Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Good afternoon. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. Are going to walk through the latest language in the redemption center PRO committee bill with our legislative count.

[Speaker 1]: Hi. Good afternoon. This is Michael Grady with legislative council. After our discussions yesterday, I went and drafted, some of the changes you requested. One change I didn't make a drafting change on or one request I didn't make a drafting change on, that was the grant program. Because my notes were just not they weren't detailed enough to because there are some there was notes on doing a match, but then not necessarily doing a match. And I I just didn't and that's my fault. Didn't have enough clarity to to do that.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, maybe it's your fault.

[Speaker 1]: But I will step through the rest of the changes. The first change is on page 10. This is the request that the PRO be registered as a five zero one c three nonprofit entity. There was also a request that the board of that entity include representatives of retailers redemption location solid waste management entities and solid waste haulers. You have a five zero one three, and you have a directive for their board to include entities that are part of the collection system.

[Speaker 0]: Have questions about this?

[Speaker 1]: I just wanna note, when I was looking at Connecticut's tire program and how they did it, they set up an overarching national five zero one c three and then created a subsidiary for the state. So that I just wanna put that on the table that you could see a model like that with a with a parent and a subsidiary specific to the state.

[Speaker 0]: And why did they do that?

[Speaker 1]: I think they're thinking that they will feel pressure in other jurisdictions to do something similar, and they can create streamlined cost.

[Speaker 0]: The tire industry. Getting ready for us too.

[Speaker 1]: And then you immunize yourself from multistate liability if you have a subsidiary that's just doing it in each individual state.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Should I move on?

[Speaker 0]: Mhmm.

[Speaker 1]: Page 14. This is, the floor. You discussed having, some restrictions on the compensation that is required to be paid to locations that redeem beverage containers. This would set a three year floor under the plan that compensation could not fall below whatever the relevant deposit is for the a beverage container, plus 3.5¢. So if it's a liquor container, it's gonna be 15¢ plus 3.5. If it's all other types of containers, it would be 5 plus 3.5. 3.5 is the handling fee for liquor. 3.5 is the handling fee for all other containers that are part of a commingle program.

[Speaker 0]: But it's currently the lower end of like, because the other one is, like, 4.5. Right? The non commingled?

[Speaker 1]: For the non comm and you can set it at whatever you want to set it at.

[Speaker 0]: I think we're gonna hear some more testimony on this. But we'll we'll go with 3.5 for now.

[Speaker 1]: On that page, page 14, line fifteen and sixteen, in the provision that says the plan shall maximize the use of existing infrastructure, it includes reference to the type of infrastructure that is existing, retailers, existing redemption centers, and solid waste management entities.

[Speaker 0]: And Representative Austin. I'm just wondering, do we have to, like, expand on use at all? Like or does would everybody understand what that means? Sorry. Expand on what?

[Speaker 1]: Use. The term use. It's it's maximizing the use when establishing points of con collection. I think it's

[Speaker 0]: Are you clear? Yeah. K.

[Speaker 1]: So at the bottom of page 14, lines 18 to 21 going on to page 15, there was a request. I can't remember from which member. It might have been rep North about making sure that locations provide for both expeditious redemption and also safe redemption. And so this would add a new component to the plan that all locations that provide for redemption of beverage containers shall provide expedition expeditious redemption services that limit the need for persons redeeming containers to wait for redemption services, be it sites that are secure, sufficiently lighted, and managed to ensure the safety of persons redeeming containers, and that comply with all that should say applicable applicable laws related to the collection, transportation, and disposition of mandated recyclables. Mandated recyclables are your traditional recyclables. They're, aluminum, glass, PET, paper. But there are they would be applicable to the collection of these containers.

[Speaker 2]: Representative sacraments. Michael, on on part b, do we have standards that would be referenced to for secure, sufficiently lighted and such? How would you know if they're following this guideline?

[Speaker 1]: There are no guidelines.

[Speaker 2]: So would then would just who would be in charge of enforcing this?

