SHB 2301
In CommitteeHouse
Paint producer resp.
Concerning extended producer responsibility requirements associated with paint.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
HB 2301 establishes a statewide paint stewardship program requiring paint producers to fund and manage the collection, recycling, reuse, and safe disposal of leftover paint sold in Washington. It expands the definition of covered paint products and mandates a uniform per-container fee to finance the program, with oversight by the Department of Ecology.
- Requires all paint producers selling in Washington to join and fund a nonprofit stewardship organization to manage a statewide program for leftover paint collection, reuse, recycling, and disposal.
- Prohibits producers not in an approved stewardship plan from selling paint in Washington; retailers may not sell paint from noncompliant producers.
- Imposes a uniform stewardship assessment on each container of paint sold, added to the retail price, to fund program operations (collection, transport, recycling, education, administration).
- Mandates a statewide collection system with at least 90% of residents within 15 miles of a permanent collection site, plus additional sites in urban areas and events in underserved/island communities.
- Requires the stewardship organization to submit a detailed plan to the Department of Ecology by May 30, 2026, and annual reports starting October 15, 2026, including program performance, finances, and outreach efforts.
- Expands the definition of 'paint product' to include aerosol coatings, architectural paint, coating-related products (e.g., thinners, removers), and nonindustrial coatings (e.g., automotive refinish, marine paint), all in containers of 5 gallons or less.
Who is affected
- Paint manufacturers (producers) — Paint manufacturers (producers) must join and fund a stewardship organization to manage leftover paint collection and processing; nonparticipating producers cannot sell paint in Washington.
- Distributors and retailers — Must pay a stewardship assessment added to each paint product sold, and must ensure their products are included in an approved stewardship plan before selling in the state.
- Households and small businesses — Can drop off leftover paint at collection sites without charge; receive information about proper disposal and reuse options; and benefit from expanded access to paint recycling and reuse.
- Local governments and solid waste haulers — May be required to host collection sites or provide curbside pickup for leftover paint, but are not required to do so; may charge customers for curbside service under certain agreements.
- Department of Ecology — Will receive annual reports and oversight from the stewardship organization and Department of Ecology to ensure program compliance and transparency.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The program establishes a statewide, mandatory collection and recycling system for leftover paint—including nonindustrial coatings, aerosols, and removers—preventing hazardous materials from entering landfills or waterways. This directly reduces soil and groundwater contamination risks, especially in rural and island communities that previously had limited disposal options. The requirement to use the existing household hazardous waste infrastructure leverages existing public investments and ensures safer handling.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: RCW 70A.515.040(1)(h)(ii), (iii)By ensuring at least 90% of residents live within 15 miles of a permanent collection site—and mandating additional sites in urban areas and events in underserved/island communities—the bill significantly improves safe disposal access. This reduces DIY drying (a common but hazardous practice), chemical spills, and exposure to VOCs and heavy metals (e.g., lead, mercury) in paint, especially protecting children and workers in informal disposal scenarios.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 70A.515.040(2)(a), (b)The program requires robust outreach and education strategies to reduce paint waste, promote reuse, and inform consumers about proper disposal. This includes materials distributed at point of sale and targeted outreach to underserved populations—helping bridge information gaps for non-English speakers, seniors, and low-income households who may not otherwise know where to dispose of paint safely.
EducationPeopleRef: RCW 70A.515.040(1)(g), (h)(i)The bill explicitly allows local governments to host collection sites and charge for curbside pickup under contract, creating a potential new revenue stream for small jurisdictions. It also reduces the burden on local household hazardous waste programs by shifting operational and financial responsibility to producers—freeing local budgets for other hazardous waste streams.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: RCW 70A.515.040(1)(h)(iii)The stewardship organization must create jobs in collection, transportation, sorting, and recycling—particularly in rural and urban underserved areas. While large waste management firms may benefit most, the requirement to use existing infrastructure and prioritize local transporters creates opportunities for small and mid-sized haulers and processors across the state.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: RCW 70A.515.040(1)(c)
Potential Concerns (5)
A uniform per-container stewardship assessment is added to the retail price of all covered paint products, effectively creating a hidden tax on consumers at point of sale. While the fee is intended to fund program operations, it increases the upfront cost of paint for all buyers—including low- and middle-income households—without direct rebates or income-targeted relief. The assessment is set to cover full program costs, meaning consumers pay for the entire lifecycle management of paint, not just the product itself.
FinancialLean industryRef: RCW 70A.515.040(1)(c), (d)The requirement that producers fund and manage the entire program creates a structural barrier to entry for small or out-of-state paint manufacturers, especially those without existing stewardship infrastructure. This may consolidate market share among large, incumbent producers (e.g., Sherwin-Williams, Benjamin Moore, PPG), reducing competitive pressure and potentially limiting product variety or innovation for consumers.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: RCW 70A.515.040(2)(a)The independent auditor’s mandate to verify that the stewardship assessment “does not exceed the costs of the program” creates a regulatory burden on producers and stewards, but does not cap or limit the program’s scope or growth. Over time, as program complexity increases (e.g., expanding to nonindustrial coatings, aerosols, removers), administrative and operational costs may rise, leading to higher assessments—costs ultimately passed to consumers and small retailers.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: RCW 70A.515.040(1)(e)While the bill explicitly states that local governments are not required to host collection sites, it encourages reliance on existing infrastructure—including local household hazardous waste programs—without providing dedicated state funding to offset the incremental costs of managing paint collection. This may strain local budgets, especially in rural counties with limited resources, and could divert funds from other hazardous waste streams.
Local GovernmentLean industryRef: RCW 70A.515.040(2)(a)The stewardship assessment is added to the retail price of paint, but producers—not retailers—are legally responsible for remitting it. This creates opacity for consumers: the fee is buried in the register price and not itemized, reducing transparency and making it difficult for households to compare paint costs across brands or plan budgets. This regressive structure disproportionately affects low-income households, who spend a higher share of income on home maintenance.
FinancialIndustryRef: RCW 70A.515.040(1)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income households benefit from improved safe disposal access and reduced environmental health risks, but face higher paint prices without targeted financial relief. The regressive nature of the per-container fee means these households bear a disproportionate burden relative to income.
Large paint manufacturers (e.g., PPG, Sherwin-Williams) gain market stability and reduced liability risk, while smaller or out-of-state producers face higher compliance costs and potential exclusion from the Washington market. The program structure favors incumbent producers with existing stewardship infrastructure.
Rural and island communities gain unprecedented access to permanent paint collection sites and outreach, reducing previous disposal barriers. However, they may face longer travel times to sites if population thresholds are not met, and local governments may still absorb some un-reimbursed costs.
Retailers avoid direct program costs and liability for noncompliant producers, but must verify producer compliance and pass on the assessment to consumers. Small hardware stores and independent retailers benefit from reduced liability but may lose price-competitive advantage if competitors absorb the fee differently.
Local governments gain flexibility to host collection sites for revenue but are not mandated to do so. The program reduces their burden for managing leftover paint in HHW programs, though they may still incur incremental staffing or infrastructure costs if they choose to participate.