are scheduled, we're closing in on some final version of the possible votes on bills. The first of which is S-12, the State Under Management Program, is Washington which joins in the table. I think we asked for some amendments last time. Or are we all? I think you voted off the amendment yesterday. We did, sorry. Yeah, we got it. We got it productive ahead of time. And this is, sorry, now I remember. If we had one more hiccup or anything, I wanted to make sure we had a chance to make a last minute edit. So I think we are actually entirely attached, unless anyone's had some kind of come up with an issue overnight that I'm unaware of. So do we have that vote sheet for that? Yeah. Yes, we do. OK. No, no, no. You don't remember? Well, I see the vote sheet. I want to check the vote carefully first. All right, thanks very much. OK, great. Smooth sailing, all done. Nice work. Easiest part of my morning. I hope you're on a roll now. Yeah. You're on your own. You're on your own committee. I agree. I'm everywhere. You can sell it. It's more than one in the head of your own. Where are you doing? The other, honestly, I did forget that we had to have that vote. This was a fail-safe spot on the schedule, and I think there was something more to do. So on S30, we were looking at the draft. Sure, do you want to have a final vote on that or no? We just amended the bill yesterday. I'm sorry. No, I just want to make sure that. Yeah, no, I wanted to go ahead and vote it. I don't know why we did it in two steps, were we waiting for a clean copy back? No, she said there were no changes to the amendment. OK, we didn't change the amendment. All right, so do we, can you pull out the vote sheet and we'll finalize it by moving the bill as amended, please? Usually we do it all at once. That's what you're trying to think why that probably the person is right, is the state. So we know what's right and what's wrong. So this is the final vote. So I'm going to, just for belt and suspenders here, what I've recorded is about 2 to 1. We have people out of the room. We had 3-0-0. So you had what? 5 on 1. 3-0-0. 3-0-0. 3-0-0. So what do you think is important? There were three people here. 3-0-2. You'll get it. I'll get it. Right. The draft amendment we made, just to get clear, it was draft 1.1, time stamp 539 p.m. So that's the one that you have. That's the amendment that you have. That's the amendment that you have to put in order now. So having so amended the bill that I'd be looking for a motion to vote the bill as so amended. So moved. OK. And protocol roll, please. Senator McConnell? Yes. Senator Powerant? Yes. Senator Rogers? Yes. Camping? Yes. Senator Brick? Yes. Is there anyone who would like to report this bill? I move folding chairs and town halls. No, I'm happy to report the bill. OK. Thank you very much. So that's 12 square feet away. Grant Svarga wants that. I didn't feel this wheelbarrow. I'm just going to go the other way. I'm just pushing the version I hear. I didn't feel this wheelbarrow. I'm just pushing it. And we know where most wheelbarrows that are being pushed are.  Thank you. Thank you. Thanks to Court. Thank you, Senator Brick. Correcting my 3-0-0. All right. Thank you. But we sorted that out. That was a major lift. We maybe should take a break now. You have a chance to look at more. S-30. So we went through the draft. We took testimony. The deputy secretary filled this in. The clean water, I'm sorry, the clean alliances effort to come up with a standard. And so I had asked Mr. Watt if he could bring us language that recommend language to us as we looked at moving S-30 forward. Did we want to make modifications to allow for the state to participate in this clean alliance effort that was going to be a shared standard by, I think, 23 states. And did you bring copies of the language? I did not. I had a chance to be in the office before. OK. And so they're objecting and trying to have some copies. They presented to you. The face did this last last week. Is that the one you sent me, though, that was kind of couldn't read it because it was. It's readable. It's just not in pretty bill format. So while we're getting copies of the readable but not pretty bill format version of suggested edits, no matter what they look like, we can still look at them. That's the problem. Do you want to join us at the panel? For the record, Peter Walk, deputy secretary of the state of national resources, joined by Colin Smythe from the Department of Environmental Conservation, who is one of the people working with US climate alliance on working on language that all states can use to develop regulations associated with phase down or phase out of HMCs. So Colin is a technical expert. If you have any questions, maybe you'll answer them. While we're waiting on language, the idea with our edits. I want to hear from you about how to make sure that you have it sufficiently. So the purpose of our edits were to align with the work that is ongoing in the multi-state level and to make sure that we don't create definitions that are in conflict, either with federal statutes or with the work that's ongoing so that when we come back to you through the all car process, there's no inconsistencies between the other piece and broad strokes. What we've asked you to ask us or direct us to do is to promulgate rules by, I believe it's by July 1, 2020 and report back to you by January 15 of next year on the status of those rules as we talked about and to say where we are in any unforeseen issues that might slow that process down. Senator Reyes, you and I have discussed having essentially a report back to say where is it, how are you doing? We believe that we can likely do it prior to that July 1, 2020 date. However, because we're in this multi-state process and it's worth getting the entire market moved, we want to make sure that that has time to play itself out. And it's the target goals for the program through the alliance. How do they compare to what's that underlying bill? We don't change that. We're going to believe that Bill Baume, the Kigali Amendment language. That's right. So we didn't make change to the goal of the, believe it's the reduction of 30%, 40% by 2030. Yeah, that we don't change. So in essence, the changes we've informed federal definition is we keep on working with other states. You do it through a rulemaking and then report out next January as to whether or not for where we are.  And if for some reason the multi-state effort were to break down, we would tell you how we're moving forward on the individual state level. That's a good question. So when you say the rules have been filed, where? So the goal is to have finalized the rules by what's in statute is to have filed with the Secretary of State by July 1, 2020. So those are final rules. OK, so they haven't been filed yet. OK. They haven't been filed yet. They haven't been filed in any. That's what I was wondering. There's a draft in California that a lot of the work is being based on. But that hasn't been filed yet as a final rule either. And they are part of that discussion. And can you remind me again, was it the alliances, did you say 23 states or something? It's now 23 states and over 50% of the population and over 50% of the GDP of the US by partisan states around the country. The launch of defense in there enough to create greater inertia. A inertia can work both ways of creating continued movement. I suppose our inertia went to an optics of motion, so many of them. Well, you can have three as it's discussion. One, two, three. Pretty good at that, that's cool. Done. Done. That's right. Yeah. I'm very excited about it, too. Some specific, well, we'll wait for the language. We'll go through some specifics. And some of these I might not entirely be able to answer, because Megato tool, the air quality attorney for DC, did some of this work. And I think she was doing some based on consistency, but I will speak to them as best I can. She hoped to be here today, but was unable to. And so if we have follow-up questions, we'll go back to Megato. Well, yes, I think in terms of voting, which we have tomorrow. Yes. I don't think our edits are particularly controversial. And so I hope that, sorry, Senator McDonald, I take this a bunch of. Well, my overall choice, we're in for the same target. We're just doing the path that keeps us apart of the thing along. Thank you, Chair. And I apologize, we hope to snag a word version of the bill and put it in correct form, I think. So this is a PDF to word to editing. Do you have it? I do. So I have a copy that I'm choosing colors. So it's a little easier to see your changes. We should probably walk through them and highlight. Well, and actually, you have a copy that shows you the changes. Do you want to walk through what? Where there's like point, besides carving out the bill with the new pieces, there are a number of point edits on the way through. Sure. If we want to talk about some of the definitions this first, I think that's probably so. If you'll see it in 586A1, we changed the definition of a class one and class two substance to align with federal law. And so then that applies appropriately. I think we've run into issues of conflict there, which changed the definition of hydrofluorocarbon to more closely match the work that we're doing on through the multi-state process. So we believe that will align with the ultimate definition that all states agree to. And a quick question on H2. I might copy the word retrofit I want to highlight. Because we're always going to apply to retrofits as well, or is it just that retrofit is the term of art for federal language, or that this is becoming? I was wondering why retrofits highlighted. I think that's a good question. I can ask that. My guess is that it's a recognition that you are making a change. And so if it's simply existing, then it's not actually reflecting a change. So the change from sub-the-two-to-substance means, effectively, in the process of changing to an alternative. There is, whether it's a retrofit, or whether it's a retrofit of existing technology, or? Either way, it seems like a plus. We're trying not just to do equipment. We're also trying not to make a change. So retrofit, I think what it doesn't constitute is recharge, where we talked about this white from efficiency Vermont talked about the fact that you can't simply trade one chemical out for another in an existing system. But if you retrofit that system to be able to handle the chemical, then the new chemical, then it can be changed. So a recharge being