[Speaker 1]: So it's part of the plan. So ANR has to approve the plan and approve approve this component of the plan.

[Speaker 0]: ANR has to decide.

[Speaker 2]: Are you asking Would this and this this would be just for the plan, or would this be once it's all stood up? Because

[Speaker 1]: When it stood up, the facility has to comply with the plan.

[Speaker 0]: Do we have other standards like that for collection centers?

[Speaker 1]: Well, that's not true. Because, for example, when they're handling the more hazardous types of materials like lamps, there are there are environmental standards and collection standards for lamps. So there there are some. And almost all of them have the environmental comply with environmental law or environmental standards set by the secretary. Okay. Next is page 22, which there's no change there, but this is where the grant language and the funding language begins and how you wanna deal with it. There is a different proposal from ANR on the amount of money that will be available for grants, and the grant language is also different on page 25.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Different from what we have in this draft.

[Speaker 3]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: And I I just heard from Chris Rice that will testify not till next Wednesday, but will hopefully bring us some more detailed information on what would be covered in the budget and how they would spend the money, how they envision it all coming together, representing the industry.

[Speaker 1]: So I don't have anything else.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, great. Do folks have questions or Michael?

[Speaker 2]: I think we're talking about the nonprofit and who is included on page four. No, 10.

[Speaker 3]: Page 10. So we're

[Speaker 2]: setting up PRO that is the manufacturers, but then we're asking them to also include these other folks on the board. Is that the idea?

[Speaker 1]: I mean, there I I have looked at examples, and there are corporations effectively that you mandate, that you dictate that they have certain representatives on their board. You make a good point in that the persons here that are assuming the liabilities and the costs are the manufacturers, and should these other entities be dictating how those costs are assumed, I I see a point in not having them on the board. But

[Speaker 0]: Not sure that's was your point? We see where you're going, Michael. Where were you going? I just wanted

[Speaker 2]: to be clearer on what the structure was. I just wasn't to make sure that what I would the way I was interpreting this was the way it's accurate.

[Speaker 0]: I

[Speaker 1]: mean, if they would create that five zero one c three or subsidiary and have these entities on that board. You you could also just create a stakeholder process where in development of any plan or components of the plan or amendment to the plan that there be a stakeholder process.

[Speaker 0]: Can you remind me what we had in there before? Was this we just were silent on this?

[Speaker 1]: You didn't have the designation as five zero one C three there.

[Speaker 3]: There

[Speaker 1]: is another program. That requires five zero one C three, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.

[Speaker 0]: Another PRO.

[Speaker 1]: Which

[Speaker 0]: would it be Matt

[Speaker 4]: For the record, Matt Chapin, director of waste management prevention division. I am pretty sure that it's CHHWVPR program, but we can take action on that.

[Speaker 0]: That's true, because that's the most recent one. Representative

[Speaker 2]: Sacowitz. So above the new language on that page, in section D, it just says, honorable four manufacturers are going to apply to the secretary to form a PRO. So it's a group of manufacturers who are voluntarily getting together from different parts of the industry, different private entities, corporations, whose presumably their representatives are getting together to form the PRO. And

[Speaker 0]: so

[Speaker 2]: are they on the board of the nonprofit entity, like, as we're setting this up? Is that what is that what this language is saying? And then we're but we're also asking them to add in representatives of these other parts of the industry to to join them on this on a board that's

[Speaker 1]: overseeing the PRO. There isn't any mandate that every manufacturer that's part of the PRO is on the board or have a representative on the board. In the formation of the articles for the corporation, they'll probably establish what the board membership will look like and how members are elected. For purposes of the complying with the requirements of this act, they have to have representatives of those entities that are part of the collection system. Now, if I were them, I would make sure that the board out. The board of manufacturers members that are manufacturers outnumber the other representatives about three to one.

[Speaker 2]: If if we're giving them that that kind of leeway, then does that obviate the having these people on the board if they're simply gonna get dramatic?

