May 20, 2007
The Business Council opposes this legislation, which would expand the state's bottle bill to cover most beverage containers, and “capture” the larger volume of unclaimed bottle deposits, which in turn would be used to finance expanded state spending programs.
Our opposition to this measure is fourfold:
- The effect of this bill is to impose
an additional cost of up to $80 million
per year on New York State consumers, through
increased unclaimed bottle deposits. An
expanded bottle bill will take at least
this much more from New York State consumers
(using projections included in the sponsor's
memo). Moreover, it would increase state
spending through the Environmental Protection
Fund by between $130 and $180 million --
this on top of recent legislative actions
to increase to the EPF to $225million.
Since the impact of this expanded deposit
law will be similar to that of a sales
tax on food, the impact will disproportionately
affect low and middle income taxpayers.
purporting to provide financial support
to municipal recycling efforts, this bill
will in fact take valuable post-consumer
materials out of municipal recycling programs,
and divert those materials to store-based
recycling. Most beverage bottles that will
be affected by an expanded bottle bill are
made from PET, which has a current average
market value of between $500 to $1100 per
ton. Aluminum cans, which are used for some
non-carbonated beverages that would also
be captured by this expanded bottle bill,
have a current market value of $1280 per
ton. In contrast, newsprint – a major
component of municipal recycling programs – has
a current average market value of just $65
to 85 per ton -- a fraction of the value
of material that the bottle bill is siphoning
off from the municipal recycling program.
As a result, this bill will reduce the average
per-ton recovery value of the municipal recycling
stream, while necessitating expanded state-taxpayer
financial support for those very same programs.
(Prices from RECYCLABLE MATERIAL PRICES by
American Metals Market LLC, for New York
- By increasing the volume of redemptions, this bill will significantly increase the compliance burden placed on supermarkets, convenience stores and other beverage outlets. The existing bottle bill imposes additional costs on retailers, consumes limited store space and staff resources, and raises sanitation and “housekeeping” problems in stores. This bill would exacerbate each of these adverse impacts on the retail sector – while at the same time, divert valuable resources from the municipal recycling system. The provisions in the bill to create local redemption centers will do little to ameliorate these impacts in urban areas It is unclear why we would want to mandate that our food stores play an even larger role in our solid waste management system.
Finally, this bill will have a significant adverse financial impact on the beverage industry, which currently uses unclaimed deposits to partially finance their costs imposed by the existing bottle bill.
Touted as an environmental measure, this
is in reality a hidden tax on New York State
manufacturers, bottler, distributors and – ultimately – consumers.
These added costs will eventually lead to
higher prices and perhaps sales disruptions
as below scale operators from adjoining states
bootleg cheaper product into New York – especially
New York City. Because of both expansion
and this higher price to sell legally, an
already continuing network of determined
operators will benefit to the detriment to
law abiding, and taxed, in-state producers
and franchises. As such, these increased
costs are of concern to both to New York's
beverage industry and its workforce.
New York State continues to operate two separate state-wide recycling programs – mandated municipal recycling for those post-consumer wastes for which there is an “economic market,” and mandated store-based recycling for certain beverage containers. Shifting materials from one mandated recycling program to another will produce limited environmental benefits to the state, while imposing significant additional costs and inconvenience on consumers and businesses alike.
For these reasons, The Business Council opposes adoption of S.5443.