March 25, 2026 · Environmental Conservation · 2,635 words · 4 speakers · 53 segments
All right. Good morning everybody. I am New York State Senator Pete Harcom and welcome to the Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation. We've been joined by Senators Kens and Harry Fitzpatrick. Senator Fahey, if you don't see your senator here, there are a lot of meetings going on. People will be coming and going. But we do have everybody's vote sheets to constitute a quorum. We are joined as always by our amazing central staff. We have Mike, Malik, Nicole, Jose, Carissa, and from my staff, our amazing committee coordinator, Marie Kelly. Just to senators here, a couple editorial notes. There will be just some routing changes on with certain bills that we will fill you in on. Just the mechanism of lrs. We could not change them in the system until after the meeting, but nothing radical for sure. So we have an 11 bill active list today and why don't we get going? Our first bill is 1059A by Senator Serrano.
An act amend the environmental conservation law in relation to prohibiting the aerial and ground application of malathion in certain pyrethroid based insecticides.
Questions? Comments, Concerns?
Move the bill.
We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Any, without rec. Any? Nay. All right, that bill is advanced to the calendar. The next bill, 1463 by Senator Kavanaugh.
Max. Amend the environmental conservation law in relation to establishing a mattress collection program.
And this is a bill that we have seen before. Questions? Comments, Concerns?
Chairman? Yes, I have some questions and concerns. I'm sorry that the sponsor is not here, but I'll pose them to you. I'm concerned about the hidden costs that the structure of this program will have. And as we all know, the ultimate cost of recycling will probably be passed on through the producers to the consum. So I would like to ask. Oh, and I see our sponsor has revived. So yes, you're on the hot seat, Senator.
You're on 1463 right now. Mattress EPR.
Right here on your mattress.
So, Senator, thank you. I want to ask if we've considered going about this program in a different way. My understanding is that four other states have a similar program and that those programs are instituting a point of sale at retail sale, a fee that will allow us to have a transparent cost about what this program is going to actually cost. To say it's free to consumers, I think is not being fully transparent because as I said, Raz, you were walking in manufacturers. Producers are going to pass this on to the consumers in one way or the other because that's the way business operates. So let's be honest about what this is costing. My other concern is that we're putting a lot of burden on an auditing system that doesn't exist right now, that we would be creating a need to track down how the, how the costs are being compiled. If we are not charging an upfront fee now, you're going to have a company that now is going to have to produce records to show their sales. And I'm concerned there's been some opposition from the International Sleep Product association, from the American Chemistry Council, the New York State Chemistry Council. We have some opposition there. And I'm wondering, have you had any discussions with those organizations about how we might tweak our program? Because, of course, the other concern, if you don't mind me saying, is that if we have neighboring states that have a different program, we're going to have some border competition. We're going to have some other issues that are going to be created because our neighboring states are doing it differently.
Great. Thank you for all that. So, first of all, just on the sort of, on the sort of honesty aspect, there is no disputing that it costs money to collect and properly dispose of mattresses. Currently, virtually all that cost is borne by taxpayers. And because mattresses are landfilled, landfills cost money to run very often. You know, at the beginning of any month, you'll see mattresses like, left on the curbside at some 86. So this is, this is already, this is a product that is already costing a great deal of money to New Yorkers. So epr, which is not a new model in New York, we have, our DC has kind of models by which you do this as a general matter, in kind of modern, recent EPR programs, we have not set a specific point of sale fee. And the reason for that is that it's economically efficient. If the government sets the price for a service and allows it to be a fixed price, regardless of the efficiency of the program, people will, people will charge that fee. Business will either spend that fee or keep the fee. The idea here is that the businesses that distribute, that make and distribute mattresses are in the position to figure out how to collect them and do the work necessary to dispose of them most efficiently. And so if we say every time you buy a mattress, it's going to cost you $40, there's no incentive for the industry to collect efficiently. There's no incentive for them to dispose of it officially to reuse the materials to meet the other mandates. So we have not, as a general matter, in recent years, when we've passed DPR bills on carpeting and other things set specific fees. We did a bill on that. We did a bill on bike and mobile batteries which got signed in total last year as well. Again, there's no specific fee. So that is just it's the model we use in New York. And you know, and to your question of how we've spoken about this endlessly is the answer. We've passed this bill in the Senate in 2024 and last year and now it's moving again. My door is always open and I've talked with industry folks. There are differing opinions within the industry about what would be appropriate. There are some producers of lower cost mattresses that think we should mandate that there be a lower fee for their mattresses than the rest of the industry. And then the rest of the industry objects to that. So if to the extent the legislature is going to set a fee, we're going to be putting in statute something that may not reflect the actual costs over time. And it just does not seem inefficient and it's certainly not necessary to make a program like this work.
Just a quick interjection, if I may. We've been joined by our rankers, Senator Stack, Senator Bino and Senator Botcher. Welcome all.
So my only other comment then is I think when you see another state doing it successfully, I think it's worth evaluating the way they're doing it, how it's working and whether or not it's successful. I guess is a subjective assessment, but I would think that it's worth looking at those other states who are doing it differently than New York because again, we always seem to do things that burden our businesses. We're not transparent about costs. And I'd like to see this be a different model so that we address those issues.
I spend a lot of time thinking about epr, working on it, looking at the, you know, the Product Stewardship Institute research and I've been at national conferences about this issue. I'm very familiar with how this works in various places and I don't dispute that those other states programs are good and positive things. I think that our bill is more sensitive to not imposing excessive costs on consumers and those in those states. The same people are lobbying for a fixed fee in New York, lobbied successfully for a fixed fee in those places. But I don't think we're doing New Yorkers a benefit by saying every time you buy a mattress you must pay $20 or $30 or $40 extra, even if that's not doesn't reflect the actual cost of deflecting the thing.
