|
Governor's Bill
HB 6664
Due to the closure of the Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority’s (MIRA) waste-to-energy facility in July 2022, Connecticut has a shortfall in disposal capacity that has resulted in an estimated 40% of the state’s waste being shipped out of state for disposal, mostly to landfills. The loss of the MIRA facility means that more than 860,000 tons of municipal solid waste will be shipped out of state annually.
House Bill 6664 – An Act Managing Waste and Creating a Waste Authority provides a multi-pronged approach to support a sustainable and affordable waste management system through four main strategies: (1) restoring “self-sufficiency” in Connecticut’s waste sector, namely the ability to manage in-state the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated within the state’s borders, to achieve more predictable, affordable waste management costs for years to come; (2) maximizing scalable, affordable programs and policies for reducing, recycling and diverting recyclables and organic material from the MSW disposal stream as the first priority in restoring self-sufficiency; (3) committing to work with municipalities to strategically invest in waste infrastructure to manage the remaining MSW tonnage; and (4) committing to a clear path forward for remaining MIRA assets, including the MIRA South Meadows site in Hartford.
Below are responses to some common concerns that have come up in discussions around this bill.
HB 6664 Myths
Myth: The recycling strategies in this bill are untested.
Reality: EPR for Packaging programs have been in place in Europe and Canada close to 20 years and have been shown to dramatically increase recycling rates, typically to 70-80% and to as high as 90%. Four states have now passed EPR for Packaging programs in the US (Maine, Oregon, California, and Colorado) and many others are considering legislation this year. Several states – including in the northeast – have Commercial Organics Recycling Laws similar to Connecticut’s but include institutional facilities. Additionally, Vermont requires diversion of food scraps, and California requires every jurisdiction to provide food scraps collection services.
Myth: Multinational producers would take over CT’s recycling infrastructure.
Reality: This is false. Producers, through the creation of a stewardship organization, would be responsible for funding recycling programs, but Connecticut would retain its existing infrastructure, including the haulers and facilities that collect and process recyclable materials.
Myth: Municipalities will lose control of their recycling services.
Reality: This is false. Participation by municipalities is completely optional. The bill provides municipalities with three options: 1) retain control of their recycling operations – including municipal fleets, contracts with private haulers, and/or transfer station operations – and receive reimbursement from the stewardship organization for their recycling costs; 2) allow the stewardship organization to contract directly for collection services on the municipality’s behalf; or 3) opt out of the program entirely and maintain complete control of their recycling programs.
Myth: Packaging EPR creates a new tax on packaging.
Reality: There is no tax associated with EPR. In jurisdictions where Packaging EPR has been implemented, there is no associated additional fee or price increase on retail goods. On the contrary, the current system of managing waste and recycling is heavily reliant on municipal tax dollars. Packaging EPR removes the cost of managing recycling from the
municipal tax base.
Myth: Packaging EPR will raise costs of consumer goods.
Reality: This is false. There are mature Packaging EPR programs in Europe and Canada, and there is no empirical evidence from any of these jurisdictions that Packaging EPR has led to cost increases of consumer goods. Notably, Oregon DEQ and Columbia University have produced studies using empirical evidence that affirm this. One paper produced by York University claimed significant cost impacts to groceries, however that paper utilized a theoretical model and did not utilize actual empirical data.
Myth: This bill will force towns to pay for a separate truck route to collect organics.
Reality: This is false. The bill says that all residents and businesses shall have access to food scraps collection programs by October 1, 2028, but it does not specify the method in which collection must be made available. That allows municipalities opportunities to be creative and efficient, including considering opportunities for municipal food scrap drop off locations at transfer stations or “co-collection,” where food scraps and trash are placed in separate bags that go in the same bin at the curb and are separated at a transfer location, avoiding the need for (and costs associated with) a separate truck route.
| 
