Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Requires the National Park Service Director to set up a program within 180 days to reduce disposable plastic products in National Park units. Regional directors must implement elimination of single-use plastic water bottles and other disposable plastics "to the greatest extent feasible" after considering specified factors, develop visitor education, ensure program continuity with concessioners, and conduct biennial evaluations reporting public response, safety, and collection rates.
Environmental benefits versus economic impact on concessioners
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a reasonably well-structured administrative directive that sets responsibilities, timelines for initial action, evaluation metrics, and factors to consider.
Requires the National Park Service Director to set up a program within 180 days to reduce disposable plastic products in National Park units.
Regional directors must implement elimination of single-use plastic water bottles and other disposable plastics "to the greatest extent feasible" after considering specified factors, develop visitor education, ensure program continuity with concessioners, and conduct biennial evaluations reporting public response, safety, and collection rates.
The bill defines covered products and requires coordination with public health and concession stakeholders.
Modest overall chance: administratively focused, limited fiscal exposure and strong compromise features aid passage, but business concerns and lack of funding reduce momentum.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a reasonably well-structured administrative directive that sets responsibilities, timelines for initial action, evaluation metrics, and factors to consider. It leaves substantial discretion to agency officials and provides limited fiscal, contractual, and enforcement detail.
Environmental benefits versus economic impact on concessioners
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental benefits versus economic impact on concessioners
Likely supportive because the bill advances waste reduction and single-use plastic elimination in public lands.
They will view the bill as an environmentally beneficial, practical federal step while noting the need for strong implementation and attention to equity and access.
Generally favorable but cautious.
Centrist readers will like the incremental, feasibility-based approach and stakeholder considerations, while seeking clarity on costs, timelines, and safety safeguards.
Skeptical and cautious.
Conservatives will view this as federal micromanagement that could harm concession businesses and raise costs, while appreciating the bill's many feasibility caveats and concessioner input requirements.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest overall chance: administratively focused, limited fiscal exposure and strong compromise features aid passage, but business concerns and lack of funding reduce momentum.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental benefits versus economic impact on concessioners
Modest overall chance: administratively focused, limited fiscal exposure and strong compromise features aid passage, but business concerns…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a reasonably well-structured administrative directive that sets responsibilities, timelines for initial action, evaluation metrics, and factors to consider. It lea…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.