Summary#

SB 26-192, the Producer Responsibility Dues Appeals Process bill, would amend Colorado’s law on the producer responsibility program for statewide recycling. Its stated goal is to clarify and reaffirm the appeals process for producers disputing dues, not to change the program’s goal or the way dues are calculated. The supplied status says it passed the Senate; it does not establish that it is law.

• A producer with a final dues invoice, after completing any required mediation, could ask the program’s advisory board in writing for a hearing.
• The advisory board would have to hold the requested hearing and recommend in writing whether the dues follow the program’s final plan, applicable commission rules, and state law.
• The Department of Public Health and Environment would have to decide within 45 days whether to approve or reject the board’s recommendations. Its decision would be a final agency action that can be challenged in court.
• The hearing duty applies to dues assessed by a producer responsibility organization, an additional such organization, or an individual producer running an alternative collection program.

What it means for you#

• Producers: The bill would provide a defined route to challenge whether dues based on eco-modulation factors and benchmarks comply with the final plan, applicable rules, and law. It does not guarantee lower dues or require the department to accept the advisory board’s recommendation.
• Recycling program participants and the public: The bill does not directly change recycling services, who is covered by the program, or the dues formula.
• Government offices: The advisory board would have to hold requested hearings and make recommendations. The department would have to review those recommendations and issue a decision within 45 days.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s cost.

• The bill would require hearings and department reviews, but gives no estimate of the staff time or administrative cost.
• It does not state a new appropriation, fee, fine, or change to the dues amount or formula.

What is unclear#

• The parent law is not supplied, so the current appeals process and the precise changes to existing practice could not be verified against the full current statute. The bill says it clarifies existing law and reaffirms prior actions.
• The bill does not set a deadline for a producer to request a hearing or explain how the board handles requests.
• It does not specify what evidence the producer or dues-assessing organization must provide, or what hearing outcomes are available.
• It does not say whether the department must explain its decision in detail, or how the hearing process interacts with any other appeals route.
• The bill’s stated effective date depends on when the legislature adjourns and allows for a referendum petition; the supplied status does not establish whether it has taken effect.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that producers should have a clear way to challenge dues they believe do not follow the approved plan, rules, or law.
• Requiring a hearing and written recommendations creates a record for the department’s decision.
• A 45-day deadline gives the department a set period to decide after receiving the board’s recommendations.
• The bill makes clear that the department, not the advisory board, makes the final agency decision, which can be reviewed by a court.

Case against#

• The bill does not explain how producers can meet the request requirements or what information they must provide, leaving key parts of the process unsettled.
• The advisory board’s recommendations are not binding. The department may reject them, so a hearing may not change the dues.
• The bill adds required hearing and review work without stating how much it will cost or how the offices will handle that work.
• Because the bill describes itself as clarifying existing law, but the current statute was not supplied, it is unclear how much the process changes in practice.