separate, I think that is the import of that change. And that's sort of critical to the ultimate success. Sir, can you just say a little bit more about the definition of change? So you're changing it with hydrofluorocarbons? So can you just walk us through those changes a little bit? So you've gotten rid of the manufactured fluorinated gas. Is that my reading that correctly? Maybe it's because I don't have any color. Yeah, Colin, do you know how that relates to? Do you have a comment? Would you just identify yourself with a record? Sure, pulse, life, and non-DEC air quality. I'm not entirely sure, but this is a language and they kind of pulled out of the work that is being done by the Quality Alliance for the States. And it is making up to a long-term chemical return from their quality. And so I think generally hydrofluorocarbons are manufactured fluorinated gases. That's what I was wondering. That's always true. I think they probably want to capture fluoride fluoride. We're not putting on this today, right? We have press council to answer it over. The main difference is that we're manufactured. Yeah, we believe that the definition is broader than what was originally proposed to capture things that might not have been manufactured. I have a beginner question. Maybe you don't know what we do. Are there naturally occurring hydrofluorocarbons? You have exhausted the technical knowledge of the A&R team. We need to volunteer. HFCs are always manufactured. Would you mind just identifying yourself again? We're going to try and capture that. Yeah, Christian Campbell, Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development. HFCs are completely manufactured. They are not naturally occurring. So you're comfortable with the definition changes? Yeah, the new definition for HFCs is based on the... It's the same one that's in the CARB regulation. Thank you. Excellent. Which is where the basis of much of the work of the US Climate Alliance is coming from is because California has been the furthest along in working on those regulations. We propose to strike some language relative to the specificity of related to certain uses and simply spell out later on in the rulemaking process. That's easier for me in color, too. We've done that. There was a lot of specificity related to consumer refrigeration products and foam blowing, but not all other potential uses of HFCs that we would be proposing to be regulated. And so given that the rules may involve other things, we thought it was easier to be silent on the specifics and so that we can propose the rule that aligns with your intent rather than be constrained by specifics in one area and silence in another. If that makes sense? So you're saying that top of page three and it's in other end uses. Right. So we propose in the top of page three the rules that would reduce hydrochloric carbon emissions by adopting prohibitions on the use of and then the substances in any of the end uses described and any other end uses based on the criteria that follow. But we remove some of the discussions on page two around some of the specifics relative to foam and the consumer refrigeration piece. So essentially from B1 down to 3B on the previous version, on your version. So Chair, just a note about the foam blowing and the question is, does this simply copy the California standards here? This is based on, so Mr. Tull and Gahn have been working on the regulations and they're based on the California standards. What we are trying to do is make sure that as that process continues forward, there is a specificity in the bill that conflicts with the work of the multi-state effort so that we're getting to the, that there's conflict of where we need to, where we ideally would pursue. We're all working towards it. We're trying to write a bill that would follow the California standards even if they were to change or to be modified. I maybe let Councilman speak to where the specifics of these came from. I don't know the... Following the California standards and adjusting things that helps when California does it is a practice that has been followed. Are you planning to follow the practice that previously has been followed? That was moving. So this does not, this specific piece does not refer to, those don't say that we're going to follow the California standard and then continue to follow it going forward. You're providing us with the rulemaking authority to do this work based on these prescriptions as the bill has drafted. We would, we think that these prescriptions could potentially run in conflict with what California and the other states that are involved in the discussions around a model rule. I use that term loosely because it's not necessarily going to be exactly the same in all states where then to move, to move that forward. So there's no, and then we wouldn't, our rule would be an individual's state rule that wouldn't be tied to a California rule but we would be working together with them on the requirements. And if additional work were needed, then we would continue to work through this subgroup within the U.S. Climate Alliance if there's a continued lack of federal action on this realm. Just one sort of big picture question. Is there any area in here where the proposed changes, we would say are less protective than what the original bill proposed? I don't believe so. To my knowledge, it doesn't. There aren't, no, I mean it's not our intent to do exactly what the bill did, which is to take the California, the proposed California dinner as a model and build a coalition of the willing around doing that and creating an effective nationwide market. So there are two ways to approach the California standards on the variety of things that we deal with and one is when they change it, we go along with it. If we don't want to go along with it, we act. And the other one is to not go along with it and then to have to act and act and act and act for each change, for each part of the change that they make. So which one is this one, the second one? Well, we're not in either case where we tie ourselves to California. You have, rather than in previous iterations of air quality pieces where we tie ourselves to California in some way or shape or form where we simply, you know, do the same rig that they just did. This is not that work. This is a multi-state effort that's actually already, the California standard is actually based on the federal role that is not being enforced right now. So it's not really a, California happened to be the first one to do the draft, but we shouldn't think about this in the same way. We should think about it differently if we've got to the same conclusions. We are, we are. But there is a difference, right? We have been on Elkhart for a while. There are usually two approaches. This one is neither one of those. It's neither one of those. And the reason is we, because it's a special case, 99% of our rules don't follow that model. So I think this is closer to what we normally do then. It's part of the challenge. There is not an existing, there's not an existing, California standard for us to say we simply want to do that. What we're doing here really is just shifting from us doing it immediately in some way to again this sort of being part of a larger group. And you're not even really shifting that. You're saying do the same thing but just do it. It's not a larger group to see if it can come to agreement and move forward. That's the minor date change that we have in there is the only effect really to the timeline associated with this. And that's simply as a stopgap to make sure that this process has a chance to play out. But if the process, this plays out, do you worry that it's going to take a longer time? Tell me just the confidence in it working in terms of the dates. We've been working on this for six months or so already now. We have a good templated place. I think I would ask Colin his general opinion but it seems like things are moving along pretty well. Yeah, I think they are. I can't kind of speak to our regulation but the group as a whole has kind of more or less solidified the law of rule kind of the general guidelines that states have been to follow if they so choose. And they kind of an added benefit of keeping the consistency between the states is for kind of regulated entities for this program like consistency throughout their markets and that's definitely a plus for them. So right now the Climate Alliance states have agreed to move forward with regulations but we're providing the template for everything before it. Right now it's California, New York, Maryland, Connecticut and I know other states are considering it. Mass, Delaware, Rhode Island and so I don't think any of though you know we create the market with that because by itself it's going to be you know 40% of the U.S. market and they're not going to want to make two products. Is that true of cars? Off the topic. I don't believe that any manufacturer makes a car that can't be sold in California because it's just not worth it. That's what I'm encouraging. Oh well. There's no making two versions for domestic sales which was shocking to me because cars move all over the place after a while. All right. Great. Any other questions for Deputy Secretary? Thanks for working with all the states and it's easy for now. There's a lot of catering that happens. Folks like myself can pick away and say you know like all of these things we in the climate we're significantly more powerful when we use our intellectual muscle in a larger group than trying to do things solely on our own. So off of the case. So thank you. Thank you very much. Avoid. Avoid? Avoid. Avoid our kindness. No. I think it's going long today between voting and inviting Ms. Campbell. Good morning. Thanks for coming back. Happy to be here. Kristin Campbell, the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development. Short background. We're small nonprofit based in DC and Paris specializing in short-lived climate pollution as like a vast mitigation strategy. HRCs has always been a flagship of what we've done. We've been working the organization we've been working on it since about 2009 when they first started attempting to amend the Montreal protocol to incorporate HRCs. So you've seen these two bills now. I mean a draft, a change, a change in the original one. Yes, I haven't seen all of the changes. It's kind of sharing a bit. And I also pulled up the in terms of the the revised version is more in line with the car regulation that they have been working on. The text is