AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7 and Title 68, Chapter 211, relative to recycling.
SB1793 creates a new state framework aimed at expanding Tennessee’s recycling markets and improving coordination among public agencies, local governments, and private industry. The bill directs the Department of Environment and Conservation to establish an Office of Cooperative Marketing for Recyclables using solid waste management fund resources. That office must maintain directories of buyers and recycling programs, collect voluntary market data, operate an information clearinghouse, inventory recyclable materials available in the state, and actively market those materials to industries that can use them. It also must support regional cooperation among counties, municipalities, and solid waste planning regions and coordinate with the recycling market development and diversion advisory council.
The bill also establishes a new Recycling Market Development and Diversion Advisory Council attached to the department for administrative purposes only. The council is advisory rather than regulatory and is charged with studying the recycling marketplace, advising state leaders, identifying strategies to recruit and expand recycling-related businesses, and recommending best practices, educational materials, and future policy actions. Its membership is broad and includes private industry, trade associations, a recycling operator, the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry, a conservation organization, local solid waste officials, legislative members, and several state commissioners. The council must report by December 31, 2026, and annually thereafter, and it sunsets on June 30, 2030 unless extended.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new state-supported market development structure within Tennessee’s solid waste and recycling statutes, while expressly limiting the new office and council from exercising regulatory, taxing, fee-setting, or mandate authority. It also protects proprietary and competitively sensitive information submitted by private entities from public disclosure under the public records law. In practical terms, the measure is designed to strengthen recycling supply chains, improve market access for recyclable materials, and support economic development in the recycling sector without creating new compliance obligations for local governments or private businesses.
Overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. It advanced unanimously in the Senate Energy, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and passed later floor votes with broad support, though not without some opposition on the final passage vote. The absence of committee transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting pattern suggests general agreement with the bill’s economic-development and recycling-market goals. The fact that the bill was amended multiple times and still passed indicates some refinement was needed, but the core concept retained wide legislative support.
The main points of contention appear to center on the scope of the new state role in recycling markets and whether the bill could be seen as a step toward future regulation. To address that concern, the bill repeatedly states that it does not expand the department’s regulatory authority, impose new reporting or recycling mandates, or create fees or disposal restrictions absent separate legislative authorization. Another likely area of interest is the inclusion of private industry representatives and the confidentiality protections for submitted business information, which suggest an effort to balance market development with industry concerns about sensitive data and government overreach.
SB1793 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 68, Chapter 211 to create a new Office of Cooperative Marketing for Recyclables and a new Recycling Market Development and Diversion Advisory Council. It adds duties, membership rules, reporting requirements, confidentiality protections, and a sunset date, while expressly preserving existing limits on state regulatory authority and avoiding new mandates, fees, or taxes. The bill affects the Department of Environment and Conservation, local solid waste officials, private recycling businesses, and related economic development stakeholders.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and a generally positive reception, reflected in unanimous committee approval and strong floor votes. The legislative record shows some opposition on final passage, but the overall pattern suggests the bill was viewed as a constructive, non-regulatory effort to improve recycling markets and economic development. The lack of recorded committee transcript discussion means the public record mainly reflects voting support rather than detailed debate.
The principal contention likely involved whether the state should create a new office and advisory council in the recycling area and whether those bodies could become a pathway to future regulation. Supporters appear to have emphasized market development, coordination, and economic opportunity, while any skeptics likely focused on government expansion, confidentiality of private data, and the potential for indirect regulatory effects. The bill responds to those concerns by explicitly denying new regulatory, taxing, fee, reporting, or mandate authority and by limiting the council to an advisory role.