These bills are not good for Arizona business, economy or environment. Not only do they limit local control -- they crush it.

Approximately 9 months ago, Gov. Ducey signed SB1241 into law. 

SB1241 had a strike-everything amendment on auxiliary containers; regulatory prohibition; reporting, which undermined local control relative to recycling of easy-to-recycle materials as well as energy benchmarking.

Republican House Representative Noel Campbell said it best when he stood up to explain his NO vote on this bill -- Arizona Republicans typically do not believe in undermining LOCAL CONTROL -- yet this bill still PASSED and was signed into law.

It drew national media attention, with coverage from the New York Times to a Slate article titled Arizona Enters Bid for Worst State of the Week with Bag Ban Ban.

On Sept. 30, 2015, the Arizona Center of Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) filed a lawsuit against the state on behalf of Lauren Kuby, a Tempe City Councilwoman and outspoken opponent of SB1241, suing as an individual You can read the lawsuit here and you can donate to help with legal fees here, as ACLPI is a nonprofit, so your donations are tax-deductible.

BUT, in true Arizona form where bad bills are like ZOMBIES, the legislature may think there's something logical about Kuby's lawsuit which deems SB1241 UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as there are now TWO NEW BILLS which have been introduced into this current legislative session. 

HB2130 and HB2131 are a mirror of SB1241 except they've now been split apart into two separate bills. These bills, by design, are both obtuse and broad. This is not a case specific to Arizona, but is being pushed nationally by the conservative groups ALEC and ACCE, who pair corporate lobbyists with conservative legislators to introduce legislation (written by the lobbyists) that promotes corporate interests - which in the case of plastic bags, is the petroleum industry.

Both bills will be heard this Wednesday, Jan. 27, by the Commerce Committee at 9:30 am and we need your help to stop them. If you can't come to the Capitol in person, please be sure to sign + share this petition. You can also register on the RTS to state your opposition on the public record. Just click on the upper right hand "Sign On" Then Click on "Create Account" if you don't have one. Enter the bill number in the bill search once your signed in, then oppose and add your comments.

Here is some additional information to use as talking points if you come to testify or call/email your elected officials:

SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS (aka Auxiliary Containers)

Argument: Over the last decade, local governments have been working hard with non-profit organizations, city waste-management agencies, businesses, college and high school students, voluntary citizens, and retirees in finding solutions to reduce plastic bags in the waste stream.  This issue requires considerations and deliberations, centered on the implementation of bans, fees, and/or greater recycling efforts, from local participants, not state politicians. The provisions in HB2131 will significantly interfere with these efforts as ongoing collaborations continue to push forward in finding local resolutions. Please OPPOSE this bill so local governments can continue to work with their local businesses, residents, and others.

Economic Impacts of Plastic Bags:

·Phoenix must spend $1 million (or more) annually due to plastic bags jamming the recycling equipment at the City of Phoenix’s Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).

·Approximately $66,700 is spent annually to address litter at Cinder Lake Landfill in Flagstaff. Landfill staff estimate that 80% of all wind-blown litter that gets past litter fences consists of plastic bags. In FY 2013, 3,785 bags of wind-blown litter were collected. This cost the City $17.62 per wind-blown litter bag.

·Flagstaff spends $62,400 annually due to shutting down recycling equipment for up to two hours a day to remove plastic bags at City of Flagstaff’s MRF.

·In Flagstaff, 806 volunteers and 185 work-hours were committed by volunteers to clean up litter (mostly comprised of plastic bags and Styrofoam) in 2014 at an estimated annual cost of $18,000.

·Some landfills spend more than $200,000 each year just to deal with stray plastic bags, not to mention recycling equipment breakdowns and repair costs.

·Recommunity Recycling, which services the City of Tempe, estimates that single-use plastic bags cost the city $150,000 annually in direct labor costs (cleaning and repairing machinery, capturing bags), plus $60,000 in lost revenue due to missing good clean recyclables while they are chasing bags.

·Sedona Recycles is a small rural recycling center with free drop-off sites in Sedona and the Verde Valley. Plastic bags pose a major problem for operation at a cost of $19,000 per year in disposal and removal.  An extra conveyor belt to carry the bags off the line also had to be installed at a cost of $2,000. 

 BENCHMARKING AND ENERGY-USE DISCLOSURE

Argument: HB2130 limits local community’s ability to require that its building owners and residents have better information to make more informed choices about where to buy, rent, or locate a business. It undermines the cities, towns, and counties from doing the same. Business owners and others should be able to know the full cost of making investments in buildings in the state, especially when it can ultimately save them money. Insurance companies and large industry are utilizing energy benchmarking for major investment and gain.

Economic Impacts

·The City of Phoenix estimates that energy benchmarking could save owners/tenants $20 million annually ($100 million over five years).

·Energy Benchmarking benefits renters and businesses alike. Buildings that benchmark have been shown to reduce energy consumption by an average of 7% over a three-year time span.

·The City of Washington, DC, witnessed a 3% drop in energy usage last year after instituting an energy-disclosure (transparency) ordinance for owners of commercial buildings because it makes them more conscious of their energy use. This was before any benchmarking or energy-efficiency projects were implemented. The benchmarking data revealed a 9% drop in energy use of private buildings after a benchmarking ordinance was adopted.

·More than 70% of facility managers surveyed use benchmarking information to guide energy-efficiency upgrade plans, and 67% use it to help justify an energy efficiency project.

Economic Value Drivers of Energy-Use Disclosure

Indirect Value – money funneled into related industries and businesses
Induced Value – money spent in non-energy sectors from savings, higher earnings, and discretionary income in energy sector
Environmental Value – avoided costs from carbon emissions for better air quality and fewer climate-change related risks

Owner Benefits

·Lower Operating Costs – 8-9% reduction = $3.8 billion through 2015, $18 billion through 2020

·Higher sale prices – up to 7.5% in sales price for each dollar invested

·Higher rents – Energy Star, LEED and Green Star-rated buildings typically command rental premiums up to 17% higher

 National Security - Less imported fuel used for electricity generation

Tourism & Marketing – increased competitiveness, attractiveness

Sources: https://sustainablecities.asu.edu/resources/student-resources, RICS; World Green Building Council, 2013

 Local Jobs

·Sustained market for installations, audits, retrofits and appraisers

·In Massachusetts, projected that 23,000 new jobs created by 2015 & more than 59,000 jobs by 2020 resulting from increasing demand for energy-efficient services and technologies, and from reinvestment of energy cost saving by consumers and businesses into the economy

Sources: University of Massachusetts Amherst; Net Impact

Business Case

New York City – Commercial buildings account for $15 billion each year in energy costs, and 80% of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. NYC’s Program: Greener, Greater Buildings Plan:

·Saved $700 million in energy costs annually

·Created 17,800 construction related jobs in energy auditing, upgrading lighting, retrocommissioning, and maintaining equipment

Local Industry
Intel has utilized energy benchmarking (among other LEED practices: During the three-year LEED performance period, Intel achieved $1.58 million in cost savings.

Source: http://www.usgbc.org/projects/intel-ocotillo-campus?view=overview