[Speaker 3]: I don't

[Speaker 1]: think it obviates. I mean, their input is still important. They're still there. They're still learning what boards learn about programs and corporations, it's still a pretty valuable position for purposes of managing a program.

[Speaker 0]: Think we're gonna take more testimony on this topic and hear different perspectives. Jumping in, North, do you have a question?

[Speaker 3]: I did. One just simple question Way back on page three, took out the not less than $05 and we're just sticking with $05 That's still the plan. So even once the PRO is created, then they gotta meet these supposedly increasing goals for redemption. 5¢ is still 5¢. We're not giving them latitude on the 5¢.

[Speaker 1]: Well, ultimately, you will. For three years, you're not. You're basically saying that the floor is gonna be 5¢. But after that three years, they'll be able to negotiate for the cost.

[Speaker 0]: For the deposit value. Well, the deposit is separate from the handling fee, though.

[Speaker 3]: Yes.

[Speaker 2]: Are you asking That's what I'm asking about,

[Speaker 3]: the the redemption fee the redemption value of the bottle of can. 5¢ of that redemption value.

[Speaker 0]: We're not proposing to change that at all.

[Speaker 1]: No. The deposit's not changing.

[Speaker 3]: That's that's what I was making sure, that the PRO doesn't have control over the

[Speaker 1]: No. I mean, you're still gonna be a bottle bill state. You're still gonna have a deposit on every relevant container.

[Speaker 3]: That deposit is established in statute, not by the PRO.

[Speaker 1]: That's correct. I wanna make sure

[Speaker 3]: I keep understanding that correctly. So then getting to the increasing goals, the percentages over time, I am a little concerned that we're looking at that as purely a redemption rate as opposed to overall diversion of stuff ending up in the landfill. That's what really that's the problem that really shocked me to make sure that solve this stuff not getting into the landfill. If it goes through its recycling process and gets mailed up and used there, I think we're perfectly happy with that. I'm just a little concerned that the goals are very kind of rather narrowly defined toward the redemption rate.

[Speaker 1]: But if it's the diversion rate, you're requiring the PRO to take responsibility over containers that are not subject to the deposit. So just thinking of aluminum, you've got hard cider. You've got all the liquid deathwaters. You've got things like that, which are not subject to

[Speaker 2]: to that. But

[Speaker 3]: that's the problem we're We don't really care under the if you under the overall diversion rate, under the covers, I really don't care what's going where, what the program is being used. What I care is that this stuff's not anything I'm going from.

[Speaker 1]: But if you're a manufacturer trying to run a program, you're assuming cost from other manufacturers. I doubt they will be happy about

[Speaker 3]: They're not. So why are they assuming costs for the manufacturing? Like they're not responsible for that PRO.

[Speaker 1]: Oh. No. But they have to collect, transport, and manage the disposition of that container, which is because that's what the program does.

[Speaker 3]: They're only responsible for tracking and managing the containers that are within the the bottle bill. All I'm saying is that they should also be working with us as legislative body to achieve the overall goals of the state, which is diversion, not just pension.

[Speaker 1]: I defer to the over here.

[Speaker 4]: So I guess I'll just say, you know, I think that you should hold the agency of natural resources accountable for the diversion rate. That's sort of the goal that we use as far as the effectiveness of our programs, which would be both the redemption rate and also any recycling that comes through your normal and traditional system. I guess if we're looking at the effectiveness of the bottle bill system, right? So looking at that system sort of as a component of our recycling system, then I think if you would want to keep it at the redemption rate so that you'd have the right metric to evaluate that system. So, but I don't disagree. Mean, like the as a state diversion is the fundamental thing,

[Speaker 2]: but when looking at the bottom bill, at retention rates.

[Speaker 3]: So agree. I like the idea of making ANR the one responsible for getting to 90 diversion or 95% diversion. 100% diversion is ideal. But I'm far less concerned. It's very interesting to know what the redemption rate is. That's an interesting statistic, but I don't know that we necessarily need to be increasing the redemption rate all the way up to 90%. There's going be a lot of people like Sarita who likes the Boy Scouts to take their bottles or to just recycle their redemption bottles so that money goes to other places.

