HB2233 — The bill would require retail establishments using third-party sales platforms to collect the pass-through charge from customers on those platforms.
HB2233 — The sponsor says the 20-cent paper bag charge is intended to offset costs and make the bill close to net zero.
HB2233 — The hearing on this bill was suspended.
HB2233 — House Bill 2233 was discussed in a single supportive segment of testimony. The speaker urged the committee to vote for the bill, and subsequent mentions continued that same pro-bill testimony and support without any significant change in topic.
HB2233 — House Bill 2233 is discussed in a single testimony segment in which the speaker says the Northwest Grocery Retail Association does not oppose the plastic film bag ban and appreciates the lead time for compliance, including the move to January 1, 2028. However, the speaker also raises concerns about the proposed increase in the paper bag fee and notes that removing plastic entirely, combined with the 20-cent paper fee, could create challenges for members in balancing customer safety and affordability.
Jacob — Provides the staff report on HB 2233.
Brandy Donaghy — Representative Mendoza questioned whether the new proposal will succeed where prior legislation failed, expressing concern about its impact on retail stores and asking whether the sponsor is prepared to work with them and provide feedback. Mendoza also raised a follow-up question about how the policy would affect individuals who are not on EBT, prompting a response about encouraging reuse of bags.
Beth Doglio — Was thanked for bringing the bill and referenced as having said prior legislation did not work.
Beth Doglio — Referenced as having asked for a briefing on the proposed second substitute.
Sharon Shewmake — Was thanked as the chair moved to suspend the hearing on House Bill 2233 and open House Bill 1420.
HB1420 — The committee opened the hearing on House Bill 1420 and provided brief background on the measure, noting that it is a textile producer responsibility bill that had been heard the previous year and that a substitute version had been moved out of committee.
HB1420 — House Bill 1420 is introduced and supported, with the witness explaining that it would improve textile collection and recycling infrastructure and help keep textiles out of landfills and waterways.
HB1420 — House Bill 1420 was discussed in a single stakeholder-testimony moment with mixed reactions: one speaker remained opposed due to concerns about company uniforms, another praised the bill’s efforts to address environmental impacts in the apparel industry and supported excluding reusable absorbent hygiene products, BAHP stated it was neutral after amendment consideration, and Goodwill signed in as other while appreciating the sponsor’s stakeholder process.
HB1420 — The hearing on HB 1420 is closed.
Jacob Lipson — Staff member who began briefing the committee on House Bill 1420 and noted the bill had been heard last year.
Jacob Lipson — The committee opened House Bill 2271 and requested a staff report from Jacob Lipson, who then presented the report explaining the 2021 PCRC requirements for certain plastic products and how those requirements are administered and enforced.
Sharon Wylie — Referenced as the sponsor of changes in the proposed second substitute.
Kristine Reeves — Representative Christine Reeves introduced herself as the prime sponsor and delivered opening testimony on the bill, explaining her personal connection to the issue through her experience with foster care and homelessness. She described the policy as substantive and emphasized the need to get it right after months of stakeholder conversations. Reeves outlined the problem the bill seeks to address, including overconsumption, the environmental and solid-waste impacts of textiles, and challenges such as data gaps, workforce development, infrastructure, and outdated rules that hinder innovation. She argued the bill would reduce textile waste while strengthening repair, thrift, and recycling economies and creating more local jobs. The later mentions are brief acknowledgments and praise for her work and the bill’s improvements.
Kristine Reeves — Requested that Lindsay share the findings of the health impact review.
Kristine Reeves — Referenced as 'Rep. Palette's bill,' likely a transcription error for Representative Reeves' bill.
Stephanie McClintock — Referenced as part of the committee's work on the bill.
Stephanie McClintock — Thanked for support in reaching a right-sized solution.
Stephanie McClintock — Asked to call the first panel.
Stephanie McClintock — Addressed by the witness in opening remarks to the committee.
Miguel Marzoff — Miguel Marzoff, representing the Seattle Aquarium, testifies in support of House Bill 1420. He explains that textile waste is a major source of marine pollution, noting that textiles contribute significantly to primary microplastics in the oceans and discussing the broader problem of microplastics and chemical pollution from textiles.
Miguel Marzoff — Miguel Marzoff of the Seattle Aquarium testifies in strong support of HB 2233, explaining that plastic bags can be mistaken for jellyfish and harm marine life, and noting that Washingtonians use an estimated two billion plastic bags each year. He argues that this level of plastic bag use is unnecessary and urges action to protect waterways and marine ecosystems.