in S38, the previous draft, the unamended draft is more in line with the California law that was already passed by HRCs. There's that distinction between the two of how they let go. In terms of how the amendment So in terms of striking a number of the language of the specifics that's just to keep, that would then keep the bill to be more general. So I suppose one version of the question model is are we catching ourselves to the best emerging standard for HFCs if we sign on to a car where we got an initial alliance? So what the climate alliance is doing is they are taking all of the various actions that have been done mostly pretty much in California because they have already taken the action. They have a legislative option through SB 1013 and then they have a regulation option through their CARB initiative which is now just going to be the CARB snap rules and those were modeled on the rules that were recently partially vacated and then rescinded by the EPA. So the language has already been established of what any uses can be used, what refrigerants should be banned, which ones can be substituted in various realms. So there is all of the text and language present. Having a law kind of sets a framework and establishes a timeline and that's what both California has done in S30 I believe is attempting to do is just to conceptualize it and make it something that is a definitive action and not a possibility of taking a long time or being an amorphous we shall get to it. So California has a short-lived climate pollutants bill that they did two and a half years ago. It was passed in 2016 and that was the one where they specified that they were going to reduce HFCs and other short-lived climate pollutants. In doing their bill two years later that was just about HFCs it was adding a little bit more context and giving a definitive scope and a way for CARB to enact regulation that would meet that target and to make that goal. So the reason they included the reference of the federal statutes the federal language as well as the specific sectors I think was a lot of guidance to CARB of these are the areas that we would like to focus on because these were the areas that were being focused on at the federal level that are no longer being part of it. So it sounds like the initiative at the state level fills in we're on the right track to a national a quote-of-word national standard correct as more and more states act it will provide some evidence for other states to act and it's also a good signal for industry though for the most part industry it's already been taking steps they had already been making progress towards phasing out HFCs because of the previous EPA actions Any other comments on the changes or even the approach whether or not we stick with the underlying bill or if we amend it in terms of your work and your experience I'm not entirely sure if there's one definitive route to go with potentially having the definitions in line with the other states and how they may go is definitely a step in the right direction it just really depends on whether you would like the definitions within a legislation to match the regulation itself or to be construed in a more broad fashion I also am looking at the definition of striking out striking out substitute in favor of substance I will say that the reason for using substitute part of that of California was in reaction to the Mexican floor ruling substance is a very broad term in this context and if you're specifying something like HFCs substance can be too broad and as for definition for the term retrofit that is also coming out of the card regulation so you can find that information in there it is helpful to have these things defined I would follow the legislative action on it and allow the regulations to become more specific and more specified as they are developed as a reaction if you need more time it's totally we didn't have that kind of response I know you just got that copy so while we're using council if you have more thoughts raise your hand that's great no questions from the chairs no not at all thank you thank you so you've heard the discussion I think we're aiming to be as effective as possible and there's a strategy question would we stop ourselves now versus would we be better off as a state by tying ourselves to this larger group and staying compatible with the language strategies are developing from my point of view I'd say something like are we, is there what are we giving up by making the change to the proposed new language is there anything we're losing that I have a concern on our behalf that we're giving up something Ellen Chekowski office of legislative council in drafting this bill initially there there were sort of two strategies which have already hit on this bill as it is right now contains the section two rulemaking provision sort of as a catch-all in case this becomes a more dynamic process and rules needed to be added to reflect changes but initially the sponsor was concerned about matching the California legislation which has been signed into law as closely as possible especially because it did contain the federal language and so it is a policy decision so this bill very closely tracks federal language to fill in the whole of the federal language that's been vacated so going a more broad route by just providing the rulemaking authority could it doesn't necessarily mean that it won't track the federal rules but they're so you know one way people worry about it is like might we end up with a weaker program by virtue of meantime I guess there's no judgment one way or the other the emerging standard of model maybe stronger or weaker than what we already have in S30 that sounds fair yeah I'm not certain where it will go if from where to have its own languages in the current version S30 do we run into an interstate commerce clause with problems by regulating to our own standard no and so this language is in statute in California so it's already it already exists any other committee questions council so committee I don't know where how you want to sort out the path forward for we have to help tomorrow to do that but anyone have any thoughts may I just add so I wouldn't mind touching base with the sponsor Senator Pearson seeing you know I talked to him a little bit yesterday but I think it might be helpful to respectful just to hear a little bit from him if you want to go in with this okay I mean that's just I think worthwhile I'm fine with the again the underlined bill but if people are you know there's certainly a case for doing the amended version so that's why I'm maybe touching base with him if you yeah I'm fine with doing it maybe once you turn a bill in you turn a bill in so yeah I know there's that too looking for kind of some additional guidance around what what the temperature check is out there also our colleagues so but if you prefer to ignore the lead sponsor that's fine is the camera so do a quick sweep of the room pan in Senator Peterson crying you know anyhow maybe I we could even buy crash one the standard the substitute track is being proposed is coming out of based on the California Air Resources Board legislation so we've hitched our wagons to theirs before theirs being or isn't it being ignored isn't that what we heard no the federal so the federal the federal it has been the EPA part has been so then California adopted it so there's sort of a dual track right now CARB has been acting and it's not entirely in sync with what is in statute not that they're in conflict but there are some differences so CARB is working on the specifics but California enacted this phase down schedule which is what is in your bill so it's a slight difference but they're not in conflict so how would you describe the difference between the two so I have a friend most of the CARB regulation but my understanding of what happened was CARB started rulemaking and then the legislature was concerned because there was because the rule had been vacated and wanted to act to make sure that there wasn't a hole so they enacted a phase down schedule and I am not an expert on what is going on now with the interplay but there is a schedule of statute and there are regulations that are being developed although I think they are final but I'm Hi it's any other questions so we'll check with Senator Pearson and find out if you could look into that a little more just so we'll know what the essential difference is between what we would be adopting in statute who S3 is currently drafted versus if you can highlight any differences you see between what the emerging model is Any other questions for council? Any other comments from anyone in the room with an interest in the bill Mr. Deputy Secretary I saw you moving that's sometimes a signal that someone has something they want to say I would simply say that ultimately it will be a rule that products are following to meet California standards unless there is some sort of legal action taken to balance the difference between the legislation and the rules in California it is our preference to align with the rules given that that will be the closest later on that that people are following to meet but then this reminds me of some as I think it was last year in 411 or 410 when we had energy standards for monitor, computer monitors that we adopted California rule by reference although we had to keep on approving it directly so we weren't seeing control of our rules to California but we attached ourselves to a rule before probably a few times not sure alright so we'll work on it some more and come to a decision tomorrow. Thank you very much there's no break schedule I'm so reluctant to say this but what if we just take a 10 minute break and jump back in at 5 after on 113 I have a bill up in 1130 so let's see it go 113 and then a committee so so waiting for council a next draft of 113 meanwhile while we have that conversion okay so let's pass those out so people can start to take a look we'll walk through some tuning necessary the other thing you'll find in your folder is that we have in the current version of the bill it names polystyrene as a substance to be included in the ban and since then we had some testimony that left people uncertain as to what the right choices around managing polystyrene better might be and so part of our discussion was maybe what becomes one of the things considered by the so then we develop more details about how the working group is composed what its charge is etc over as so not unusual to have someone say I have other information