Aron: HB 1602 Is NOT A Battery Tax — It Fixes A Cost Problem We Already Have

By Judy Aron, NH Journal

The ridiculous claim that HB 1602 creates a “hidden tax” is simply false, both legally and economically.

First, consider that the bill explicitly prohibits any consumer fee: no retailer, producer, or battery stewardship organization may charge a point-of-sale or collection point fee. That provision alone eliminates the definition of a tax—there is no government-imposed charge, no state revenue collected, and no new receipt line item.

Second, remember that the cost of battery recycling is already included in battery prices, just like raw materials, manufacturing, advertising, packaging, and transportation. If you believe the fallacy that HB1602 is a “battery tax,” then you also believe that the other costs involved in producing batteries are also a tax! Since other states have recycling programs, these costs are built into products nationwide. Whether or not New Hampshire participates, consumers already cover the costs of battery end-of-life management.

Without HB 1602, the impact grows even worse—NH pays twice: first at the time of purchase, then again locally through municipal disposal costs, transfer station operations, hazardous household waste programs, fire response, equipment damage, and higher insurance premiums. These local costs are absorbed by towns and cities, and then passed on to taxpayers through higher property taxes and fees. Transfer stations and businesses may now be collecting batteries “for free,” but they are paying to send them off to recycling companies.

HB 1602 addresses this inefficiency directly. It shifts the burden off municipalities and taxpayers and onto the producers, where it already exists in practice, ensuring those funds are used to build a coordinated, statewide system. Currently, scattered, underfunded programs are often futile and confusing, as consumers cannot realistically distinguish among battery chemistries at the end of life. When turned away for bringing the ‘wrong’ type of batteries, they often end up in landfills. This bill solves that by requiring collectors to accept all covered batteries, creating a simple, consistent system. The result is a fair, structured program that reimburses local facilities, reduces fire risk, lowers long-term costs, and ultimately reduces taxpayer burden.

This is not the government forcing industry to act, and this model is not theoretical. It is driven by reputable, non-foreign battery manufacturers who are stepping up to solve a problem that is already costing communities real money. Additionally, the industry recognizes recycling as essential to future supply chains. These companies are organizing stewardship programs because materials like lithium, cobalt, copper, and nickel are valuable and finite. By recovering them, they reduce the need for new mining, stabilize supply chains, and strengthen domestic production.

The scale of the issue is growing rapidly. For example, the battery market has expanded from roughly $10 billion in 2020 to over $40 billion in 2024, and is projected to approach $80 billion by 2030. At the same time, lithium-ion batteries make up more than 30 percent of the waste stream—up from under 10 percent a decade ago—driving a surge in fire risk. As a result, waste operators nationwide are now experiencing at least one thermal incident per day, ranging from minor fires to total facility loss.

Likewise, current collection systems are inadequate. To illustrate, hazardous household waste programs capture only about 10 percent of batteries, are inconsistent, and often lack the necessary training and resources for safe handling. HB 1602 does not replace these systems; instead, it strengthens them by providing funding, training, and reimbursement through a stewardship organization that uses existing infrastructure more efficiently.

Importantly, this is not a profit-generating program. Stewardship organizations, many of which are nonprofit, operate under strict oversight, with independent financial review and state supervision. Funds are used solely to cover the cost of collection, transportation, and recycling. There is no surplus, no slush fund, and no government expansion.

And the actual cost is minimal. In many cases, such as standard alkaline batteries, the recycling cost is a fraction of a penny per unit. Compared to the costs of fires, infrastructure damage, emergency response, and environmental cleanup, this is negligible.

Real-world evidence shows these programs do not drive consumer price increases. Battery prices are set by global supply chains, raw material costs, and manufacturing, not marginal recycling costs. States with established programs have not seen meaningful price impacts, but have seen safer facilities, fewer fires, and more efficient waste management.

The bottom line is simple: HB 1602 does NOT create a tax! It corrects a system in which taxpayers are already paying inefficiently and repeatedly. It shifts responsibility to producers, strengthens existing infrastructure, and reduces long-term costs.

For all these reasons, we should support HB 1602: contact your senator and the governor, and help create a coordinated, cost-saving recycling solution for everyone.

As a N.H. State Representative, Judy Aron (R-Acworth) serves as Chair of the Environment and Agriculture Committee. She wrote this for NHJournal.com.

This story was originally published by the NH Journal, an online news publication dedicated to providing fair, unbiased reporting on, and analysis of, political news of interest to New Hampshire. For more stories from the NH Journal, visit NHJournal.com.