WeVote
Log In

Bill

HA

Bill

HB 5019

AN ACT ESTABLISHING EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSUMER BATTERIES.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Hector Arzeno and 16 co-sponsors

Connecticut requires battery manufacturers to fund collection and recycling systems for consumer batteries, shifting end-of-life responsibility from municipalities to producers.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
#attorneygeneral #audits #batteries #civilactions #electronicgovernmentinformation #energyandenvironmentalprotection #departmentof #fees #fines(penalties) #hazardouswasteestablishments #householdhazardouswaste #productstewardshipprograms #recycling #reports #retailtrade #solidwastefacilities #violations
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5019

Legislative bill overview

HB 5019 establishes an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program for consumer batteries in Connecticut, requiring battery manufacturers and importers to fund and manage the collection, transportation, and recycling of used batteries. The program shifts responsibility for end-of-life battery management from municipalities and taxpayers to producers, who must develop collection systems and ensure environmentally sound processing.

Why is this important

Consumer batteries—from alkaline AAs to rechargeable lithium-ion cells—currently end up in landfills or municipal waste streams, creating environmental contamination risks from heavy metals and hazardous chemicals. By making producers financially responsible for their products' full lifecycle, the bill incentivizes safer battery design, increases recycling rates, and reduces municipal waste management costs while supporting Connecticut's circular economy and environmental protection goals.

Potential points of contention

  • Cost pass-through concerns: Manufacturers may increase battery prices for consumers to offset EPR program costs, potentially disadvantaging low-income households dependent on affordable batteries
  • Program administration complexity: Establishing effective collection infrastructure statewide requires coordination between producers, retailers, and municipalities; implementation delays or gaps could undermine program effectiveness
  • Competitive disadvantage: Connecticut's requirement may increase costs for businesses operating across multiple states, potentially incentivizing relocation or creating market distortions compared to states without similar mandates

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.