that may re-evaluate that potential change so we have a packet top sheet Mr. Burns will be speaking for that information I think the point of it is that some people believe that there is enough information to distinguish expanded polystyrene from other things to go ahead and make that change now and Mr. Rades if you could join us at the table thank you very much for two rounds of editing in less than 24 hours that's what number 13 if you could walk us through the most current version of the build that's great so does everyone have 2.1 data today at 46 so section 1 you still have that new sub chapter while being added to the solid waste chapter but it is now no longer addressing anything that's now single use carry out bags and single use plastic straws so there's the definition of carry out bag it remains the same the bag provided by the store food service establishment to a customer at the point of sale for carrying groceries and retail goods definition of disability and food service establishment in plastic remain the same as the secretary but the definition of single use it was focused on to be used to for a beverage or a food and now it is more generic so it means a product that is designed and intended to be used only once and is generally recognized by the public as an item that is to be discarded after one use store definition remains the same page 2 line 11 you'll now see why single use was changed in the prohibition for carry out bags it had previously just been a prohibition on plastic carry out bags now it's a prohibition on single use plastic carry out bags that's because you could have read the previous prohibition as applying to reusable plastic bags and that's how the New Jersey bill was based on that's how the New Jersey bill was drafted but I think this is a refinement if you don't want to address reusable bags okay on page 2 line 14 and 15 for the provision on single use plastic straws the exception had previously been about medical condition or disability it's now to a person upon request the chair and I made that change this morning I failed to make the conforming change of removing the definition of disability you no longer need that the penalties remain the same rule making remains the same and then there is a brand new section on the working group it's not focused on the plastic bags it's about a single use products working group there are definitions carry out bag disability, disposable plastic food where standard producer responsibility they'll all get used in the creation of the working group which is on page 5 so there is created a single use products working group to evaluate current state municipal policy and requirements for management of unwanted single use products we'll recommend to the general assembly policy and requirements that the state should enact to improve statewide management of single use products divert single use products from disposal in landfills and prevent contamination of natural resources by discarding single use products the membership it's a member of the senate appointed by the committee the committee is a member of the house appointed by the speaker the secretary of natural resources or deputy a representative from a single stream material recovery facility two representatives of the swimmies appointed by the committee on committees one representative from the league one representative of an association representing manufacturers and distributors of single use products one representative of environmental advocacy groups located in the state appointed by the speaker two representatives of stores or food service establishments in the state appointed by the committee on committees and then you'll see the powers and duties they'll evaluate the success of the existing state and municipal requirements for management of unwanted single use products including a life cycle analysis of the management of single use products from production to ultimate disposition they'll estimate the cost of management by the state municipalities of unwanted single use products and they'll estimate other costs of the management or failure to manage unwanted single use products including the effects on management capacity they'll summarize the effects on the environment and natural resources of failure to managing these products appropriately including the capacity to create litter effects on human health from toxic substances that originate in unwanted single use products I'm making some I didn't have time to proofread it this morning and so I'm proofing as I'm reading on page seven line three they will recommend methods or mechanisms for improving the life cycle management of single use products in the state including whether the state should establish EPR requirements for manufacturers distributors or brand owners if EPR for single use products are recommended the group shall recommend the single use products included under the requirements the financial incentive for manufacturers distributors or brand owners of single use products to minimize the environmental impacts the environmental impacts considered will include greenhouse gas emissions from the production use and recovery of single use products the group will recommend how to structure a requirement to provide or finance the collection, processing and recycling of single use products using the existing infrastructure for feasible that's basically a standard for all of your EPR programs page eight line one they will also give you an estimate of the cost and benefits of any recommended method or mechanism for improving the management of single use products in the state moving on on page eight line four the group gets the assistance of A&R, the department of health on JFO on page eight line eight they have a report to you by December 1 of 2019 with the findings and recommendations under sub D the office of ledge council calls for first meeting the committee shall select a chair at the first meeting the working group ceased to exist on 31, 2020 you get reimbursement other members that aren't legislators get reimbursement if they're not otherwise compensated and then on page nine line four no more than six meetings and then page nine line 13 and 14 the act would be an act relating to the management of single use products interact do we have a fiscal note cost for the cost of running the working group but I can I think we should ask somebody well yeah because of that right okay yeah yeah so I'll check in I'll figure related to that question is there anything else that the school should look into regarding this they're going to be part of the working group so so ahead of time nothing really just the cost for the working group itself I think that's up to you yeah that's it okay thank you um I think I think it's pretty much as what I had in my head yesterday I sorry thank you so greenhouse gases are synonymous all the time with the amount of carbon you're producing something that weighs three times as much and you're all in it a thousand miles I wouldn't want to I'd like the committee to take a look at that stuff and then and then give a whole picture and then come back and say gee you have this you have the greenhouse gases but that doesn't include so it could be the effect on climate change is that what you're looking at I want to make perhaps a yeah but that's one of the things we're looking at and it ought to be clear can you do you have an edit to offer we're in live edit mode so I hate to spend time in the effort to come back to have a Radford committee say well he didn't include these things that he had on his packaging oh I see so add climate change right in that last one he was one of the first witnesses that we had that looked at a variety of different aspects about the products not just one or two salient aspects so you could change that and so say the environmental impacts shall include analysis of the effects on climate change production use and recovery of single use products does production use and recovery recovery cover transportation climate change recovery what in it well does it I mean it because it's trucked from the manufacturer to the user it's trucked from the user to the store transport in there I think it's a big part of the overall formula not available or we looked into it and it was negligible yeah but we at least they look into it sure and I think part of I don't know if it's in the right place or carryover when we added life cycle analysis it was just from conclusion through final disposition was to get exactly that let's track the whole thing not just look at the piece of it come to wrong conclusions because we're not looking at enough data okay so do you have is that sufficiently clear based on those two comments I just want to make sure that council has clear direction I feel clearly correct transparent I have a question about one of the members on the working group it says a member from the single use industry but I didn't know if we wanted to be a little more specific to that you know representative association or group representing manufacturers of single use products if we wanted to actually talk about specifically because if we put a manufacturer just like plastic bat you know there's a lot of single use it's very broad but I think we're trying to get to one page six it's line three, two, five I just didn't know if we wanted to tighten that up just single use could be could be green amount of coffee with their k-cuts and they're a product that we're not even talking about here that's my point of should we be specific to there is a definition of single use product we define single use are we alone in k-cuts this year I don't touch k-cuts so it's single use carryout bag single use packaging single use disposable plastic food service wear printed materials and so I'm like we want to get right to the specific like poly that specific industry is I'm guessing what we want expertise so I just didn't want to tighten that up a little bit well and we also want to have whoever it is have a broad enough perspective so that they're not just looking at right if they're polystyrene people we want the whole range of plastics as well as non plastic choices in the discussion so I just worry that another industry just might come on and push ones that their single use product isn't brought up in the study I think we want to actually talk about the product we're trying to get at here so the same thing and the last two appointees are the stores and restaurants who get what's decided and have to deal with it and they're in