By TIM
FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff
A key
provision was removed and another added as a bill to ban plastic retail bags
advanced to the Senate floor.
After hearing from
fellow senators over the weekend, Senate President Dominick Ruggerio, D-North
Providence, stripped a mandatory 5-cent fee on paper bags from his bill (S410), the Plastic Waste
Reduction Act.
“I think it harms
low-income people,” Ruggerio said. “I just don’t think it’s necessary.”
The change goes against
the recommendation of Gov. Gina Raimondo’s Task Force to Tackle Plastics,
whose 22 members, including representatives from environmental justice groups,
approved the fee. The committee’s final report included establishing a program
for giving free bags to low-income households.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Charlestown could have been one of the first towns to ban single-use plastic bans, but chickened out at the last minute. See the end of this article to see a run-down of bag bans put into effect in more than a dozen RI cities and towns. Charlestown, of course, is not on the list because instead of a banning, Charlestown decided to do THIS. - Will Collette
Jonathan Berard, Rhode Island state director for Clean Water Action and co-chair of the Task Force to Tackle Plastics, called the fee a “key element” of the bill because it prods consumers to bring reusable shopping bags to the store, instead of simply accepting paper bags offered by the retailer.
Jonathan Berard, Rhode Island state director for Clean Water Action and co-chair of the Task Force to Tackle Plastics, called the fee a “key element” of the bill because it prods consumers to bring reusable shopping bags to the store, instead of simply accepting paper bags offered by the retailer.
Berard noted that a
mandatory fee resulted in a 70 percent reduction in disposable bag use after
Washington, D.C., enacted a bag ban in 2010. The D.C. ban also offers free
reusable bags to seniors and low-income residents.
“Requiring a customer to
make a choice about whether or not to pay for a paper bag is the critical piece
in changing customer behavior,” Berard told ecoRI News prior to the May 29
Senate hearing.
“We want to incentivize people to switch not from plastic to paper but from disposable to reusable.”
None of Rhode Island’s
14 municipal bag bans include a fee. Berard sees the omission as simply giving
shoppers a different type of disposable bag — one, he said, that has a greater
carbon footprint than most plastic bags.
Many proponents of the
statewide legislation, however, didn’t object to cutting the required fee.
“The removal of the fee
for paper bags was a surprise and not something we felt strongly about, though
we know that fees on paper bags is an effective strategy for changing people’s
habits,” said Kate Weymouth, a member of the Task Force to Tackle Plastics and
a force behind Barrington’s bag ban, the first in the state.
She noted that some
stores promote reusable-bag use by offering a 5-cent discount per reusable bags
used, which Weymouth called a “friendlier incentive for the customer.”
Dave McLaughlin,
executive director of Middletown-based Clean Ocean Access and a task force
member, said he prefers a flat fee on paper bags that is collected by the state
and used for eduction or enforcement.
The proposed fee, however, sends the funds to the retailer, which typically benefits larger retailers that make their own paper bags at a cost less than the 5-cent fee. He noted smaller stores pay as much as 16 cents per bag.
The proposed fee, however, sends the funds to the retailer, which typically benefits larger retailers that make their own paper bags at a cost less than the 5-cent fee. He noted smaller stores pay as much as 16 cents per bag.
Ruggerio also included a
provision in the bill that required reusable plastic bags to have stitched
handles. The stitching prevents retailers from circumventing the ban on
traditional thin-film bags by giving away thicker plastic bags. Bags with
stitched handles are typically too expensive to give away.
The regulation also
aligns the proposed legislation with the 14 municipal ordinances, all of which
have the stitched-handle provision. At the moment, at least, the requirement
removes the fear that a weaker state law, with its preemption clause, will
nullify stronger local bans.
The Senate Committee on
Agriculture and the Environment unanimously agreed the move bill to the full
Senate. No date for the Senate vote has been announced.
The House version of the
bill (H5671) still contains
the 5-cent fee and lacks the stitched-handle rule. A House hearing was held
March 21. No new hearing has been announced.
A bill (S202) requiring
restaurants to only offer plastic straws upon request was scheduled for a
committee vote but was held for further study.
Critics of the bill worried that an initial preemption clause would make it difficult for cities and towns to enact bans and restrictions on other polluting plastics such s polystyrene cups and packaging. But the legislation was amended to make the preemption specific to straws.
Critics of the bill worried that an initial preemption clause would make it difficult for cities and towns to enact bans and restrictions on other polluting plastics such s polystyrene cups and packaging. But the legislation was amended to make the preemption specific to straws.
“It would have passed
easily, so not sure where that came from,” Weymouth said of the amendment. .
