Across the country, states are enacting packaging laws that shift costs and accountability for packaging waste from taxpayers to producers. These bottom-up efforts are shaping the future of recycling, truth-in-labeling, and sustainable packaging nationwide.

This guide provides detailed information on Extended Producer Responsibility, including where things stand today, key points to understand, and the action steps your brand should take, giving you clarity on what matters most now and how to plan.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy approach that holds producers (brands, manufacturers, importers) responsible for the end-of-life management of the products and packaging they place on the market.

Instead of local governments or taxpayers covering the cost of waste collection and recycling, producers fund and manage those systems.

While EPR has existed in the U.S. for decades for products like paint, batteries, and mattresses, what’s new is EPR specifically for packaging and paper products.

Globally, packaging EPR is well established in Canada and the European Union, and it has more recently gained steam in the US.

What EPR Requires

At its core, packaging EPR laws require producers to:

• Join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO): Typically a nonprofit industry association that manages compliance on behalf of all obligated producers. In California, joining CAA also means signing a binding agreement that formalizes how you’ll meet the state’s source reduction targets.

• Report packaging data: Type, weight, eco characteristics, and recyclability of all covered materials put into that state.

• Pay fees: Based on the volume and sustainability profile of packaging.

• Reduce plastic, in California: SB 54 requires producers to cut single-use plastic packaging 25% by 2032 against a 2023 baseline, measured both by weight and by number of plastic components. More on source reduction below.

These fees fund recycling system upgrades, consumer education, and infrastructure improvements. Many laws also set recycling performance targets, tying fees directly to circular outcomes.

Key Concepts

Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO)

A PRO manages data collection, calculates and collects fees, and distributes funds into system improvements. Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the designated PRO in every state that has selected one so far. Maine is the exception; it put its stewardship organization contract out to bid in June 2026 and received zero proposals by the August deadline. CAA declined to bid, saying the scope didn’t fit how it operates.

Producer

Definitions vary by state, but liability generally falls on:

• Brand owners selling packaged goods into a state.

• Importers/distributors if the brand owner does not have a US presence.

• Retailers in cases like shopping bags or food serviceware.

Exemptions typically apply to small businesses, but the thresholds vary enough that you need to check each state individually. See the producer exemptions here.

Eco-Modulation

Eco-modulation adjusts producer fees to incentivise environmentally conscious packaging design. Brands using highly recyclable formats, higher post-consumer recycled content, or optimized packaging may pay lower fees.

Conversely, packaging that disrupts recycling streams, contains toxic substances, or lacks recyclability may carry higher fees.

Note that some eco-modulation is passive and is already baked into the published rate and applied automatically to your invoice. Some are active, meaning you apply for it and submit documentation. Colorado’s and California’s published rates already include their passive adjustments, so you should never add them on top. Its PCR and recyclability bonuses are the active ones you go after.

As of October 2026, seven states have enacted packaging-specific EPR laws:

• Maine

• Oregon

• California

• Colorado

• Minnesota

• Maryland

• Washington

No eighth state joined the list in 2026. New Hampshire’s bill was killed in February. Wisconsin has companion bills pending that would require escalating packaging reduction over ten years.

All require producers to join a PRO, report data, and begin paying fees on varying timelines. While details differ, the direction is clear: packaging EPR is here, expanding, and compliance will be mandatory. Oregon’s program was challenged in federal court on constitutional grounds and upheld in August 2026.

Every state’s EPR program has its own timeline, scope, and quirks. Here are the most important details to know right now.

The dates at a glance

Maine

Maine was the first state to pass packaging EPR (2021); updated in 2025 with a "fix-it" bill to better align with other states.

The program has stalled. Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection issued an RFP for a stewardship organization in June 2026 and received no proposals by the August 18 deadline. CAA, which runs the program in six other states, chose not to bid. DEP has said it’s reassessing its dates for producer registration and invoicing.

What this means for brands: there is nothing to do in Maine right now. You can’t register because there’s no one to register with. Keep it on your watch list and don’t let a vendor tell you otherwise.

Oregon

Oregon was the first state to collect EPR fees, making it the proving ground for U.S. packaging stewardship.

Producers had to report data in March of 2025, and the first round of fees was due in July 2025. A uniform statewide recycling list launched on July 1, 2025, and eco-modulation is built into the fee structure.