[Speaker 1]: In In

[Speaker 3]: water, yeah. I don't know, I guess there's a level of behavioral change required to achieve this, which don't know that we really care about. I'm wondering why we're tasking an externally unelected body to drive toward. That's what we consider.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Chittenden.

[Speaker 5]: I just want to say I don't agree with you, but that's the main goal is diversion. I personally think the follow bill and having these kinds of more closed systems that are closer to keeping material more pure so that we can get higher rates for them in the market and manufacturers can have more access to raw material that is coming certain manufacturers wouldn't use the material that's coming through the larger diversion system and recycling system because it's not clean enough. So while that's not always true, it is sometimes true. And so in terms of full cycle use of materials, is a very forward thinking program because at some time, maybe right now we're getting some certain kinds of materials like aluminum that come through the recycling and solid waste district system in pretty good shape and is a pretty good raw material or recycled material for manufacturers. But glass on the other hand, totally dysfunctional, right? So we can't really reuse that material for that same kind of product. It's getting way downgraded into generally earthen material. So I guess I just would say that markets and systems for reusing material in the manufacturing process change in ebb and flow over time. And the cleaner we can keep material, the more likely manufacturers have access to that material at a decent cost and costs come into play. So diversion from the landfill and from our litter are not the only main reason for something to There bottle is this other piece around risk of full cycle thing. So to me, that is why we want to increase redemption while we also have other reasons to also care about in larger picture around ANR waste management systems, the diversion rate. So I really think for the bottle bill language, we should be tracking and incentivizing increases to the redemption rate. What

[Speaker 0]: page are the redemption rates on?

[Speaker 3]: Having visited multiple parks in the same Canada now, The story that I hear when I ask that exact question is always that, well, we we bail up our stuff, and it's all down to specification. We sell it on the secondary market to specifications that demand a certain price, and we can meet those highest specifications. What they tell us for aluminum and for the plastics. Now glass is I agree. Glass is a different story. Glass is a different story just because it's so difficult, so heavy. Usually, it's the weight is issue with glass. Transporting it very far is not very valuable. That's the main reason why most of the glass doesn't get turned back into bottles is because it's too heavy to bother transporting it far enough to get to a bottle, a glass bottle manufacturer. It's just too heavy to bother transport, so it's much easier just to turn it into sand once you get used to smoke. So I don't know that I agree. Of course, I'm entitled to agree or disagree.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, I'm going to bring us back to the bill and say the redemption rate goals are, one hand, lovely and magnificent, but to 2042, 90% fees. I'm not even sure what the world's gonna look like in 2042. So I thought, actually, maybe we had agreed to backing off of those in a previous conversation a while ago and ending at a different like, maybe just keeping one and two. Does that seem familiar to folks?

[Speaker 3]: Yeah. That that's fine.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So I think

[Speaker 1]: I would

[Speaker 0]: be asking. If we do okay. We agree on that. There we go. 203280%.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: It feels like we'll have a better sense of where we're headed than collecting. Okay. Matt Chapin, are you prepared to respond to these changes now, or would you like to wait? Likely to come up and fuzzify. Thank you, Michael.

[Speaker 2]: Good afternoon.

[Speaker 4]: Again, the record, Matt Chapin, director of case management prevention. Do you see I guess I'll so walking through the changes in my relative levels of concern with that being the most concerned first, I'm concerned about a floor handling fee and what that does to the system actually working. And my concern is that it sets up it's the incentive structure within the system so that basically the system we have in the future is going to look a lot like the system we have today. It's not going to create the financial incentive for the PRO to invest in equipment, to lower labor costs, and then pass those reduced costs on at a reduced handling fee. This is going to basically encourage them to just take the least cost approach to dealing with things, because there's never going to be any change in what they have to pay for collection in the process. So guess I would say the agency is coming in here with a belief that letting the system and negotiations work themselves out because I think, again, you're going to have some places where 3 and a half cents is not going to be adequate and it's going to be a lot more than 3 and a half cents to make it work. And there's going to be, I think, some areas where the volume and everything else, 3 and a half cents is great, impacting more than what's necessary for costs. So it's just a concern with how it affects the underlying economics of the system and the incentive structure for the PRO and what they do going forward.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah, understood. Representative Satcowitz? I think I understand what you're saying. Can you just walk us through a scenario that would make it more real? I'll try.

