Bottle bill shelved in favor of another study while CRMC reform effort is set adrift
By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current
“I am not happy,” the South Kingstown Democrat said.
That’s because 24 hours earlier, House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi and Senate President Valarie Lawson unveiled amended legislation gutting McEntee’s 57-page bill. Gone is the proposed 10-cent fee on recyclable bottles redeemed upon return to designated redemption sites.
In its place, another study, this time, by a third-party consultant hired by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The compromise aims to find middle ground for environmental advocates and beverage makers and retailers, who failed to reach consensus on a deposit-refund program.
Meanwhile, a separate environmental priority to overhaul the troubled Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) also appears dead in the water amid hesitation at the corresponding price tag, with a less extreme alternative in its place.
“It does appear as though this has not really been a great year for the environment,” Jed Thorp, advocacy director for Save the Bay, said in an interview. “A lot of the big, high-profile bills are either not moving or being substantially reduced.”
The amended bottle bill and CRMC membership bill both advanced out of House committees Wednesday afternoon. The Senate Committee on Environment and Agriculture is slated to take up the companions for each Wednesday night.
But the end-of-session whirlwind leaves open the possibility for lawmakers to resurrect more environmentally friendly bills during final floor sessions slated for Friday.
Bottled frustration over ‘compromise’
Despite initial disappointment, McEntee was warming to the weakened version, which preserves a small section of her original bill.
“This is what DEM would have to do anyway in the first six to nine months if we passed the bill,” McEntee said during the committee discussion.
McEntee’s original proposal laid out the specifics of a deposit-refund program, simultaneously requiring statewide assessments on recycling and redemption.
But a standalone needs assessment lacks the details needed for a successful review, Thorp said.
“I know the speaker had questions about how the bill would work, and some of those are valid concerns,” Thorp said. “But unless you’re looking at an actual proposal for a specific type of bottle bill program, you can’t really answer those questions.”
Shekarchi said a statewide assessment was needed because of “conflicting data” regarding best practices for improving state recycling rates. But considering best practices and models from the 10 other states with similar programs was the intent behind the 18-month legislative study commission that McEntee co-chaired, which issued its final recommendations in April.
“I think the data is absolutely clear,” Sen. Mark McKenney, a Warwick Democrat and commission co-chair, said in an interview Monday. “There’s nothing that compares to a bottle bill in terms of effectiveness.”
McKenney, who sponsored the Senate counterpart to McEntee’s bottle bill, faulted retailers and manufacturers, who despite promising to work toward compromise, continue to decry the various iterations of a bottle bill presented to them.
“The reality is, they are interested in profits,” McKenney said. “I don’t think they are concerned about what’s going into our bay, what’s going into our seafood, what we’re ingesting when we take a swim.”
Chris Hunter, a spokesperson for the Stop the Rhode Island Bottle Tax Coalition, suggested the industry was still open to future legislation.
“Rhode Islanders deserve an innovative recycling system, like those adopted recently by other states, that raises recycling rates without raising the costs on hundreds of everyday beverages,” Hunter said.
McEntee confirmed Tuesday she’s pushing to make a few more tweaks to the already amended bottle bill, including moving up the Dec. 28, 2026, deadline to complete the statewide needs assessment.
CRMC reform? Add a coastal biologist
A three-year push to reform the troubled state coastal agency by getting rid of the appointed council and empowering administrators to make decisions remains stuck in legislative purgatory.
Instead, legislative leaders are backing an alternative that reduces the council’s membership from 10 to seven people and adds professional qualification requirements.
Existing state law sets membership requirements for the coastal panel based on where they live. Legislation sponsored by Rep. Alex Finkelman, a Jamestown Democrat, and Sen. V. Susan Sosnowski, a South Kingstown Democrat, reduces the size of the council from 10 to seven seats — in acknowledgment of the council’s vacancies, which have created quorum problems and canceled meetings. Four of seven members would have to attend a meeting to reach a quorum under the legislation, compared with the six-person minimum now.
The new group of seven members would all have some “background, qualifications and expertise in environmental matters.” There are also reserved seats for an engineer, a coastal biologist and an environmental organization representative. The new members would serve three-year terms, like their predecessors.
“It’s a step in the right direction,” Finkelman said in an interview. “To me, this lays the groundwork for the future.”
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, who pushed for the more sweeping reform bill, indicated his support for the reshaping of council membership and qualifications, too.
“We welcome this reform as a first step and look forward to continuing to advocate for the best possible management of our coastal resources,” Neronha said in a statement Wednesday.
But Save the Bay urged state lawmakers to vote against the watered down council membership legislation in a statement on Tuesday.
Thorp noted that unlike the more sweeping reform proposals, which received widespread support, only one group — the Rhode Island Builders Association — spoke in favor of Finkelman’s bill during a prior committee vetting.
“I don’t understand why they chose to move the least popular bill,” Thorp said.
Thorp anticipated problems in populating the reshaped council, especially with strict criteria around professional expertise.
“Good luck finding a representative from an environmental nonprofit that’s going to want to spend its limited resources going to two council meetings at night a month,” Thorp said.
Save the Bay is not interested, he said.
Finkelman said he hoped “public outcry” over unpopular decisions by the existing council might spur interest from prospective council members.
The bill does not preclude existing or prior members from being reappointed if they meet the new criteria. And it allows the existing council members to continue to serve until replacements are named.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com.