2026 and 2027:

• 2025 data was due May 31, 2026, and the fees based on it are invoiced in two halves, January and July 2027. This is now the annual rhythm: report in May, pay the following year.

• Oregon’s Top 25 producers must file lifecycle evaluation reports by December 31, 2026, then every two years after.

• DEQ opened a third rulemaking cycle aimed at clarity and consistency, with final rules expected in early 2027.

• A federal court granted a preliminary injunction in February 2026 that paused fee obligations for members of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. That injunction was lifted in August 2026 when the court upheld the law. Those producers now owe fees again.

California

California’s SB 54 is the most expansive packaging EPR law in the U.S., combining EPR with major requirements for recyclability, plastic reduction, eco-modulation, and chemical compliance.

The regulations took effect May 1, 2026, which unlocked the whole compliance calendar. Everything below is confirmed, not projected.

What has already happened in 2026:

• Producer registration with CAA, or with CalRecycle as an independent complier, closed June 1.

• Annual supply reporting on 2025 data was due May 31.

• The California baseline producer report, covering 2023 data, was due July 1.

• Individual Source Reduction Plans were due August 1.

• CAA submitted its program plan to the Producer Responsibility Advisory Board on June 15.

• CAA published preliminary 2027 fee rates on October 1.

• CAA submitted its final program plan to CalRecycle on October 13, with a 2027 budget of about $1.1 billion, down from up to $1.87 billion in the June draft.

What’s still coming:

• CalRecycle has 75 days to act on the plan, with approval expected by January 1, 2027.

• First producer invoices land in January 2027.

• Full program implementation begins January 1, 2027.

Colorado

Colorado’s 2022 law creates a producer-funded statewide recycling system covering packaging, paper, and food serviceware, with reimbursements to local governments and eco-modulation designed to encourage better packaging design.

The program is fully live. CDPHE approved CAA’s plan in December 2025, and two rulemakings in November 2025 finalized the eco-modulation framework and clarified producer responsibilities. Dues for the 2026 program year were invoiced in January 2026. 2025 supply data was due May 31, 2026, and those dues invoice in January 2027.

Colorado also offers a flat dues option for producers supplying 10 short tons or less into the state, which can save small and mid-sized brands a meaningful amount of reporting work. Details in the fee section here.

Minnesota

Minnesota passed packaging EPR in 2025, including broad packaging requirements and unique provisions related to boat wrap.

A simplified supply report was due May 31, 2026, and recurs annually. The PRO had to register with the MPCA commissioner by July 1, 2026.

Fees don’t begin until February 1, 2029, at a 50 percent cost share, but the reporting obligation is live now.

Maryland

Maryland became the sixth packaging EPR state in May 2025, establishing a reimbursement model for local recycling costs and requiring producers to participate through a PRO.

Producer registration and the first simplified supply report were both due May 31, 2026. Fees begin July 1, 2028, at a 50 percent cost share milestone.

Washington

Washington adopted packaging and paper EPR through the WRAP Act in May 2025, establishing a uniform recycling list and eco-modulated fees.

Producer registration closed February 15, 2026. CAA registered as PRO with the Department of Ecology by March 1, 2026 and is seeking formal appointment.

A simplified supply report was due May 31, 2026, and producers must be PRO members by July 1, 2026. Fees ramp in 2029 and 2030.

Other States to Watch

Several states are laying the groundwork for packaging EPR through formal needs assessments and feasibility studies, an early signal that legislation may follow.

Hawaii and Rhode Island have passed assessment-focused bills, with reports due Dec. 31, 2028, and Dec. 1, 2026, respectively. Illinois also requires a feasibility report by Dec. 1, 2026, and is simultaneously considering a bag ban, suggesting broader momentum.

Wisconsin introduced companion bills in December 2025 that would require producers to reduce packaging by escalating percentages over ten years, which is a more aggressive structure than any existing state law. New Hampshire’s EPR bill was deemed inexpedient to legislate in February 2026 and is dead for now.

Connecticut is considering a feasibility study with a projected report due Jan. 15, 2027, if passed. Beyond formal assessments, advocacy efforts are active in Iowa, New York, and New Jersey, making these states key to watch for emerging EPR proposals.

Once you know you’re obligated, the real work starts. You need to figure out which packaging is covered, who the obligated producer is, and how to turn your packaging data into the report each state requires.

