Two related measures on recycling and producer responsibility drew the committee's longest public hearing of the day.

Substitute House Bill 1071 (briefed by Jacob Lipson and Dan Jones) directs the Department of Ecology to carry out a statewide needs assessment of the recycling system, create lists of materials suitable for curbside/residential drop‑off collection by 2026, oversee producer registration and reporting, form advisory bodies and task forces (including on misleading recyclability claims), and set post‑consumer recycled content rules for additional categories of plastic. Ecology staff described multi‑million dollar costs from the climate commitment account, recycled content account and other funds to implement needs assessments and rulemaking; local governments would have indeterminate costs to participate on advisory bodies.

Substitute House Bill 1150 (a separate EPR proposal) would require producers of covered packaging and paper products to participate in and fund a producer responsibility organization (PRO). The PRO would develop and implement collection plans based on Ecology’s lists and would be required to meet performance targets for recycling, reuse and post‑consumer recycled content; Ecology would approve plans, oversee enforcement and assess fees to producers. The bill also includes wage standards for material recovery facility employees, studies, and grant and rulemaking authorities. Staff briefings estimated Ecology start‑up and rulemaking costs to be covered by producer fees and projected multi‑million biennial flows through a new non‑appropriated account.

Public testimony split largely along industry and local‑government lines. Industry groups that process and recycle plastics — and many local solid‑waste operators and industry trade associations (Waste Management, Sunshine Disposal, Waste Connections, Washington Refuse and Recycling Association) — testified in favor of HB 1071’s needs assessment approach, saying Washington needs careful planning and predictable fiscal impacts before adopting a full EPR model; many urged support for an alternate EPR bill (HB 1150’s rival, HB 1150/1150-like bills were discussed in the hearing). Witnesses warned of high per‑household costs under full EPR based on other jurisdictions' experience and urged the legislature not to add costs that would pass to ratepayers.

Producer and brand groups (AmeriPen, Association of Washington Business, Consumer Brands Association) expressed conditional support for needs assessment but concerns about immediate designation of curbside materials and rulemaking authority that could shift costs and compliance burdens to producers and ultimately consumers. Several speakers emphasized that a transparent, well‑funded needs assessment would allow better targeting of investments and avoid increasing household collection fees.

Other organizations including EPR proponents (EPR Leadership Forum, Washington Beverage Association, City and municipal advocates and some environmental groups) testified in support of shifting program funding to producers to expand recycling access statewide and to create consistent service for rural communities. Representatives said a properly designed PRO could expand curbside service to more than 500,000 homes and create incentives for producers to reduce problematic packaging.

Committee members did not act on either bill at the hearing. Staff fiscal notes, included in the electronic bill book, show multi‑million dollar implementation estimates for Ecology, UTC and other agencies; many costs for EPR (HB 1150) are projected to be paid from new producer fee accounts rather than the general fund. Several witnesses urged the committee to prefer the needs assessment and planning approach (HB 1071) while others urged passage of a producer‑funded, accountable EPR program (HB 1150).