June 22, 2026 · ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION · 2,520 words · 31 speakers · 84 segments
Thank you. Thank you.
Environmental Committee will now come to order. Evan, will you take the roll?
Vitaly. Here. Brown. Designation. Fleming. Here. Hohenstein. Designation. Isaacson. Here. Kazim. Designation. Mazzacco. Designation. Otten. Designation. Pieli. Here. Salisbury. Designation. Steele. Designation.
Taycac. Here. Tabersio. Here. Webster. Here. Rader. Here. Bashline. Here. Day. Designation. Flick. Here. James. Present. Kebhart. Here. Mahaffey. Designation. Pew. Here. Stender. Here. Twardzik. Present. Wentling. Designation. Zimmerman. Designation.
Okay. We have a quorum. we have one bill on our agenda, House Bill 2553 by Rep. Borowski regarding electronic recycling. Before we take that up, Chair Rader, do you have any opening comments or remarks?
I'll save those for later. Thank you.
Okay. Very good. Okay. Very good. So the chair calls up House Bill 2553 by Reparowski. Evan, would you read a summary of this?
House Bill 2553 updates the Covered Device Recycling Act to add additional covered devices and update manufacturer obligations under the act.
Okay. Very good. So we have the prime sponsor. in attendance remotely. Welcome, Rep Borowski. Would you like to comment on your bill?
We guess thank you very much, Chair Rattali. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Chair Rader, also, and to members of the Environmental Committee for considering House Bill 2553. I'd like to also thank Evan and the committee staff for their help in preparing the legislation for the committee's consideration. Pennsylvania has an opportunity to lead by modernizing the Covered Device Recycling Act to reflect today's electronics landscape and the growing volume of devices entering our waste stream. This legislation expands access to convenient, responsible recycling across the Commonwealth, ensuring more residents and small businesses alike have practical options to manage end-of-life electronics safely and efficiently. It also strengthens end-of-life data protection by expanding access to secure certified recycling pathways, giving Pennsylvania's confidence that their personal and business information is protected as devices are retired. At the same time, it captures more electronic waste and critical minerals into recycling streams, reducing environmental impact, keeping more hazardous components out of landfills, and supporting a stronger, more sustainable circular economy. This bill modernizes Pennsylvania's e-waste law by expanding coverage to the devices people use today, strengthening end-of-life data protection, and ensuring Pennsylvanians have secure, convenient options to responsibly recycle their electronics. I like to also add that this is companion legislation that we been working on with Senators Kamita and Pennacook on the Senate side And I am very grateful to have the opportunity to bring this to the committee and hope for an affirmative vote on House Bill 2553 Thank you all very much
Thank you. And if you're able to hang around for questions, I don't think this should be too long, but we'll might be helpful to have your you here. OK, so the question is, will the House will the committee report House Bill 2553. The chair offers Amendment 3753. Evan, would you read a summary of that amendment?
Well, I'll just tell you. It's actually a technical amendment to replace an unintentionally omitted word. The word is manufacturer on page six. To my knowledge, it doesn't substantively alter the functioning of the bill in any way.
So the question is, will the committee agree to Amendment 3753? Any discussion on that amendment? Are there any negative votes on that amendment? Okay. So this amendment passes unanimously. So the question recurs, will the committee report House Bill 2553 as amended? On that question, the chair recognizes Chair Rader.
If I can turn my mic on there, I think I got it. When I first saw this bill, I was really excited about it because I know the issues we have. I did recycling when I was a taxer supervisor. It's hard to get these things taken care of. So initially I was for this, but then when I read the bill, I'm a little concerned. The tax, I know, especially in today's world, the taxes, the companies aren't going to pay for the taxes. The consumers do. And I'm a little concerned about raising prices in this economic time. But then I read over the bill also, and there's some things that are confusing that I wasn't happy with. The estimate of total sales in the calculation. So first they talk about weight being the consideration on how they're going to enforce this. And then later on it's about market share and total sales, and I think there's some confusion there. I'm not really sure which one it's supposed to be. So I think something like that should be cleaned up. Also, DEP has given a lot of discretion on this, and I'm a little concerned about that, too. There's multipliers for market share obligations, calculations. You know, they're going to kind of think about what's going to happen next year and do multiply and kind of figure that out. I'm a little concerned about that. The formulas, the financial penalties on the formulas. DEP has calculations which are confidential, which really scares me because then we really don't know what's going on. So I'm a little concerned about how the formulas work out and I'm concerned about how it impacts the consumer. I think it's really something that should be done. I just don't think this bill does it. And we just got something from DEP also, and they think it likely reduces residential electronics recycling collection opportunities to expand in scope on small businesses. So even they're concerned. So there are a lot of concerns with this bill that I think if it was worked on a little bit more or maybe the Senate bill will address some of these issues, I could be for it. But as of right now with the issues that I see with it, I'm going to have to vote no in the bill.
I understand. And I would just comment by conceding we just received DEP feedback I think at like 10.06 this morning. And they do raise some points that need to be thought about. So I would concede that some more work once we move this out of committee and get it for the House as a whole, there are some tweaks to the language that may have to be undertaken. I do know that this bill is a product of compromise with a bipartisan effort in the Senate, and sometimes the most important thing is rather than getting a perfect product, getting a product that you can get the necessary votes for. So I concede your concerns and do think that additional work once we move it out of committee could possibly be in order Rep Porowski do you have any thoughts on Chair Raider comments
I certainly do appreciate Chair Raider's comments and would agree with you, Chair Vitale, that this – so we actually had – I actually had a bill last session that was even stronger I guess a more stronger and comprehensive piece of legislation that a lot of the industry raised concerns with. So we know that for some of the environmentalists, perhaps this legislation doesn't go as far as they would like. We know that there's definitely some things that DEP would like to see cleaned up. Although I would add that, you know, we've been working closely with Senator Commita and Senator Pennecook on this legislation and and they've been working. We've all been working very closely with DEP. So it's interesting to see their comments of today. But, you know, it is it is a product that, you know, we definitely concede will, you know, does need to some additional some additional tweaking. but it certainly is a product of a lot of compromise and believe that it is a good foundation that we can move this and get this to the governor's desk. It is, you know, see the implement, how this implements, and then something that we can perhaps build on in the future to be even stronger. But definitely a good first step. And I am grateful for the committee's consideration.