Heather Trim — Heather Trim, testifying for Zero Waste Washington, discusses the environmental problems caused by textiles containing plastics and the burden of excess clothing on thrift shops and waste systems. She adds that large volumes of textile waste are exported to other countries and argues the bill would encourage repurposing, repair, and local jobs.
Heather Trim — Heather Trim is identified as a first-panel witness and later referenced as being with Zero Waste Washington, with her earlier points being summarized.
McKenna Morgan — McKenna Morgan is introduced as an in-person witness and then testifies for Seattle Public Utilities in strong support of the bill. She explains that fast fashion and apparel waste are creating waste, climate, and dumping problems that resale businesses cannot keep up with, and argues that the apparel industry should step up and help pay for product management.
Chelsea Murtha — Chelsea Murtha was introduced as the next witness and then testified for the American Apparel and Footwear Association. She said AFA supports well-designed EPR policy in principle but opposes HB 1420 as written, arguing the bill was moving too quickly, could create unnecessary costs for industry and consumers, and included problematic supply-chain reporting language. She also noted appreciation for the stakeholder process and California negotiations, and closed by expressing a willingness to keep working on the bill.
Peter Godluski — Peter Godluski is identified as a remote witness on the second panel and then again as the next-panel witness on deck, indicating he is being introduced in the witness lineup for the upcoming panel.
Peter Godluski — Peter Godluski, representing the Association of Washington Business, is introduced and then testifies in opposition to the policy. He says the proposal is not ready, notes that his organization signed in opposed, and urges lawmakers to wait for other jurisdictions to refine the approach and identify any problems before moving forward.
Peter Godluski — Testified for the Association of Washington Business in opposition, citing safety and health concerns with paper takeout bags and the gig economy.
Peter Godluski — Peter Godluski of the Association of Washington Business testified in opposition, expressing concern that the bill is being considered too soon relative to EPR rulemaking. He argued that the rulemaking should be allowed to advance further and that Ecology needs more capacity before the bill moves forward.
Krista Crystal Leatherman — Named as a remote witness on the second panel.
Crystal Leatherman — Crystal Leatherman of the Washington Retail Association was introduced and then testified in opposition to the bill. She said the proposal is premature, raised concerns about reporting requirements, bill complexity, and governance board representation, and urged the legislature to pause the bill and learn from California’s experience before moving forward.
Crystal Leatherman — Testified on behalf of the Washington Retail Association in opposition to HB 2233.
Chelsea — Named as part of the next panel call-up.
Peter — Named as part of the next panel call-up; surname unclear in transcript.
Peter — The exchange centers on uncertainty about the costs and impacts of the issue being discussed. One speaker says they would answer similarly to Peter but lets him respond, and Peter then says he probably should not have started talking because he does not actually know the answer; he describes the situation as very unknown and something they are curious about.
Crystal — Named as part of the next panel call-up; likely refers to Crystal Leatherman.
Travis Dutton — Travis Dutton is announced as part of the next panel and then begins testimony on behalf of the Association of Counties and County Solid Waste Programs, opening by thanking the prime sponsor for partnership and engagement.
Peter Lyon — Peter Lyon is identified as a member of the next panel and then testifies as the solid waste program manager at the Department of Ecology. He speaks in support of establishing a textile EPR program, while noting agency cost considerations and offering a technical reporting recommendation.
Lindsay Harrendine — Named as on deck for the next panel; transcription may be uncertain.
Peter Godlusky — Testified in opposition on behalf of the Association of Washington Business and raised concerns about reporting requirements and bill complexity.
Laurie Jinkins — Multiple speakers address and thank Chair Laurie Jinkins during the committee discussion, including initial greetings, corrected references to her title, and a later expression of appreciation for her participation in the process.
Mike Chapman — Representative Reeves was thanked for stakeholder engagement; the transcript says 'Representative Reeves' and likely refers to Rep. Reeves, but no member ID is available in the provided list for Reeves.
Mary Dye — Representative Mary Dye asked whether the California textile EPR example would increase apparel costs for consumers, following up on a question about consumer costs and the California example.
Mary Dye — Mary Dye questioned the panel about the proposed apparel recycling/PRO framework, first asking whether the report had been shared with committee members or staff, then focusing on the fiscal implications for government and the state’s obligations under the new regulatory structure. She followed up by asking what obligations would be placed on industry and whether those costs would ultimately be passed on to consumers.
Mary Dye — Asks about the smallest microns seen in marine life samples and whether filters can capture them.