Nickels for Recycling and Water Ratepayers

Excellent! About time, too (6.00 / 1)

Why not increase the existing deposit to $0.10 while we are at it: that's about the value of $0.05 in 1982.

Thanks for the post.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:26:18 AM CST

And eliminate the MI arbitrage opportunity? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: syphax @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 14:57:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressie tax/fee? (0.00 / 0)

This is perhaps a good example of a progressive tax or fee; I personally can't be bothered to store and haul my empty bottles to the grocery store, I don't think it's worth my effort.  I put them in the recycling bin. So I guess I'm voluntarily paying this tax/fee. Others who may have less room in their budgets can take the time to do this and avoid the tax.

This might also have the added effect of weaning us off bottled water. Yes, it's convenient, but when you think about it bottled water is such a waste, tap water is perfectly fine, and I have to believe that sucking so much water out of the bowels of Maine isn't good long-term.

Now that a 35-bottle case from Costco is going to cost $1.75 more, something like a 30% increase, maybe I'll think twice and just fill a sports bottle from the tap or buy a Brita.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:35:18 AM CST

How about wine and liquor? (0.00 / 0)

What do you think about a $0.25 deposit on bottles of wine or liquor?  Given that the contents are far more expensive than a can of Pepsi, a larger deposit makes sense.  Given that liquor stores are already processing beer cans, they've got the infrastructure to handle this.

One more advantage to the expanded bottle bill: it will save DPW budget for cities and towns.  After all, they'll avoid the $75-$150/ton it currently costs them to collect and process commingled bottles of water, tea, etc.  In my town, it costs the town approximately $7.60/yr/household to process commingled recyclable containers.  Given that we're an urban Town, there aren't many deposit cans in the stream (scavengers).  If the amount of commingled gets halved due to the expanded bottle bill, my Town will save $50,000 per year on our DPW budget.  That doesn't include the added savings because the DPW will be able to service the litter barrels slightly less often because fewer tea/water bottles will be there taking up space.

Expanding the Bottle Bill will help ease a little bit of stress on DPW budgets state wide.  That's a good thing.

---

by: stomv @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:59:21 AM CST

I can agree on principle (0.00 / 0)

To a point. But how soon until all of the money goes into the General Fund? It happens all the time.  

---

by: billxi @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:33:59 PM CST

Already (6.00 / 1)

Looks to me that the monies already go to the General Fund.  

The $5.0 million in Community grants and $10.0 to ratepayer relief aren't so out of line from prior years, and it's not as if the bottle deposit escheated are designated to a non-discretionary trust fund for environmental use only.  

---

by: gary @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 13:16:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On the counterside (5.75 / 4)

our town moved last year (Duxbury) to single stream recycling AND the dreaded "pay as you throw" method for trash collection.  Single stream has been great as you pretty much put all of your recycling in one bin, while the $1.25 per trash bag definitely encourages one to cut down as much as possible on throwing away recyclables.

If we expand now the bottle bill to include everything, now we are looking at another trip to drop off additional deposited items that we are already recycling (and also introducing yet another middleman into the equation, namely retail stores who have to take this stuff back).

The proposed new items now go straight to recycling already.  Seems to me not to so much a move that's "good for the environment" as a way to collect hidden taxes/fees from those of us who don't think it's worth our time to cash these items in.  Please be honest on the motivation here.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 13:07:13 PM CST

In a PAYT community (0.00 / 0)

it's unlikely to drive increased recycling from households, you're absolutely right.

But, it does decrease the number of bottles which end up in town waste and recycle barrels, which lowers costs for the town.

It also reduces Duxbury's DPW costs to collect and recycle the commingled -- in my Town by about $5/household/year.  That's money in your Town budget.

It also reduces the amount of litter you'll find in parks, along roads, etc.  For a variety of reasons, the frequency of bottles roadside is higher for non-deposit than for deposit bottles.

So it's true, with PAYT you already have a great financial incentive to recycle.  Still, Duxbury will net other benefits too.

On a side note, how do you like PAYT?  Let me know here or drop me a line.  I'm very curious.

---

by: stomv @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:01:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ever check Saturday morning? (0.00 / 0)

It also reduces the amount of litter you'll find in parks, along roads, etc.  For a variety of reasons, the frequency of bottles roadside is higher for non-deposit than for deposit bottles.

I tend to notice beer cans and cardboard packaging on the roads, not Poland Spring bottles myself.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 17:36:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Market forces (0.00 / 0)

There's nothing hidden about this tax/fee; it's stated quite clearly on the bottle.

If you choose not to redeem, that's your problem.  Cost vs. benefit and all that.

And placing a cleanup value on stuff like water bottles will sure help cleanup after public events.  