[Speaker 4]: Say you have a 100,000 piece of equipment that you're going to buy and put into The PRO is going to buy and put into a redemption center. That $100,000 piece of equipment means you have to have, let's say, one tenth of one person checking on the equipment to make sure that it's operating appropriately at any given time, as opposed to having a staff of people sitting there sorting bottles and cans. So your labor costs as a redemption center go down significantly as a result of this new piece of capital equipment that you did not have to buy, the PRO did. But what you get paid stays the same. So you would still be paid the same amount as if you had, let's say, two people you had to employ to basically sort bottles and cans behind the turnstile or what have you historically that they've done, even though you're down to one tenth of one person to basically make sure that the machine doesn't have an alarm going offline.

[Speaker 2]: So you're saying why would the PRO spend $100,000 on this machine

[Speaker 3]: When they

[Speaker 2]: if they're still gonna be spending the same amount on handling fees instead of a lower amount, which would be their basically, their return on investment. Correct. Correct. Well, the the PRO is not paying for that machine. So Where the state is paying for it? Well, the state's There's a grant program, right? I guess I'll just

[Speaker 4]: say my expectation. I mean, I'll let other people talk about what the costs are going to be. I think there's a lot of equipment that's going to need to be purchased in this process. And I think at the end of the day, we'll be looking to the PRO to be the one who's outfitting the system. If you start thinking about if every retail store in the state of Vermont that has 5,000 feet of retail space now needs to have some sort of collection infrastructure in addition to all of the other redemption opportunities that are gonna be out there. Guess, I think that there's a large cost. And again, my expectation and hope is that we don't invest to the minimum.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Tagliavia.

[Speaker 4]: I'm just trying to figure out that what this PRO, this this building with this equipment that's gonna be sorting looks like. I've been to a couple of Murphs. How different is this sorting system gonna look from a MRF, or is it gonna be exactly the same, just with different ownership? It will be completely different. So you'll have a piece of equipment. There's probably a a number of different ways they could end up doing this, some of which do look like a MRF, but I think at the end of the day, what you're looking at is something where you as a consumer go in, put your bottles and cans into a piece of equipment. It could be a backdrop. It could be something you feed cans into. There's a lot of different things out there that you could use. Sometimes you get your money right back at that moment. Other times you have an account and it credits your account after it's been sorted at some off-site facility. On the processing end of the equation, so when all of the bottles and cans and such get processed and bailed prior to being shipped for their ultimate disposition, they they look it looks a lot like a MRF. Right? It it that part of the equation where where it all sort of gets centralized so Tomer has a facility in Essex, I believe. That facility looks a lot like Perth. Right? It already exists. And it already exists, yes.

[Speaker 0]: Are you all set? Yeah. Thanks. I guess I'm wondering I just wanna talk a

[Speaker 4]: little bit about the

[Speaker 0]: every retailer over 5,000 square feet becomes a redemption center, which they currently are now. In theory, yes. In theory, but not in practice. Correct. Have you all mapped what it would look like? Like, like, how many redemption centers does that get us if they all actually redeemed? Like, then do we still have deserts of redemption, or do we have too many for the, like, for the amount of PRO capital investments we want to make?

[Speaker 4]: We haven't done that mapping. To be honest, we would be looking at the PRO. I think, frankly, part of the startup of the PRO to basically go in and do the mapping of where are those retail places at, what does it look like on a map, do we have areas where there isn't adequate coverage, what do we need to do in those areas to make sure there's sufficient opportunities for redemption there.