there too so they might push that so can you just tell me what the actual change that you would like I would just like to say somebody who maybe makes maybe a I'm not trying to exclude like I basically don't see the need we don't need a straw manufacturer we don't need a plastic bag I'd like to see somebody who makes the polystyrene or the association that represents a group that makes that polystyrene because I think what has opened our eyes is a committee from the industry coming in and saying these two are the same product made differently but when you consider other options I think having that boy I mean it's one voice of 15 so it's not like they're having a ton of weight it's just giving that voice more specifically to that I think it would help the committee come to a better result well it's so I'm not dismissing it just but as a reminder that the working group will call on sorts I mean take testimony from a lot of different people it would pretty confident not make a mistake of only hearing one group and leave out other manufacturers but they're going to call environmental groups too well they don't have Mr. Grant for someone like missing the boat you know it's an association or a group representing so we're trying to get that broad perspective there I just I'm almost concerned that we'd get too narrow that's I think brought up what we're looking at here we don't want someone who's thinks polystyrene needs to be answered we want someone who knows the whole plastics industry so that we can look at for example the one guy that was here yesterday who was able to sort out a bunch of different ones so if you'll mull that over yeah I mean there's just my concern I think it's too broad because I just think you could put someone from Greenland Coffee out there and say you've checked that box they're not necessarily specialists in polystyrene or well it's a gubernatorial appointee so I'm thinking they'll respond to the goal and pick someone who's the right sort of person I actually thought about the just appointing one single business that's why it says an association or group representing so I thought about that I don't know I understand it doesn't mean your needs but I'm just trying to get that out there so we know we're going to have another draft for tomorrow for voting and if you think of something in between great thank you very much any any other questions for the council about the new version I do want to get it proved as I want to prove it myself that I didn't have that opportunity this morning and then I want to have it proved by the others so the only thing that's based on what you were saying I see a definition of disability on page 1116 that should come out of the working group because later on page 3 I thought I heard you insert the word appropriately yeah there's that would be on page 6 on 20 you also wanted Senator Rogers request to change on page 7 line 14 and 15 you wanted Senator McDonald's change in that same language and changing it from greenhouse gas to climate change effects and there's some little type of things here and there okay great alright anything else for council thank you very much do you want me to say or can't probably right for now well I think what he was really saying is can I get out of here right yeah just to maybe hear that so Mr Mr Burns can you join us can we have that information that I think basically argues for not removing a ban on polystyrene from the bill which is the direction it's evolved and that we do investigating polystyrene amongst other plastics for that or no it's just being considered so the track that we just went through it includes single use plastic bags straws and then all the other plastics are rolled into figured out through the work so you're thinking get rid of these now there's no separate amendment for this for what Mr Burns is going to address well we don't have any separate amendment that's what I'm asking you but I wanted to have a chance to hear the case of this week frankly we have plastics one through seven I think it is and then am I getting it right polystyrene seven and anyway in the world of polystyrene there's expanded there's extruded there's sheet and I think I heard about one other variety of it yesterday so for me as someone who introduced a bill if I can't clearly articulate why we would pick one type of polystyrene for a ban at this moment and not be silent on the other types of polystyrene and one through six and I don't feel like I'm in a position to argue for the bill so it seems like there's more learning to be done and the deeper dives would be exactly the kind of thing that a working group could do however over night basically I heard well polystyrene may actually be more of a problem than you think and you may want to reconsider moving into a working group so that's what we're here to learn more about so thank you for chipping in thank you for the opportunity for the record Paul Burns executive director of Beatburg the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the issue of the polystyrene before I jump immediately to that I just wanted to know that with regard to the working group Mr. Chairman I was thinking that the committee may be heading in a different direction with regard to members of the working group and not having individual members of the public representing associations etc so now understanding that that's in there I guess I would just urge you to consider the possibility of having since there are at least a couple of representatives from the industry or manufacturing side of things and you have one environmentalist you might also consider the fact that whatever we do in this area it's not just an environmental issue but kind of a consumer protection issue as well so some if you were open to the idea my suggestion would be a representative of a consumer advocacy organizations because there are few pieces of legislation that you consider that probably affect as many people in as clear way as this legislation is likely to and as potential future legislation is likely to not just as a means of protecting the environment or addressing climate issues but you know how do people go shopping or how do they see their products package or what kind of trash are they left with at the end of opening up a product at home so I think those are distinct issues that you may want to consider I would urge you to do so as you think about the makeup of that working group now let me turn that group has gotten bigger smaller bigger smaller so it's getting pretty big so with respect to the expanded polystyrene I think the question is the right one is there a distinction that one can reasonably make between this material and the other kinds of plastics that are that we think of as making up the broad term of single use plastics I want to give credit to Jen Duggan of conservation law foundation I know that she sent to the committee a number of items and attachments right here initial attention of just the email itself that she sent to you Senator Bray and then I wanted to turn to one at least one of the specific documents but just going from that I know we do have paper copies of that now do we? I do not have one I think we were all copying on it this is just the email itself that Jen Duggan sent so there are eight bullet points do you want me to wait please now go ahead so under the first heading of polystyrene foam is one of the most toxic plastics this is again a feature that I would think that the committee would be very interested in she writes out of the large array of plastics sold on the market polystyrene foam is one of the most dangerous benzene carcinogen is the building block of polystyrene is released during the manufacture of the material and in the incineration process to the extent that these materials are incinerated upon disposal exposing workers and communities to dangerous toxic chemicals polystyrene quickly breaks down into small particles that are widely dispersed in the environment due to its light weight these microplastics cause physical and neurological toxicity in smaller organisms under the second heading polystyrene foam cannot be recycled and contaminates other valuable recyclables so this is now moving away from just the idea of how toxic the material is but to the problems that it causes if left in our manufacturing stream and the kind of consumer stream where people are generating the stuff polystyrene foam cannot be recycled on a large scale even if it is recyclable in theory because it must be clean which means no food residue a clean foam cannot be collected curbside because it crumbles in that process into tiny pieces because it breaks down during the sorting process polystyrene foam contaminates other valuable recyclables I'll have more to say on that in a moment polystyrene foam has no value as a raw material and cannot be sold for profit after it is recycled recycling polystyrene foam is also a very energy intensive process she then goes on to note that there are a number of places that have already been because it is toxic because it follows up the recycling stream a number of areas states jurisdictions in the country have taken action to ban polystyrene including most recently the state of Maryland in addition hundreds of cities and towns across the country have banned this dangerous plastic including 16 towns in Maine 30 towns in Massachusetts New York City and several other cities in New York Portland Seattle Minneapolis San Francisco other cities and counties in California Washington D.C. and others we would not be alone in taking this action then to address the problem of expanded polystyrene so mantra yes so these are worse than the other significantly worse than the other from an environmental from a public health standpoint the answer would be yes they are more dangerous they are more toxic the building blocks of polystyrene are themselves generally speaking more toxic than other kinds of plastic because of what the material is and how it is handled it it creates other problems at a material recovery facility for instance if you leave it in for recycling so when we say that you can't recycle your way out of the problem of so much plastic that we generate I know you've heard that multiple times in testimony so far it is perhaps most true when you're talking about expanded polystyrene because that creates the biggest problems not only that it can't be recycled effectively and that there is no market for this stuff but that it follows up paper recycling if you put it in with paper together