The fact that it will create some additional revenue is just one of many benefits.  Call it a lazy tax.

Count me in.

---

by: syphax @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:03:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Did you know it is illegal to throw paper in the trash in MA. (0.00 / 0)

Part of the MA laws on recycling say that no only do they "encourage" recycling but if you are throwing "recyclable" paper in the trash you are violating state law. "Off with their heads..."

I have another legal question, maybe Mike (Deluxebury) knows the answer... Is it legal for a town to collect money for trash (PAYT) which totals above and beyond what the costs of trash removal are thereby generating revenue for the town coffers?

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 13:25:32 PM CST

No idea John (0.00 / 0)

Of course these swells down by the Bay originally tried to sell PAYT as a "cost savings" because the dump sticker cost went from $118 to $25, neglecting the cost of the blue bags ($1 for a kitchen bag, $1.50 for a regular sized bag).  Great letters to the editor in the Duxbury Clipper about such a deal; of course these were written by folks who were single and ran over their garbage a few times with the Volvo/Prius before putting in the bag.  Anyone with kids knew that it was going to cost you more, recycling or no.  Initially thought it might encourage that new holiday "take your trash to work" day...

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 14:23:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I know some answers (0.00 / 0)

The city/town can not "profit" on trash services.

Now, they can charge for lots of things, not just the tipping [dump] fees and recycling costs, but also collection, enforcement, maintenance, administrative overhead, etc.

To give you a sense of costs, my Town pays $82/ton for trash. That's roughly $1.02 per 30 gallon bag.  That's just tipping fees though -- we've got to collect it, and we've got to do all the recycling.  For strictly trash, it would cost roughly $150/year plus $1.40 a bag to cover costs.  The reason it goes from $1.02 to $1.40 is the bag cost itself (roughly $0.26), administrative fees, and a little cross-subsidization of recycling so that the bag fee doesn't change every single year.  Again, that's in addition to the $150/hh/yr, which would cover all the recycling, administrative overhead, and the cost of physically driving to each person's home once a week to collect the trash.

---

by: stomv @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:05:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We are in the midst of moving to PAYT right now. (0.00 / 0)

We have a fixed charge of $500K from the trash collector and then a $69/ton tipping fee. We are trying to estimate the pounds/trash bag and the bags/house and it's looking like a $125 flat HH fee (minus the opt-outs and low income pass) and $2/bag and $1/small bag ($.23/bag cost). I am hoping this will encourage recycling but the state says not to expect much of an increase. Pisses me off since 80% of my house trash is recycling (even with 5 kids - 2 away at college) but the town only does 90% trash and 10% recycling. My wife is on the recycling committee and has only s started the outreach programs for the schools and homes.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:30:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A few thoughts... (0.00 / 0)

your bag fee seems high.  The danger with a bag fee that doesn't reflect the actual costs per unit is that if your estimates are wrong, you might be in the red big time.

$69 tipping comes out to just under $1/bag in tipping fees.  Throw in the $.23 and you're looking at like $1.25 in marginal cost.

The problem with going for $2 is if the program is successful and people throw out less, you could be way short.  Instead, I encourage the committee to play with reducing the bag fee and increasing the HH fee.

As for results, everything I've read shows that you'll get a 25% reduction in trash.  About a third of that will end up in recycling; the rest just magically disappears [people don't take stuff home from their weekend house, from work, don't take the freebie crab handed out anywhere, etc]

And 80% -- is that by weight or volume.  I'd believe volume, but I'm skeptical about weight unless you guys have a compost heap in the back yard or are throwing non-recycling in the recycle bin.  I'm not saying it's not possible, just really unusual even for the die-hards.

---

by: stomv @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:59:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My problem with the $2 bag is I think it is too high. (0.00 / 0)

My comments to the Town Admin was he was trying generate revenue from this as tipping fees for a bag will cost about $.85 and a bag costs $.23 so $1.08 should cover it. The fixed HH fee covers the trucks... and the other fixed costs including billing... I think it would be a crime for them to try to make revenue off this program.

We are recycling zealots from my wife being on the committee. We also sell stuff on the internet so we end up with lots of package material from incoming and outgoing boxes... so 80% it typical for us. I do think we need to shoot for higher than 25%. "I think we can, I think we can..."

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 16:44:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it is a crime (0.00 / 0)

The Town can not make money on trash -- it violates Prop 2.5 in fact.

The danger is that if they're budgeting for Y tons of trash with a revenue of $2 a bag and a cost of $1.08*Y, if Y is smaller they're going to be in the hole.  Smarter in my opinion to lower the bag fee a bit and raise the household fee to cover the difference, so that small variances in Y don't produce large variances in the trash budget.

Still, without a scale, I'm not buying 80% by weight.  That's a crazy high number, especially in the winter.