[Speaker 0]: Do you imagine that that that's where the capital investments will be made from that sort of redemption deserts, and then the the handling fees would stay the same where it sort of is a smaller retailer that

[Speaker 2]: I mean, I'll be honest.

[Speaker 4]: I think that the things that tend to drive costs are labor and throughput, right? The cost it takes to hire a person in a given location and the amount of material that's going through a redemption center. So it's in a rural part of Vermont where there's not as much throughput, the costs of running that are higher and I would assume that the distributors are going to have to the PRO is going to have to pay more in those areas. 3 and a half cents may not be enough. It may be a cost that's higher than that.

[Speaker 0]: So you're suggesting we remain silent on the

[Speaker 4]: That's the agency's recommendation. Right? And I think we have some concern. I mean, we

[Speaker 2]: think, you know, I mean,

[Speaker 4]: I think if you want to inject anything, I think the right place to inject it is during the reporting requirements. So after there's a program report and recommendations that comes in after five years of operation. So let's see how this has worked. Or do people think that the compensation structure that exists after the first five years of operation, is it fair? Is it operating, is the system operating well from a collector standpoint and try and make adjustments after we've seen that data come in on how it's working in real life.

[Speaker 2]: Do you want to get to number two?

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[Speaker 4]: Number two is the concern about the various stakeholders on the board of the PRO. Frankly, the concern is somewhat what Michael said. You've got people who have very different interests. Some of them are embedded in the beverage redemption system who are going to be on the decision making board of a collection system. My concern is, I have two concerns. One is it's generally speaking, I think a bad idea for ANR, the legislature to say who should be on a board. We're getting kind of into the weeds at that point. But the other is these people may have personal interests that are not in alignment with the board that they're serving on, which creates conflicts and other challenges for those individuals in their capacity as board members. Because remember, your obligation as a board member is to represent the organization that you're sitting on, not your own personal interests, which again, I can see it creating some strange conflicts by having people It feels like you almost may be setting up a set of conflicts of interest by doing this. So again, my recommendation is there is a stakeholder process in the plan review portion of this law that has those stakeholders before the agency ever sees the plan, that those stakeholders have an opportunity to comment on it and make recommendations to the PRO on that plan. If the committee doesn't think that goes far enough, I am comfortable with a requirement that the PRO either has to accept their changes or in writing say why they didn't. So it's a procedural requirement that basically puts the PRO on the record as to being responsive to the concerns raised by this group of

[Speaker 3]: stakeholders. Interesting.

[Speaker 0]: So originally, were silent on it. And I should

[Speaker 4]: just go ahead and say I support the nonprofit corporation. Right. So don't I don't take my concern about the board to being concerned about them. I think I always assumed it would be a nonprofit corporation, but I think it's perfectly fine to require that it be one.

[Speaker 1]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Good. And so if I just heard you correctly, you're suggesting that in prior iterations, do we have a stakeholder group? Yeah. And that perhaps the board could just provide to you or your agency how they responded to requests from the stakeholder group. Yes. And if they didn't choose to do the suggestion, they would say why. Why?

[Speaker 4]: So I think we could work on why which it does. Representative

[Speaker 2]: Satcowitz. I I would just I wanted to push back a little bit on the conflict of interest in within the board being a problem. I think it's actually fairly common for for boards to have diverse opinions and not necessarily, you know, all be lined up with exactly the same goals. And it just depends upon what the goal of the organization really is, not it's not so much the individual members. There corporate boards, private businesses that have employees on those boards, and presumably the employees have different perspectives on other members of the board, and they're there to work it out. I think that's fair. I just think it could get complicated quickly.

[Speaker 4]: And the last one, and this may be best to just defer into next week, is issues surrounding how we approach the grant system. And I think when I was in here last week testifying on the grants, was an initial proposal that went into the chair and the committee and then subsequent negotiation that resulted in an alternate proposal that I submitted with my testimony. That alternate proposal has broad consensus around it, and the original one does not.