at the material recovery facility you have a couple of those you can hold up so we can do that you think about the clam shelf that McDonald's used to use for hamburgers you know it used to all come in a polystyrene clam shelf thing is that the same thing you have in the cafeteria food down there I think it is you know those are paper now those are coated paper now they used to have they used to have them in many places beer coolers throw away beer coolers yeah some of those are made of polystyrene yes but they are they're great right and they're so this is a this is a material that I have to say you know I mean McDonald's moved I don't know when McDonald's moved away from the use of polystyrene but it was a long time ago it was because there were a number of campaigns out there there was no way to decide because it is it's very bad I'm not going to go through all the information that Jen Duggan supplemented with her testimony but you got information from the agency for toxic substances and disease registry which goes through polystyrene it's a lot of information there that you could look at the Sierra Club has information regulating the use of polystyrene and food items and there are other materials that we have and could give you that back up what I'm saying I think that if you were to read one of the attachments most interesting might be from the Supreme Court of the state of New York New York County this actually is an interesting case and it goes to many of the very questions that you're asking Mr. Chairman you see that this is a question brought by petitioners who were essentially arguing that the commissioner of the New York City Department of Sanitation had aired in her decision which said essentially that this poly expanded polystyrene material cannot be recycled in an environmentally effective and economically feasible manner that was the decision of the Department of Sanitation in New York City it was challenged by the industry who said no no no it can be recycled and done in an efficient, effective environmentally sound manner and so these were the very questions that issue in this case and if you go through this document it's really interesting going over to page 5 of the evidence here the judge in this decision recounts all of the evidence presented by the commissioner of the Department of Sanitation the first speaks to a 30 year history of failure for subsidized markets for foam recyclers and it talks here about the fact that there is excessive contamination when you're collecting this material commissioner pointed to Canadian municipalities that ended their post-consumer plastics recycling because of the bad economics of collecting, handling and shipping food service foam polystyrene foam the second point is that there are no markets for recycled post-consumer foam quoting an economist and expert witness in the case states given the lack of demand for recycled post-consumer expanded polystyrene foam and the high cost of converting dirty EPS expanded polystyrene foam into a marketable product there is no evidence of a market for this material the evidence goes on commissioner presented a 2015 material recovery facility flow study released in 2016 analyzing the flow of plastic bottles, cups plastic containers and plastic clamshells made of different resins only 7% of the food service foam products ended up in the proper bails after going through the sorting machines 7% that of the problem if you leave this material in at a recycling facility they had a high loss rate because they flattened out or broke into pieces the polystyrene foam given this poor performance the commissioner surmised that should New York City switch to a single stream recycling process which we have in most of our state but not all of our state 60 to 75% of the food service polystyrene would contaminate the paper stream so 60 to 75% of the stuff if you leave it in with all of your other recyclables it's going to end up contaminating the paper that you're trying to recycle at the material recovery facility according to the evidence in this case Is there any statistic similar to this for the other plastics that are going through the same stream I don't know what I believe they would be in that study but because this case was specifically about the expanded polystyrene foam I don't have that point today so it's just the lightweight stuff you got now it's not the heavier plastic they're making the case that it is explicitly this plastic is different from the other kinds of plastic that's right it goes on I'm not going to go through every point here but I think each one is essentially a paragraph for more of the problems that you see with polystyrene foam the fifth is about how polystyrene foam is not recyclable and they go on the seventh research on cities that collect foam with recycling and I think this is worth noting the commissioner presented four cities in California Los Angeles, Long Beach, Riverdale and Sacramento and six jurisdictions in Ontario, Canada to show that while these municipalities collect expanded polystyrene foam they do not recycle it from its research and through interviews the department of sanitation in New York learned that these jurisdictions uniformly complain about the cost of trying to recycle foam the problem for the material recovery facilities that they have in sorting foam is that it contaminates other product streams and the lack of market for food service foam further as reported by the study that the natural resources defense council submitted in this case in February of 2016 28 major cities in the United States ranked by population of 28 of the 28 major cities in the US ranked by population only three cities had designated foam as recyclable Los Angeles, San Antonio and Jacksonville San Antonio no longer accepts food service material or the solid block expanded polystyrene foam maybe I believe like the coolers Jacksonville no longer accepts any expanded polystyrene foam for recycling where does it go? goes to landfill I've seen it swept up in little pieces and burned because that was the easiest that's not happening as noted if you burn this material that's when you also release some of the toxins that make it particularly dangerous I am almost done but the eighth point here goes to foam contaminates organics and is the leading plastic pollutant in New York harbor Department of Sanitation New York various studies and research led the commissioner to conclude that food service expanded polystyrene is hard to collect because they break up into small pieces they are hard to sort they contaminate other valuable resource streams they are hard to store because they must be stored for months in order to amass enough of the lightweight material that it can be shipped economically and it's hard to find a market for any food service expanded polystyrene the conclusion after all of this that the judge makes in this case is that the commissioners rejection of the petitioners proposal claiming that the food service EPS expanded polystyrene cannot be recycled in an environmentally effective and economically feasible manner is rational indeed as presented by the evidence the 2017 determination was a quote painstakingly studied decision and was in no way rendered arbitrarily and capriciously and therefore the judge upheld the decision of the New York City Department of Sanitation Commissioner it seems to me that all of the arguments in this case which again painstakingly research all of this evidence goes exactly to the questions that this committee is trying to grapple with is this plastic different I think the answer is yes is it more toxic is it more problematic from an environmental and public health standpoint I think the answer is yes there are problems that are even more difficult to deal with than other forms of plastic yes and in so doing it jeopardizes even the other kinds of materials that we're trying to recycle curbside you can't recycle your way out of polystyrene and it is in fact an environmental benefit to move as rapidly as we can to get it out of the waste out of commerce entirely do you have concerns that this working group would fail to be persuaded by what you just told us or should we be re-empting them or should we be taking a real good look at this plastic from across the tracks for the same reason that the committee has been persuaded that it's time to take action on bags and straws I think the evidence is there to support action at this time on polystyrene foam particularly the food service polystyrene foam I do think that this is persuasive information that would convince more than a year from now the committee or less than a year from now would convince the committee through its actions to recommend you take action I think you've got the evidence now and you could you could get a jump on it I guess how do you phrase it like so if I think about a hybrid you could say the bill started with a ban on expanding polystyrene if we included such a thing and it's effective July 2020 you could ask the working group to evaluate whether or not that was an appropriate an appropriate choice or something like that and then we're not really asking for an open-minded study group we've already said yeah we want a ban because we don't test movies we heard has at least me asking are we doing the appropriate thing because I understand the concern he has but a red solo cup and a Dunkin Donuts coffee cup are the same thing ultimately so my question was should we be open-minded towards this product or should we I think we let the process go I mean it's not like we're not going to be back here next year looking at the study and if we decide then I don't if you're going to have the New York City Creation Department weeks and weeks and earrings if we're going to duplicate that New York City is also banning you on Mondays and public schools they're just a little over to the father on a lot of things they also don't fix their potholes they can't give it a snow when it's an industry so let's pause for a minute the champion had his hand up three minutes ago no so I mean at this point for one I'm not interested in adding more people to the working group but I do think we should take the step in ban this I think the evidence is here why would we wait this is I think personally I mean given the documents here this is an incredibly toxic material I know I come from a particular region that has been exposed to these things and might be overly sensitive to these kinds of toxic but they've been around for a long time we're