We’ve moved all of that into its own deep dive. It covers covered materials, producer exemptions, obligated producer scenarios, and reporting requirements for Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington, plus fee structures and eco-modulation. It also includes a free template that turns one packaging dataset into state-ready reports.

What California Requires for Source Reduction

California’s SB 54 adds a unique obligation: you have to use less plastic over time, and you have to tell CalRecycle how you’ll pursue that reduction.

Brands need to reduce two things by specific amounts: plastic weight and number of plastic components.

*Across all brands, not brand-specific

Important note: weight and components are separate tests.

You can hit one goal and miss the other, and plenty of brands will. Downgauging a film reduces weight but a thinner bag is still one bag. If your reduction strategy is entirely lightweighting, your component number won’t move at all.

Five Pathways to Source Reduce

CAA recognizes five ways to source reduce:

1. Reuse and refill

2. Bring your own container

3. Elimination, meaning removing a plastic component entirely

4. Switching to an alternative material

5. Right-sizing, lightweighting, concentration, and bulk formats

Note: While post-consumer recycled content is not a reduction pathway, it has been identified as an alternative pathway.

Do we need to factor in sales growth?

This is the question we get most, and the answer has gotten more concrete now that CAA has published its methodology. The 2023 baseline is fixed. In CAA’s own words, net source reduction is measured against it "without any allowance for adjustment due to growth in product sales." If you sold more in 2026 than in 2023, that growth increases the gap you need to close.

CAA does track a second measurement called source reduction activity, which credits your design changes independently of sales. But activity only gets allocated back to your reported figure in years where you achieved actual net reduction. Redesign hard, grow faster, and you report the activity but net out at zero.

The ISR Plan

Every producer registered with CAA California had to file an Individual Source Reduction Plan, forecasting how much plastic weight and how many components they plan to reduce, and attributing that reduction across the five pathways. It was due August 1, 2026, and it’s filed through CAA’s Producer Portal.

What Oregon Requires for Source Reduction

Oregon’s EPR law is more focused on improving recycling outcomes and funding system improvements, rather than setting a single statewide source reduction percentage like California. Oregon does set statewide plastic packaging and food serviceware recycling rate goals over time, and it also funds work intended to reduce environmental impacts, which can include prevention and reuse strategies.

What this means for brands: Oregon’s pressure tends to show up through fee design and eco-modulation over time, rather than a single headline reduction target. Packaging that performs well in real-world recycling systems and has strong end markets is likely to be advantaged, while formats that are costly to manage or have weak end markets are likely to face higher costs and fewer incentives.

One exception worth flagging: Oregon’s Top 25 producers now have a hard lifecycle evaluation obligation due December 31, 2026, and biennially after. That’s closer to a mandate than the rest of Oregon’s approach.

Examples of what brands can do that align with Oregon’s direction:

• Lightweight a corrugated shipper while maintaining strength, reducing total fiber weight without changing the format.

• Replace a multilayer mailer with a mono-material film mailer where feasible, improving end market potential and reducing net cost over time.

• Reduce secondary packaging by eliminating unnecessary inserts, void fill, or overboxing where product protection allows.

What Colorado Requires for Source Reduction

Colorado’s EPR program is primarily designed to expand recycling access and improve recycling performance statewide. It does not have the same headline statewide plastic source reduction target that California has. Colorado’s program is still expected to create real packaging design pressure through the fee system and eco-modulation, especially as the program identifies which formats are driving higher system costs or disrupting recycling.

What this means for brands: Colorado is likely to reward packaging that is easier to collect and process and penalize packaging that undermines recycling outcomes. Even without a formal source reduction percentage, brands should expect increasing cost differentiation between recyclable, low-disruption packaging and harder-to-manage formats.

Examples of "reduction" and "design-for-recycling" actions that will likely help in Colorado:

• Reduce unnecessary components like shrink bands, extra labels, and mixed-material attachments that add cost without adding value.

• Move toward clearer labeling and consistent formats that improve correct disposal and sorting.

• Optimize packaging weight and right-size shipping packaging to reduce total material placed on the market.

Here are the stated penalties for brands that do not comply with EPR; though we recognize that these penalties are not necessarily being levied just yet.

These are statutory maximums, not typical assessments. Regulators generally start with a notice of violation and a cure period.