[Speaker 0]: Michael, are you clear on which version mister Chapin's referring to? And or Second version.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. The second version. Changes. With no changes.

[Speaker 0]: Try that on for our next round.

[Speaker 2]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Other thoughts on the redemption PRO before we shift gears?

[Speaker 4]: I don't have any unless people have questions of me. I think there's one other, and I shared what I think is almost an editorial comment about an issue with liquor and lottery in their section where so that one feels like it's that's my my bad. It's yeah. Yeah. We'll

[Speaker 0]: see that one then in the one. Alright.

[Speaker 3]: So I'm happy to move on if there are

[Speaker 4]: no questions to any other topic you would like to take me to.

[Speaker 0]: Let's see. Yeah. No. We'd like to hear your thoughts on the fire extinguishers in h six thirty two.

[Speaker 4]: So I, was working with the the gentleman from the fire extinguisher

[Speaker 3]: group. And

[Speaker 0]: I I mean, I

[Speaker 4]: think there's probably some additional work that needs to take place with the language that's there. I I think that there is I guess I will also say literally within the past maybe five to ten minutes, I've received some comments from the solid waste management entities that they have some concerns. With the draft exemption that we're looking at. Yes. So and I have not had a chance to thoroughly review what their concerns are or evaluate them. But I would note for the committee that they are voicing some concerns in this space. From the agency's perspective, I think if there is an adequate program in place that ensures when a extinguisher is collected at an HHW event that there's someone that can be called to deal with that extinguisher, that we're gonna be okay with that. And I think the question is getting everyone okay with the language so that there aren't other concerns that are created through the language. So I think we're close. There's still, I think, a few more minutes of of work that need to be done. And and to some degree, I'm deferring. You know, it's There is a verb that needs to be changed, and I'm okay. I understand what their concern is with collect and the desire to have it be a different word there. Reusing them

[Speaker 0]: or their

[Speaker 4]: again, think the thing that's important to the agency, if you're not participating or involved with a voluntary manufacturer collection program that picks up extinguishers that are dropped off at an HHW event, then you need to be in the HHW EPR program. That is our position. And I think everyone appreciates that these are difficult to manage materials and it should not fall on our municipalities. We shouldn't be creating an orphan product that municipalities are required to pay

[Speaker 0]: for. Great. Sounds like you're close.

[Speaker 4]: I think so. Again, there are some new concerns that just got brought to my attention I have not had a chance to reflect on.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, great. Any further questions for Matt? Thank you for joining us.

[Speaker 4]: Kristi, did you have tires too?

[Speaker 0]: Love to hear about it.

[Speaker 4]: We're done with tires. I'm fine with that. I have no epiphany.

[Speaker 0]: I thought he was gonna take care of Tides.

[Speaker 4]: I need to give you language?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Oh, that's it.

[Speaker 4]: Okay. I will send you I've drafted something. I'll send it to Michael. It's pretty simple, and it can inevitably be improved upon. But I will send my first cut to Michael.

[Speaker 0]: We appreciate it simple. Alright. And we look forward to seeing it. Thank you for joining us again. You're welcome. We have someone from DMV coming at three, so we'll take a brief recess until three. Are you Michael, are you clear on where we are with some of our moving parts on the well, we'll start with the redemption PRO changes.

[Speaker 1]: So in the bottom build, you want to see Matt's second proposal for the funding included in the draft, next draft. You want to Hold on, sir. Want to correct the mistake that's in the liquor bottle language. Do you want to I don't think you made a decision on the board or not.

[Speaker 3]: I didn't hear what you said, Rob. I actually like Larry's point, but leaving it in a way that's good key. Because, I mean, if the concern is conflict of interest. Clearly the manufacturers themselves are invested as a conflict of interest. So why would considering recycling site owners or other people be considered a conflict of interest? They're all part of the same process.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Well, we'll hold on that, but we're gonna hear back from the manufacturers on it as well.

[Speaker 1]: The last change, it's striking the redemption rate goals for 2037 and 2042.

[Speaker 3]: Yes. Thank you.