far from the first it looks like 16 towns in May 30 towns in Massachusetts number of different cities and municipalities across the country so I'm more than comfortable with pulling off the Band-Aid but this is a serious thing Senator Rogers? no whole state yet though Maryland Maryland they don't count because they start with them yeah unless it starts with and or down Nebraska done it so that's where I'm at I'm happy to work on an amendment if people are interested would this include food service does that include grocery stores too? I think there's a carry out the counter thing there's also a that's where a lot of it comes from meat and fish counters or whatever so are you thinking so when I think of it I think when you go into a grocery store and you might get some pre-made stuff yeah if you go to the meat counter your chicken thighs are on the styrofoam right wrapped in plastic yeah and I think that's where the lion's share of the styrofoam comes from because everybody that walks into that grocery store that buys meat is walking out with I think there should be a transition period I'm sure people have this stuff sadly on their shelves so they're going to stop a while that's what I mean 2020 it's that transition period sounds like this is a serious issue just the restaurant carry out or is it the intent of the bill the grocery stores everybody that's using the trays initially in the underlying yeah the underlying bill when I drafted it was for grocery stores deli counters restaurant carry out wherever you're going to encounter that kind of plastic it's going to be regulated other than like very small stores were carved out right under thousands square feet we never came back to that one to see if that made sense or not but that was based again looking at other legislation again these are carcinogen these are serious thing I'm fine with taking a step in doing a transition to 2020 in fact I'm going to make a motion let's do it well we have a am I going to be told now to then you can't you can't in the world stop it there's no way to just ship these to third world countries that's not an option if you throw them in the river that's what's happening so there's a motion on the table so we have we haven't settled on a final version yet we did a lot of work on draft we went through today like everyone was in sync on supporting that now related question is would we return to go to a final version that reinstates inserts earlier language based expanded policy and so as a stronghold the charge to Mr. Burns and Jen was can you convince us that this is a proven thing to do so I found myself persuaded I still want to study these do you want me to take my motion off the table no I just want it for a stronghold I mean I want to see if people are open for making that change in our final version that we'll see tomorrow with the date of 2020 with the date of 2020 and we could supposedly modify with the work we looked at to say is there any reason to re-evaluate or modify that particular type of class and would the intention be if it went that way that it would be all styrene restaurants so unless someone wants to make an argument for exceptions that I'm not aware of other than I know that if you're going to do it you do it so you pick up a version of a bill from someplace else as I said the first version we went through came from New Jersey that explicitly exempted meat and fish when it was raw foods in contact with foam I don't know why that was actually one of the exposures that you were talking about that to me seemed like the most common you're always seeing stuff on trades by two apples sometimes they're shrunk wrapped to a trade something like that so personally I would be in favor of being broader and not accepting so let's do two things one is are people open to seeing that another version of the bill tomorrow that reinstates the polystyrene expanded polystyrene with put it into the working group and it has a date 15-16 month so all those open to that version of the bill you say yes okay so we have four yeses so let's go ahead and I'll connect with Mr. Grady so I'm going to just take my motion off the table just officially so and then I'll work with Michael to have the final version include language in the earlier version I would also encourage everyone to if you have the time or try to make the time to read through the materials we got just so that we're all feeling better informed before we go ahead but it was very helpful information makes a difference Senator Rogers good regular point we I feel continue to poison ourselves on this list and this is a big step forward to stopping doing that good okay well the committee process is not always entirely straight but we are making progress so I wanted to pause and I don't know if there is anyone else in the room who had seen the draft we went through that wants to offer comments the draft we've walked through plus the amendment that we're talking about making to that final version so if anyone here want to speak we'll be voting a final bill out tomorrow yes or should I sit here if you would like to join us it's not a policy I don't care for the record Allison Crowley the mag with Morrison the mag representing the American chemistry council and I appreciate the committee's work on this thus far I'd like to speak to just briefly what happened just now with Mr. Burns having the opportunity to come up and present to this committee and having a vote taken before industry had a chance to look at it or to respond to any of the states and our municipalities that he referenced as passing I apologize just so you know it wasn't it was just a start I understand I understand but yesterday I thought was a very collaborative meeting and the different industry folks that came in and showed the different types of plastics and polystyrene I think it's important for the working group to work through that and not the committee to put the card before the horse and determining that that ban should be in there so just that for the record the draft itself I just had an opportunity to briefly look at it and I do have some concerns with the references to extended producer responsibility that's listed in the bill EPR given the makeup of the committee I have a sense that that's the director that probably will most likely come back to the committee is EPR and I would respectfully request that those directors be stricken from the bill as far as telling the committee to take a look at it and bring that back I just think it should be a more collaborative approach so close my comments opportunity where you know how it goes when you're in the editing phase closing it on a deadline so just as Mr. Burns and Ms. Duggan responded to an earlier draft that was proposing to remove a ban or trim that part back out welcome the opportunity for you folks to speak to the committee before we make a final decision we probably oppose with that proposal if I understand the extended producer responsibility thing I think was grew out of our conversation where we could rather than respond to waste once it's already in the stream could we think ahead and try to reduce the amount of waste generated from the outset I understand just want to put that on the record as well that we have concerns with that line coming on this draft okay thank you very much anyone else in the room want to speak to any of the draft okay so committee I have a question I have one question just one question on clarification my question was the original bill exempted grocery stores the meat packaging are you talking about exempting the meat packaging again or are you talking about completely banning all expended polystyrene the next draft is I understood the consensus of the committee was to be banning polystyrene completely polystyrene not just expanded expanded polystyrene so that would include those meat trays yes so for the record we are significantly opposed to this increased cost to the cost of consumers foods we understand that there is concern that preliminary reaction to this is that we are opposed to a full out ban on expended polystyrene the membership in the committee one of the things of the working group from a retailers and grocery association the reason that there are two representatives of sorry I am trying to find the right citation in here two representatives of food service establishment was so that most likely your organization might represent a wide group of people but we also thought about there could be other food services for instance Abbey group or Sodexo come to mind that you might have a unique take are Abbey group or Sodexo part of the organization they are not no they are part of a larger organization they might be part of the restaurant association but that is part of the state chamber I apologize I don't write to my concerns but we do appreciate your significant in-depth discussion yesterday and I certainly don't envy you guys so thank you for your efforts and thank you for including representative of the food industry in the study I mean personally I don't even see the need of a study committee if you are just going to do the ban there's no way even if they come back and say it's bad it's not going to get to the building to do a ban because you're going to we're going to roll to the special office on it the state community is looking at a number of different things not just that they're looking at the other six it's a waste of money now because they're looking at seven other there are other to your point about solar cubs versus stung and dumb cubs it might be that we would the recommendation would be to include all forms of polystyrene or not or it could be that actually I think it's better to act on polystyrene after the study committee reports than before they report we're already prejudicing their outcome by putting the end result in place in my mind well so again you know I appreciate that point of view I encourage everyone to spend some time studying the additional information we got if there are people with another point of view that argues against it I'm going to count on them to offer testimony between now and vote tomorrow and we'll see where we see where we land trying to make sure that we're fair to all parties offering everyone the same sort of chance to purchase fate in the development of the bill is trying to be prudent about this in terms of giving a 16 month development period so that if we learn more we'll have the opportunity to make changes before any of this would become effective I guess I have some sympathy