Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Association

Legislative Report - Bottle Bill

November 11, 2009 

An ad hoc house committee to study landfill and solid waste issues met last Thursday to discuss the proposed “Bottle Bill,” SB 1404 by Jackson (D-Dickson) / HB 1167 by McDonald (D-Portland).  The committee, comprised of members from the State & Local and Environment standing committees, met for informational purposes only and is not allowed to take action on a piece of legislation.  The group heard testimony from four groups that presented on a number of issues surrounding the bill.

Greg Whittaker from Alcoa Aluminum gave an informational speech that outlined recycling rates in many states with bottle bills.  He also spoke about a number of different alternatives to deposit legislation including “Pay-as-you-throw” programs whereby citizens pay for trash collection based on usage but are not charged for recycling.  He also presented at length on Alcoa’s in-house recycling program.  In short, the Alcoa presentation was somewhat educational, but the company itself is not going to take a position on the legislation, preferring instead to be a resource for committee members.

The second presentation was from Marge Davis of the Pride of Place (“POP”)- Tennessee Bottle Bill Project.  Her outline of the group’s proposed legislation was lengthy and confusing, and many members lost interest during her presentation.  Her explanation of “chasing the nickel” was in-depth, but seemed very difficult to institute in a meaningful way.  She further gave multiple examples of bottle deposit programs from states like Maine, California, and Oregon (certainly not “peer states” to Tennessee).  Davis did, however, mention that the legislation had a number of supporters in Tennessee including: County Mayors association, and the counties of Shelby, Carter, Bedford, and Morgan.

The remaining presenters were John Kelly from COO Convenience Stores and Tommy Hunt from Maryville Calloway Oil- both men spoke against the legislation.  Their primary arguments were about recycling fraud and problems with border commerce.  Mr. Kelly discussed the fact that Tennessee lost tax revenue when the sales and cigarette taxes were raised because of over-the-border commerce.  He stated that a bottle bill would further drive business across state lines, but would have a more detrimental effect because of recycling fraud.  For example, a consumer in Bristol could go into Virginia to buy soft drinks or beer at a reduced rate because there is no deposit.  That same consumer would be able to bring his cans to a Tennessee recycling center and get $.05 per can despite never having put a deposit into the system.  Mr. Hunt presented data that some border cities in other states have a redemption rate over 100% because of this type of fraud.  This is a huge problem for states with large borders, and Tennessee has the most border states/cities in the nation.

After the ad-hoc committee, I met with representatives from the TN Grocers and Convenience Stores Association and the Beer Wholesalers.  Both groups are against this legislation, so we discussed holding a meeting of bottle bill opponents around the start of legislative session to outline a plan to defeat the bill.  I am also doing independent research into the issue and will send TSRA members some talking points that individuals can use when talking with your legislators.

In summary, the bottle bill is very much alive and promises to be a contentious issue before the General Assembly in 2010.  The road is clearer for passage than it has been in the past and groups which have historically been involved with the legislation believe that the mood in the state is shifting toward passage.  The TSRA will fight to stop the bill this year and will be active in forming any legislation that seems probable for passage.