transcript’s boating context, actually HB 565 on anchoring limitations in Biscayne Bay and other heavily impacted areas. Supporters from Miami Beach and North Bay Village said derelict and anchored vessels are harming waterways, seagrass, public safety, and enforcement efforts, while cruisers and boating groups argued the bill would displace responsible boaters and fail to solve derelict-vessel problems. The committee adopted an amendment, then reported the bill favorably with committee substitute by an 18-0 vote. The meeting concluded after all agenda items were completed and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Plastic bags are used for an average of 12 minutes, but a single plastic bag has a life expectancy of
• c><03:35:58.160><c> expectancy</c> single plastic bag has a life expectancy single plastic bag has a
• > bag</c><03:48:40.920><c> free</c> it's a bag free zone plastic bag free it's a bag free zone plastic
• </c><03:59:02.800><c> bags</c> they're not given free plastic bags they're not given free plastic bags
• </c><04:24:42.439><c> bag</c> um why we ought to ban plastic bag um why we ought to ban plastic bag single-use

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee met in work session on several bills, beginning with HB 153, which would require two or more law enforcement officers in each county to receive animal cruelty training. Members said the bill had been sent to the Animal Protection and Licensing Subcommittee, where Representative Kuttab is expected to schedule a meeting soon to consider possible amendments based on testimony and other ideas. The committee later returned to HB 153 and confirmed a work session was planned for February 14, with discussion also including whether to explore a task force concept raised in testimony. The committee also discussed HB 215 and HB 566, both related to landfill permitting and leachate or harm/benefit reporting. Representative Gerana said he had met with the DES director and was working on amendments that would add a preliminary screening phase for determining net public benefit and expand the list of benefits beyond capacity need to include items such as economic and infrastructure benefits. HB 566 was said to be in the same posture as HB 215, and both were slated for subcommittee review the following Tuesday morning. HB 171 was also added for subcommittee discussion, with members saying the changes would be technical rather than substantive. HB 240, which removes forfeiture penalties for non-payment of dog licenses, drew support for a simple amendment changing a statutory “shall” to “may” so municipal officials would have discretion about issuing a warrant. Representative Bixby said OLS advised that this was the cleanest way to provide flexibility, and he reported that the sponsor was agreeable to the change. The committee also discussed HB 179, concerning hazardous waste accident fees, where the sponsor proposed a revised amendment imposing a $1,000-per-day penalty after 90 days of non-payment. Members raised concerns about homeowners, hobby farmers, and whether the bill could unfairly burden people who were not negligent or whose insurance claims were delayed. The sponsor and others said the intent was to recover costs from responsible parties, especially businesses, and to protect local taxpayers and fire departments from bearing the cost of damaged hazardous materials equipment. No votes were taken; the bills were left for further subcommittee work and amendment drafting.