Beyond the stated penalties, several states also publish lists of non-compliant producers. Oregon flagged roughly 250 of them in April 2026. If you’re a consumer brand that talks about sustainability, showing up on that list costs more than the penalty does.

See how these rates compare across states in our breakdown of EPR fees by state.

Below are five practical steps brands can take to reduce their fees, in roughly increasing order of complexity.

1. Reduce weight wherever possible

The most direct way to lower EPR fees is to put less material on the market. Because fees are assessed by weight, even small reductions at the unit level can add up quickly at scale.

Common tactics include:

• Right-sizing packaging to better fit the product

• Downgauging film, paper, or corrugate while maintaining performance

• Eliminating unnecessary accessories like shrink bands, inserts, overwrapping, or excess void fill

2. Reduce your plastic component count

This is a separate lever from weight, and it only applies in California, where component count is both a reporting requirement and a source reduction target. It’s easy to miss because weight reduction feels like it should cover it but doesn’t.

Component count only moves when you remove a distinct plastic piece. Some examples:

• Dropping a shrink band from a jar removes one component (vs making it thinner)

• Switching a paperboard box with a plastic window to a windowless design removes one component per unit.

• Consolidating a two-part closure into a single piece removes one.

• Moving from a poly mailer to a paper mailer removes the plastic component entirely.

3. Shift from higher-fee materials to lower-fee materials

Some materials are significantly more expensive to manage at end of life, and that shows up clearly in fee structures.

Using published 2026 rates, moving from flexible plastic film to kraft paper takes you from $0.43 to $0.08 per pound in Oregon and $0.48 to $0.08 in Colorado. That’s a five to six times reduction. In California the gap is even wider, based on preliminary 2027 rates: roughly $0.24 to $0.26 per pound for flexible film, plus $0.29 in plastic-only fees, against $0.02 for kraft paper.

Important caveat: this should be evaluated holistically. Paper is often lower-fee in EPR systems, but it can carry tradeoffs in weight, carbon, or performance that still need to be assessed. A paper substitute that weighs three times as much as the poly it replaces can land you at a higher total bill even at a sixth of the rate. Run the actual math on your specific SKU rather than assuming the rate difference wins.

4. Simplify structures: move toward mono-materials and away from coatings and laminates

Beyond the base material, complexity matters. Multi-material, coated, and laminated packaging is often harder to recycle and more expensive to manage, which drives higher fees.

Examples:

• Transitioning from multi-material plastic laminates to mono-material plastic formats

• Moving from plastic-coated or laminated paper to uncoated or minimally coated paper

• Eliminating plastic windows, linings, or secondary coatings where possible

The published rates back this up. In Oregon, plastic laminates and other flexible plastic run $1.02 per pound against $0.43 for simple HDPE and LDPE film. Coated and laminated paper runs $0.48 to $0.51 against $0.08 for uncoated kraft. Simplification is worth roughly six times on the paper side and more than double on the plastic side.

5. Design now for eco-modulation credits

Eco-modulation is how EPR programs reward better packaging over time. While base fees apply to everyone, eco-modulation can reduce those fees for packaging that meets specific sustainability criteria. Actions that are likely to support eco-modulation across states include:

• Designing packaging that is widely recyclable in real-world systems

• Increasing post-consumer recycled (PCR) content that is certifiable to the APR PCR Certification program. Post-industrial content doesn’t qualify.

• Improving labeling and consumer instructions

• Exploring reuse, refill, or reduction-focused innovations where viable

The upside here is larger than most brands assume. Oregon’s Bonus A is worth 10% of base fees on covered SKUs. California’s illustrative 2027 PCR bonuses run as high as 60 cents per pound. And avoiding California’s virgin plastic malus, which is modeled to reach 25 to 35 cents per pound by 2032, is arguably the biggest number of all.

Read more about eco-modulation here.

EPR is a meaningful step forward, but U.S. programs are still new, still evolving, and not always perfectly designed. Here are some of the big limitations and challenges we are seeing:

Compliance over progress

One of the biggest limitations of EPR right now is that many brands are becoming hyper-focused on reporting accuracy and fee payment, sometimes at the expense of meaningful packaging improvement. While compliance is essential, there is a real risk of optimizing spreadsheets instead of optimizing packaging.

The most resilient approach is to treat EPR not just as a compliance exercise, but as a long-term design signal that should inform and strengthen packaging strategy, not replace it.