for parents I'm sure we don't know in the grocery industry what is going to take place of those styrofoam eat trays which I hate styrofoam anyway but what takes its place is another type of plastic that is heavier I mean my big concern is the fact that stuff breaks I'm so easy it can get away from you it blows all that in nature but what happens what replaces it is just as bad in the meantime maybe it's heavier it costs more so putting some direction in here so they don't create something that's worse would be interesting the life cycle analysis stuff adding transportation I think that was really part of why we're trying to make sure that group looks at things that they look at it from one end to the other and they're evaluating each thing relative to other alternatives so that we started out whatever a month ago talking about would people be switching over to paper bags and then hearing about the greenhouse gas impacts of paper bags etc etc we're trying to avoid one other thing that's come up just so that people help make sure that we don't lose track of it we talked about that any kind of ban some people were saying should include a fee so that people don't simply switch over to paper bags I think that's the kind of thing that could come out of a recommendation on the working group rather than I don't know if people have given more thought to that one open question we didn't come to a final position on it and since we are editing we could structure that we heard that fees were charged anywhere from a nickel to 25 cents in order to encourage people to think about using a durable bag as opposed to just switching to whatever was quote unquote free so what kind of position where's the legislature on this and I'm just by the grocery store and I wanted to now charge somebody for a paper bag I could well, Ms. Segriston speaks on behalf of groceries my sense is that if some have given you credits for bringing your bag which is sort of an implicit charge for not bringing your bag and I think are actually charging for bags and in order to get my senses so correct me if I'm wrong is that in a way we're doing the retailers and grocers a favor by making it the same policy for all so that we're encouraging the use of durable bags as opposed to having them sorted out about doing you a favor yeah thank you very much again for the record here in Segriston are the large grocers have concerned that if we simply ban plastic let me step back this world is all about convenience right so if you provide not all about it but it's very much a large part of this world we like convenience so if you walk into a grocery store and we were provided two options paper or plastic and we eliminate one of those options they're still expecting that other option so you're not going to simply say ban plastic you need to bring your recyclable bags and people will instantly bring them they're going to take that other option so if you're going to ban paper or ban plastic you need to charge some type of fee to discourage people from taking the other quote free alternative if so it's always it's been for quite some time in the way of the position that if you're going to charge one you need to charge for the other if you're so it's either going to be a fee on both or a ban on one and a fee on the other so Hanna Ferts I heard is brought over you know what they did to I don't know how I was going to call that so Hanna Ferts I know they've gotten rid of the plastic but they put a fee on the paper I cannot speak to Hanna Ferts but I have received the communication from Christchopper and there is a fee on paper it's in my email I want to say 10 cents but I don't call me I have it in my email I can share that goes to them right they keep that for the broad and how does your organization feel as opposed to this legislation if we were to put a fee on both so the bill that we in my previous testimony the bill that we are supporting this year it's each I have a 6 or 509 it's a bill put out by Representative Buttshaw it would impose the 5-7 fee on paper and plastic starting in September 2019 and then one year after it would ban plastic and continue the 5-7 fee on paper that would be my concern is 5 cents enough I'm happy to have a conversation about other options but I felt that that was the we I'm okay with that being the starting point you know when we're talking about this thing we're trying to do right in this one tiny little section but you know I mentioned to somebody yesterday I mean this is about climate change it's also tied to the waste stream the recycling stream but we're not talking about k-cups and I you know nothing bad yeah the little individual packets they are one of the most absurd things possible in the waste stream and there's figures out there about how many of them are piling up in the landfill over here and then I'm going to take it a step further everybody here that's concerned about climate change that gets on a commercial airline once or twice a year is not walking the walk the biggest polluters on earth it's the most inefficient way to travel and so we I may have heard you speaking about this last evening actually were you giving a speech on this actually I was I did hear it I'm being serious we're nibbling around the edges here but there's a whole bunch of people that are pushing for these little nibbles still going on several vacations a year to distant places on jets it's like Bill McKibbin's flying all around the world I think part of your speech last night may have been interacted at even though I didn't go anywhere but it's like because there are alternative methods you could do with you could do it by computer but tons of people still go back to the convenience they're talking the talk but they're not walking the walk thank you for that I wasn't going to go that far but that is the conversation that I and others in this building have been having for several years we are picking and choosing what we want to target because it's quote sexy but I've spoken about film plastic you know if a grocery store gets a large pallet of food that pallet is wrapped with plastic that gets stuck in the it gets thrown out in the landfills the industry has tried its best to figure out how to collect all of that and move it to a recycling another recycling location but there's been no discussion every time that group comes to the table there's no serious discussion about how to help the industries fix it the industries are really trying to fix the issue but they need help there are large manufacturers around this country that are doing everything they possibly can to fix the issue but they're getting the fingers pointed at them and you're the problem they're trying to fix it and also consumers are screaming about this stuff so we all know that if consumers are screaming about it the manufacturers are going to do everything they possibly can to try and fix it they're doing the best they can so picking off picking and choosing what's quote sexy is a little frustrating for the small businesses that are trying to manage this in this state my only disagreement with you on this is that I've seen nothing sexy about plastic bags it's sexy because you it's popular it's sexy with our constituent popular last thing so I think to that point that is really the point of the working group and look at although I think there are concerns around extended producer responsibility that's just one model but the whole notion is that you have people thinking about something from creation to final disposition so that we stop sort of it's like a game of hot potatoes someone else gets the problem and we want to try to stop creating the problems that others get stuck with from the get go so when we break for lunch or whenever I ask that Google is a graduate and plastics and watch the clip because that was one of the time that was 51 years ago this week was a release so hey only 51 years then but anyway so enjoy the it's a short clip just so I'm not really putting words in your mouth that you're unintentionally the fee related to the alternate bag whatever it is is something that I feel would be helpful to members of your organization in order to avoid just switching to that and then it becomes a new cost I think if you go to a grocery store and you have provided two options and you take one of those options away there is still an expectation for that three options so it does not change consumer practice so there needs to be some type of fee or some type of something to discourage them from an expectation otherwise we end up pushing costs onto retailers you end up pushing costs onto the retailer but there's also the discussion about is paper any better than plastic and you're not changing consumer if the goal is to change consumer practice then you need to do it by discouraging them from expecting something free do you happen to know if there's a Hannaford near me that I've been in many times they sell Hannaford durable plastic bags yes if those are basically sort of a break-even item for them or they make money selling them I'm just curious I have spoken at Hannaford and I believe that is simply a break-even so if you want to make it as easy as possible to get or as cheap as possible thank you very much thank you so with that there's some editing to do to create the next draft I'll work with Mr. Grady on that it will include the changes we discussed plus I would say this was the last item we just talked about which was adding a fee and so if let me pause in the straw poll who is in favor of including that fee in the in the build that we passed on that's helpful to the grocers absolutely so winner parent senator rogers I'm in favor of the I'm still might have been interested in a fee on both just what's the both? both plastic and paper I know that's not the direction of the rest of the committees headed at this point back to be banned yeah no I understand that just rethinking I have to give it some more thought but yes I think there should be a fee on whatever back option is left okay so we'll have another draft that reflects those consensus positions to vote if anyone has feedback information they want the committee to evaluate I'd ask you to reach out to me and to copy june ASAP so that we'll have that information to evaluate and I would also ask people to use some of the extra 42 minutes we'll have today by adjourning early to look this material over that came from Mr. Burns okay there's no more I see no more hands with that we are adjourned thank you everybody for working at double time