Okay, thank you. So we have a couple of Rep. Takehack. Why don't you go next?
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Rep. Borowski, for bringing this forward. I have some familiarity with this prior to coming to the house. I worked for Apple for over 20 years, and we're very familiar with e-waste recycling fees and those sorts of things in California. But I just also wanted to point out that this recycling effort could actually stimulate business opportunities. What we've seen elsewhere is when you can consolidate these discarded products, that actually is a synergy around bringing together some of these increasingly valuable critical minerals and other things. So, you know, I do think that there's a potential for business opportunities here, and I think we should just recognize that in moving the ball forward. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. Rhett Mahaffey.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Rhett Barowski, my question, I guess, is in Dolphin County, we have a very robust recycling, and we do take e-waste and computers and all of the above. They also take things with Freon, but they charge the customer, whoever comes in, if it's an old fridge or an old air conditioner, they charge them, I think it's $20. What are other, without this, what are other counties doing? Because I heard a lot of counties are dropping their recycling programs, and that leads me to believe that then you end up with these kind of products along the road in wherever they want to dump them because they can't put them in their dumpster or whatnot. So without this program, where are other municipalities and counties? What are they going to do?
An excellent question, Brett Mahaffey. I can tell you that I was a local township commissioner. The recycling program that we were running has certainly become extremely cost prohibitive. Um, and even the ones that people bring in and do, you know, a day they do, you know, um, you know, bring your electronics and you can drop them off for a day. I'm sure a lot of my colleagues, uh, do those around the, um, do those around in their districts as well. Um, we, uh, you know, we definitely see that the cost of that is going up and, and what we believe that with this legislation, um, it would lower the costs for municipalities to be able to recycle their electronics by creating, you know, an opportunity for more people to be contributing to the recycling effort, creating a sustained avenue for this to happen in municipalities, something that a lot of places don't have or can't afford. And, yeah, so one of the and I know with the prior bill that I had, you know, the Farm Bureau was very much in favor of it because a lot of times what's happening is a lot of these electronics are getting dumped on our farmland in the streams that are, you know, our cattle are drinking out of things like that. So it is it is a huge problem and it is not only impacting our environment but it also impacting our agriculture here in the state of Pennsylvania So you know we see this as again you know is this the perfect answer
No. Is this the product of a lot of compromise?
Yes, it is. But, you know, we believe that this is a good a good first step and something that we can move forward and then build upon in the future.
Yeah, we had a myself and Representative Madsen did a recycling day in Lower Scutera Township. And we, of course, had the paper shredding and then Goodwill was there. And that's something I didn't realize at Goodwill. They take a lot of these products. And as far as TVs and computers and printers and whatever else it is. And they do an outstanding job. An outstanding job as far as taking that waste away. I'd encourage people who don't have a way to get rid of it. Goodwill is a great place to go with it. But at the end of the day, you know, they only cover so much of the state. They only get so many areas that they can do and the amount they take. But it was amazing to see the amount of product that day that came in to our shredding event. I think we had more product as far as computers and TVs than we did shredding. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Rep. James?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under current set of regulations, it appears the Attorney General has some say in some of the activities around here. Is it true that the Attorney General's office is being removed from the loop? And if so, what's the rationale behind that, please?
You know, Rep. James, I'm not 100% sure if that's the case or if that is the rationale. Let me double check with some of the stakeholders on that. But certainly we would want the attorney general to continue to be part of the process. But let me look into that and get back to you on that.
Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I do think you're right. I did notice that enforcement – at some point, the attorney general was deleted out of that, and I was curious as to that why. But, yeah.
Okay. Further discussion?
Chair Rader. I just want to make it clear. I am for this, but I am not for how the bill creates a system to take care of it. I do recycling myself. We have an event at home, and I take care of a lot of the things that we're talking about and collect them. So I am for the concept, but I don't want to move a bill forward that I don't think is ready to be voted on yet. So I'll still be a no.
Thank you. That reminds me of a quote by football coach Bill Parcells that says, you are what your record says you are. Anyway, those in favor of reporting House Bill 2553 will vote aye. Those opposed, no. Evan, can you call the roll?
Vitale.
Aye.
Brown.
Designation, aye.
Fleming.
Aye.
Hohenstein.
Designation, aye.
Isaacson.
Yes.
Kazim.
Designation, aye.
Mazzacco.
Designation, aye.
Aten.
Designation, aye.
Pieli.
Yes.
Salisbury.
Designation, aye.
Steele.
Designation, aye.
Taycac.
Aye.
Tabersio.
Yes.
Webster.
Yes.
Raider.
No.
Bashline. Day.
Designation, no.
Flick.
No at this time.
James?
No.
Kephart?
No.
Mahaffey?
Yes.
Pew?
No.
Stender?
No.
Tordzik?
I'd rather get work done in these committee meetings than try to do it later on the floor, so I'm a no.
Wendling?
Designation, no.
Zimmerman?
Designation, no.
Okay. Okay. The vote was 15-11 to report to Bill out, so the bill will be reported to the House as a whole. That's all we have on our agenda. Chair Rader, do you have any closing remarks?
I do not, thank you.
Okay, so with that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.