The legislative committee tasked with reviewing proposed changes to Maine’s Bottle Bill voted to combine about a half dozen bills into one bill, which they voted to move forward May 2.
The bill moved forward by the joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources does not contain any of the significant changes to the Bottle Bill proposed in earlier bills, such as removing all bottles larger than 28 ounces from the redemption program, instituting a uniform 5-cent deposit on all bottles and exempting small distributors from the requirement to pay back unclaimed deposits to the state.
Local redemption centers opposed many of the proposed changes and were thrilled to hear they have been dropped. The Maine Beverage Association, which represents beverage distributors, was disappointed by the committee’s action.
“We wanted the committee to have a discussion about whether there are better alternatives out there,” said Newel Augur, Director of the Maine Beverage Association.
Augur said the association wants to see a study conducted into other recycling systems, such as including cans and bottles in municipal recycling programs. “Why would we have a municipal recycling program if we’re not going to try to make it the best recycling program it can be?”
Supporters of the Bottle Bill argue that it has created an 85 percent to 95 percent return rate on Maine’s bottles, making it the state’s most successful recycling program. It also creates about 1300 jobs throughout the state.
Opponents argue that the program places a financial burden on beverage distributors by requiring them to pick up bottles from redemption centers. The recyclables included in the Bottle Bill represent only four percent of household waste, but cost distributors millions of dollars each year, Augur said.
Under the Bottle Bill, a deposit is added to the price of beverages sold in Maine. Most bottles carry a 5-cent deposit; wine and liquor bottles carry a 15-cent deposit.
Distributors, such as Coca Cola and Pepsi, receive the deposit money from their products. When consumers bring their bottles to a redemption center, the center pays the consumer for the deposit.
The Bottle Bill requires distributors to pick up their bottles from the redemption center. By law, distributors must pick up empty bottles as often as new product is delivered to stores. However, there is “some flexibility in the pick-up schedule” because the Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Bottle Bill, “stays out of pick-ups unless there’s a complaint,” said Hal Prince, Director of the Department of Agriculture’s Division of Quality Assurance and Regulations.
Distributors pay redemption centers the value of the deposits, plus 4 cents for every bottle. Distributors bring the empty bottles to a recycling center, which buys the scrap from the distributor and recycles it.
The requirement to pick up their bottles and the frequency of pick-ups has been a point of contention for the Maine Bottle Association. They argue that, under the Bottle Bill, the transportation costs are an unfair financial burden. Some small distributors hire outside companies, such as Returnable Services, to pick up their bottles from redemption centers.
Distributors also have the option of entering into commingling agreements. These agreements allow multiple distributors to pick up each other’s bottles from redemption centers. This saves on transportation costs and offers other financial benefits to the distributors in the commingling agreement.
Currently, in order to form a commingling agreement, the distributors involved must represent at least 50 percent of the market in their category – soda, water, beer, etc. For example, Coca Cola and Pepsi control well over 50 percent of the soda market, and the two are joined in a commingling agreement.
The two companies pick up each other’s bottles from redemption centers, and split the cost of paying the redemption center and the revenue from selling the scrap.
Distributors in commingling agreements only have to pay redemption centers 3.5 cents per bottle instead of 4 cents.
Distributors in commingling agreements are also exempt from paying unclaimed deposits back to the state. Distributors must pay the state back all of the deposits they receive that consumers do not claim. However, distributors in commingling agreements are exempt and may keep the unclaimed deposits.
Once a commingling group is formed, the companies involved have control over what criteria are used to regulate what companies may join the commingling group. One of changes abandoned by the legislature this year would have exempted small distributors that are not members of commingling groups from paying back unclaimed deposits.
Instead, the bill currently in the works would direct the Department of Agriculture to remove the requirement that commingling groups control 50 percent of the market and allow multiple commingling groups in each market category.
The bill also directs the Department of Agriculture to set a standard size for the plastic bags used at redemption centers and set a limit on the number of redemption centers that are not also beverage retailers.
The Maine Beverage Association wants to see investigation into whether other recycling programs might be more effective than the Bottle Bill.
“We’re overly focused on what’s in the container, not the container itself,” Augur said. There are many types of plastic, aluminum and glass containers that are not included in the Bottle Bill, such as food jars and soup cans.
“With 96 percent of household waste handled by municipal programs and 4 percent in the Bottle Bill, focusing on the Bottle Bill diverts attention and resources from the real problem: how do we improve municipal recycling,” Augur said.
Augur pointed out that when the Bottle Bill was originally passed, it wasn’t a recycling program; it was a roadside clean up program. The original goal of the Bottle Bill was simply to collect all the bottles in one place so they could be brought to the landfill instead of ending up on the side of the road.
“The landscape is different now; every community has access to a recycling program,” Augur said. “Who had ever heard of single-stream recycling in 1976 [when the Bottle Bill was passed]?”
Two years ago, the Department of Agriculture and the State Planning Office were directed to form a committee to conduct a privately funded study into alternatives, but never received funding.
The Department of Agriculture does not oppose investigating other options. “We’re not tied to the Bottle Bill, but Mainers are extremely happy with the Bottle Bill,” Prince said. “They’re happy with what’s been accomplished by it.”