Legal uncertainty and political volatility

EPR laws and rules can face lawsuits and political pushback.

Oregon’s program is the case study. Industry groups challenged it on constitutional grounds, and in February 2026 a federal court granted a preliminary injunction that paused fee obligations for a large group of wholesale distributors. Six months later, in August 2026, the court ruled for the state, finding Oregon was exercising basic police powers to mitigate waste pollution. The injunction lifted and those producers owe fees again.

That’s the pattern worth internalizing. Programs generally keep moving while challenges are pending, deadlines still apply, and the brands that paused to wait for a ruling spent six months not building the data systems they’ll need anyway. Plan for compliance, then adapt if rules shift.

Fragmentation across states

Each state defines covered products, reporting categories, timelines, exemptions, and fee methodologies differently. Even where Oregon and Colorado are relatively aligned, California adds more complexity and granularity.

Maine is the sharpest example of what fragmentation costs. It was the first state to pass packaging EPR, in 2021. Five years later it has no PRO, no program, and no dates, because its contract terms didn’t line up with how the national PRO actually operates. Producers who built Maine into their 2026 compliance plans built for nothing.

This patchwork is a real burden for small and mid-sized brands without dedicated compliance teams. It also makes it harder to create a single national packaging strategy that fits everywhere.

A fixed baseline penalizes brands that grew

California’s 2023 baseline doesn’t adjust for growth, and it doesn’t adjust for the fact that a lot of brands legitimately changed their packaging between 2023 and now. A brand that tripled in size since 2023 has to cut 25% off a baseline set when it was a third of its current size. A brand that switched formats in 2024 has a baseline that barely reflects the packaging it actually uses.

The intent behind a fixed baseline is sound. Without it, a growing brand could increase its total plastic every year and still report reductions. But the effect is that two brands doing identical design work can report wildly different results based on nothing but their growth curve. It’s worth naming, because brands in that position often assume they’ve done something wrong.

Cost pass-through and transparency

Fees are assessed on producers, but costs often move through supply chains and ultimately show up in pricing.

For most brands, the per-unit impact may be small, but it raises questions about how costs are communicated and who bears them.

Brands should expect EPR fees to become part of the ongoing cost of serving a state, similar to freight, storage, tariffs, and regulatory compliance.

Narrow incentives that can distort design choices

Many EPR frameworks heavily reward "recyclability" as defined by today’s systems. That can unintentionally favor certain materials that are widely recyclable even if they have tradeoffs elsewhere (for example, higher carbon intensity or heavier transport weights).

The risk is a decision-making mindset that treats recycling compatibility as the only measure of sustainability.

Brands should continue evaluating packaging through multiple lenses: recyclability, carbon, material health, total weight, supply chain resilience, and consumer experience.

Programs built around today’s infrastructure can stifle innovation

EPR relies on what can be collected and processed now. That creates a structural tension: the system is meant to drive progress, but it can also reinforce incumbent materials and formats.

Novel materials and emerging technologies may not score well in early years simply because collection systems, sortation, and end markets are not ready.

Brands exploring innovation should be prepared for a gap between long-term potential and near-term compliance categories and fees.

The U.S. packaging landscape is shifting at unprecedented speed. Compliance is no longer theoretical, it’s here. Oregon and Colorado are billing producers today, California invoices for the first time in January 2027, and three more states are lining up behind them.

Brands that act early will not only avoid penalties but also lower costs, strengthen credibility, and lead the shift toward true circularity. Those who wait will be forced to scramble.

We are your partner in all of this. Work with us to:

• Clarify liability and exemptions.

• Build robust packaging data systems.

• Redesign packaging for recyclability, PCR, and right-sizing.

• Navigate PRO reporting, fee structures, and eco-modulation incentives.

• Model what source reduction actually looks like for your SKUs, against your real 2023 baseline.

Reach out to our team of packaging compliance experts today to see where you stand.

• CAA Producer Registration Portal

• CAA Producer Resource Center, which now hosts the state-specific covered material and producer definition documents

• Oregon 2026 Fee Schedule (CAA)

• Colorado 2026 Producer Dues Schedule (CAA)

• California 2027 Producer Fees Schedule (CAA)

• California source reduction guidance and ISR Plan workbook (CalRecycle)

• Oregon Program Plan

• CalRecycle SB 54 Covered Material Categories List

• Our step-by-step SB 54 ISR action plan