---

by: stomv @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 21:22:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I HATE the nickel deposit (6.00 / 3)

Seriously. Screw the deposit.

I already have curbside recycling. Why should I be encouraged to lug my empties to the local grocery store and sit through the tedious task of stuffing dirty bottles into a machine for 20 minutes? Let me keep my $0.05, my free time, and my sanity.

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 16:13:53 PM CST

Anyone notice any recycling centers around anymore? (6.00 / 1)

Used to be when this all started out that you had recycling centers to bring your returns; they went out due to the fact that they couldn't cover their costs.

One thing about this expansion: it's bad enough that if you are of the mind of returning that you're invariably stuck with some items that the store didn't carry, so you can't redeem them.  Now factor this expansion and you're going to be faced with multiple trips to get this stuff back.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 21:58:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You raise a good point (0.00 / 0)

There seems to be far more boutique non-carbonated beverages than carbonated.  In terms of brands there's Coke and Pepsi... but for tea there's Snapple, Lipton, AriZona, Nestea, Turkey Hill, Honest Tea, Tazo, Sweet Leaf Tea, Luzianne, Pom, Nantucket Nectar, and God knows what else.

Who knows -- maybe with the added number of bottles and number of manufacturers, redemption centers will make a come back.

---

by: stomv @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 06:28:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The question is, though: (0.00 / 0)

Will these hypothetical new redemption centers provide the service of sorting and counting the returnables for you, like they did back when? Or is it going to be the same miserable experience that we encounter at grocery stores now?

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 09:46:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dunno. (0.00 / 0)

But then, I don't encounter a miserable experience at the grocer either.

I drink Diet Mountain Dew at my office, and get a few additional cans from colleagues who leave them at my desk.  I take them to my local grocer (big for a spa, but not a supermarket) 20 at a time.  I walk up to the bins (one for cans, one for bottles) and put in the 20.  Then I wait at the customer service desk for 0-3 minutes and get my buck in cash.

Since the market is on my way home by foot, it's no biggie and I'll usually pick up a few things while I'm there.

That written, I understand that not everybody has this experience.  The law requires grocery stores to take back the cans -- I have no idea what their capacity is required to be if they have reverse vending machines.  I would hope that if the bottle bill is expanded that grocery stores will expand their capacity to accept the bottles and cans.

As for service centers, obviously I have no idea how it will play out.  I do know that service centers aren't obligated to give you back the nickle -- they can offer four cents instead, for example, to pay for their services.

---

by: stomv @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:06:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

Is that true?  The store doesn't have to give back the 5 cents?  If that's so, can't a store just say, sorry, it costs us 6 cents to process cans so we give you nothing for your cans which we'll accept?

---

by: gary @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:24:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The store has to (0.00 / 0)

but service centers don't, in MA and in some other states IIRC.

Difference: the store collects the five cents deposit; the service center solely processes the recycling.

---

by: stomv @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 15:55:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Saving money and reducing litter (6.00 / 2)

This is a lively debate with some excellent points. I won't try to respond to everything, but here are a few thoughts... We know the cost savings from reduced litter and trash management at the local level is real. A 1997 study estimated that an expanded bottle deposit would save communities up to $3 million a year. And that study was completed before energy drinks and flavored water became the drinks du jour. Anyone who's seen the aftermath of a busy weekend at the park or ball field knows first-hand how unkempt it can get. Expanding the bottle bill to cover 1.5 billion more containers, as Governor Patrick has proposed, would keep our recreation areas cleaner, and save local communities money in disposal costs.

In addition to less litter, cost savings for municipalities, and recovering valuable raw materials to help our economy, hundreds of local community groups that collect deposit containers as part of their fund raising efforts would benefit from the availability of an additional $75 million in deposits annually.  

Expanding the bottle deposit law is one significant step we can take to reduce our waste, but there are others. MassDEP has supported and will continue to support municipalities that implement new waste management systems, such as PAYT, which has been adopted by more than 120 communities in Massachusetts. These programs have dramatically increased recycling rates by having residents pay based on how much they throw out, much like how we pay for water and electricity. As new technologies and systems for managing and recovering our waste become available, MassDEP is committed to working with communities and businesses to test and implement these systems to maximize recycling and diversion while continuing to protect our environment.

Let's keep the discussion going!


Commissioner, MassDEP

---

by: Laurie Burt @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 13:52:09 PM CST

Honestly (0.00 / 0)

those same parks aren't going to be sparkly clean over a nickle or a dime.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 22:49:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Non-responsive. (6.00 / 1)

The claim isn't that parks will be "sparkly clean."  The claim is that they will be "cleaner."  That is almost certainly true.

---

by: David @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 13:33:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]