Thank you for your discussion. I appreciate it.
All right. Senator Stick, you had a question?
Well, it sounds like I, I walked in mid conversation, but I was also going to ask about, you know, why are we reinventing the wheel if there's other states that are doing something? Point of sale, you know, and you mentioned that we passed this bill a few times now.
Why hasn't it become law?
Is it held up in the assembly or is it of government vetoing in. No, it hasn't been vetoed. It's been the assembly in recent sessions has kind of run out of time at the end of June to do a number of things that were important. You know, hope springs eternal. This will be our, if we pass it in, send it this year, it'll be our third time. And I, I'm talking to the sponsor over there and hoping and expecting that we'll get two House passage this year. The governor, you know, we've also spoken a lot with DC and the with the governor's office about EPR programs and just I think you might have missed this part of the conversation. But we are not reinventing the wheel. We are doing this epr, this New York State EPR program in the manner that we do other New York State EPR programs. It is we do these programs somewhat differently than other states, but our EPR programs are quite effective and the goal is to make this one follow that model because it's the same, the same agency that has to implement it and on the same theory that we don't want to be charging people on artificially every time they purchase a product.
I do think paint recycling is inherently different than mattresses for a lot of reasons. So I would say that maybe it's an opportunity to look at a different way doing it because of the bulky nature of what we're dealing with. But I guess I mean, carpeting, I don't dispute that you've looked at other avenues.
And carpeting, carpeting, which we also did without a point of selfie, is substantially bulkier than this product. And it also covers Astroturf. So again, and we've worked with, we work with industry to make sure that the terms of these programs are sensitive to the product they're talking about. But I think most consumers will understand that walking into the store and being told it's $40 extra because someday this is going to be disposed of is not I'm not saying that that's the number the industry would necessarily settle on, but I don't think that's necessarily a consumer friendly thing for us to do.
I would suggest points are all well made.
Thank you.
Sponsors office is always open. Door is always open, as he mentioned. And then certainly when this gets to the floor, everyone will have actually a lengthier crack at the apple to discuss these topics. So with that we have a motion. Senator Hanchey has just joined us. Thank you. And second. We have a second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Any without rec?
Yes.
One without wreck. Any nays? One day. All right, this will go to the calendar. I know your agenda said this will go to another committee, but this goes to the calendar. Our next bill is 1497 by Senator Fahey.
It acts amend the environmental conservation law in relation to the paper carryout bag reduction fee.
All right. Questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion, Senator Bino. Seconded by Senator Hinchey. All in favor?
Aye.
Any without rec? 1 without rec. Any nays? All right. That is referred to finance. Next bill 1984 by Senator Harcombe.
An act amend the environmental conservation law in relation to directing the commissioner to publicly publish an annual report on the environmental radiation surveillance program.
And this is a bill that we passed before. We have a motion. We have a second. Thank you very much. All in favor?
Aye.
Any without rec. Any nays? All right, this is advanced to the calendar. Our next is 2057A by Senator Webb.
And acts amend the environmental conservation law in relation to the regulation of ingredients and personal care products and cosmetics.
All right. Another bill that we're familiar with. We have a motion by Senator Hinchey, seconded by Senator Bino. Any other discussion before we vote on this? All in favor? Aye. Any without rec? 1 without rec. Any nays? All right, so noted. And that is advanced to the calendar. The next is 6393 by Senator Harcomb.
Next, amend the environmental conservation law in relationship recycling of electronic products.
That's another EPR bill. Questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion by Senator Hinchey. Do we have a second? Seconded by Senator Botcher. All in favor? Aye. Any without rec? One without rec. Two without rec. So noted. And that advances to the calendar. The next is 7553 by Senator Kavanaugh.
An act amendment, environmental conservation law and the state finance law in relation to establishing extended producer responsibility for tires.
The long awaited. Thank you, sir. Questions, comments, concerns? All right, do we have a motion? We have a motion by Senator Hinchey. Do we have a second? I'll second that or Senator Rino? Either way. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Any without rec. One without rec. Any nays? All right, so noted. That is referred to finance the next bill, 7809 by Senator Salazar, an act
amend the environmental conservation law in relation to establishing state composting programs.
All right. Questions, comments, concerns? Okay, we have a motion by Senator Hinchey. Do we have a second? All right, I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. Any without rec. Any nays? One without rec and one nay. So noted. That is referred to the calendar. That's a change from what's on your agenda. But that will go to the the calendar. Our next bill, 8272 by Senator Steck,
an act amend the executive law in relation to including Haig Brook in the list of inland waterways eligible for the local waterfront revitalization program.
All right. Questions, comments, concerns?
Second.
All right. Motion and a second. And a third. Popular bill.
Thank you all.
All right. You're very welcome. All in favor? Aye. Any without wrecks? Any nays? All right, that will move on the calendar. The next 9268 by Senator Fahey.
An act amend the environmental conservation law in relation to prohibiting the sale and distribution of anti fogging sprays or wipes containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
All right, questions, comments, concerns?
Move in.
We have a motion by Senator Hinchey. Do we have a second, Senator? Byno. Thank you very much. All in favor? Aye. Any without rec. One without rec. Any nays? All right, that bill moves to the floor. And our last bill, 9,452 by Senator Harcomb. This is just an extender of something that we passed several years ago. It's actually been a very successful program on capturing usable excess food for our food pantries and food banks. And this is just extending them. Questions, comments, concerns? Motion. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All right. Thank you all very much. And that concludes our agenda for today. Thank you.