Who counts as the producer under U.S. packaging EPR laws: the brand owner, the importer, or the distributor?

Usually the brand owner, but the order of tiers differs by state. Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine run the five-tier shape of manufacturer, licensee, brand owner, US importer, and first distributor, and there an ordinary branded good lands on the brand owner at tier 3. Colorado's statute (C.R.S. 25-17-703(30)(a)) and Oregon's (ORS 459A.866(1)(a)) run only three tiers with no brand-owner tier, reaching the importer last and only where neither of the first two tiers exists in the United States, and both states reach the brand owner by rule. Colorado's statute defines the producer as the manufacturer selling under its own brand or an unbranded product, then the brand or trademark licensee where someone other than the brand owner manufactures, then the importer; CDPHE's rule sets the order of obligation in four steps (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, s18.2.2(A)): the brand owner directing or performing the manufacturing of the packaging, then the brand or trademark licensee directing it, then the manufacturer where no brand is identified, then the importer. In Oregon, OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a) counts a person that directs the manufacturing, including setting an item's packaging specifications, as the manufacturer, so an Oregon brand owner that specifies its own packaging is reached at tier 1. California has no importer tier, and PRC 42041(w)(1) reaches a manufacturer that owns OR is the licensee of the brand, so a contract manufacturer in the state holding the exclusive right to use the brand in the state and selling under it satisfies tier 1 and the brand-owner fallback is not reached.

Is there a small-producer exemption under U.S. packaging EPR laws?

Every enacted state exempts small producers, but the tests differ by state. Oregon exempts producers under 1 metric ton placed on market or under $5 million in global revenue; Washington has three de minimis tests and any one qualifies. The revenue tests are measured company-wide and globally, but the tonnage tests are measured per state, so a producer must estimate its volume in each state before it can know whether it clears that state's line. Minnesota states the split expressly: tonnage introduced into Minnesota, revenue global. Oregon is the only state that aggregates associated producers before applying the thresholds, so a corporate group cannot split itself into qualifying entities there. California relief is not automatic and must be applied for and approved by CalRecycle, with registration still required.

When do California SB 54 packaging EPR fees start, and how much will they be?

In two stages, under two separate fee instruments. The 2026 California Early Fee Schedule is published and is what CAA invoices for program year 2026: six flat per-pound rates, published July 20, 2026 and revised August 25, 2026, the revision restating the same rates in dollars per pound without moving any rate or category assignment. The full program begins January 2027 on a per-covered-material-category schedule; CAA published preliminary 2027 rates on October 1, 2026, non-binding until CalRecycle approves the program plan.

Could litigation stop U.S. packaging EPR programs?

None has so far, and NAW v. Feldon, which went to a five-day bench trial, was decided in the state's favor. On August 27, 2026 the court upheld Oregon's Recycling Modernization Act against both the dormant Commerce Clause and the due process challenge in NAW v. Feldon, with final judgment entered August 28, 2026. NAW filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026 (ECF 209). Six cases remain live in the trial courts across three states: Lollicup USA v. Feldon in Oregon, ILMA v. CDPHE and NAW v. Ryan in Colorado, and Nebraska v. Heller, NRDC v. CalRecycle and California League of Food Producers v. Bonta in California. On the free public record, none of them has disturbed registration, reporting, or the 2026 California early fee. The one exception worth acting on is California labeling: SB 343 enforcement is preliminarily enjoined. Fees remain due in every state where they are active, and nothing in the free public court record suspends them apart from the NAW v. Feldon preliminary injunction, which barred Oregon from enforcing the RMA against NAW and its members as of February 6, 2026 and which no order has expressly lifted, although a preliminary injunction ordinarily does not survive a final judgment against the party that obtained it; an October 9, 2026 Lollicup v. Feldon entry labeled Stay (ECF 13) cannot yet be read on the free docket.

Does black plastic packaging raise EPR fees?

It can. Carbon black and other near-infrared-undetectable dark colorants make PET effectively non-recyclable because most sorters cannot see them, and recyclability drives the fee factors, such as Colorado's automatic adjustments for materials that disrupt recycling. Removing carbon black strengthens an Oregon LCA bonus and reduces future-cycle malus risk rather than earning a flat credit; Oregon applies no standalone carbon-black credit this cycle.

Are reusable or refillable packages exempt from EPR fees?

In California and Colorado some do, and in Oregon most pay base fees, apart from narrow exclusions such as refillable LPG containers, returnable agricultural-chemical containers, and certain reusable pressurized cylinders. Packaging that meets California's SB 54 definition of reusable or refillable (PRC 42041(af)) is not covered material, so it pays no fee, and a producer whose reuse claim does not hold is in violation (14 CCR 18980.2.1). CAA's Colorado plan exempts return-from-home, return-on-the-go, and refill-on-the-go packaging from dues but not refill-at-home packaging (CAA Colorado Program Plan, section 11.1). Oregon charges base fees on most reusable and refillable packaging and rewards a switch to it through a third LCA bonus, Bonus C, for an LCA showing substantial impact reduction from switching a SKU from single-use to reusable or refillable packaging, added by the eco-modulation amendment DEQ approved on September 12, 2025. For bonuses granted in 2027, LCA submissions were due to CAA by May 31, 2026, and CAA grants the bonuses as credits on 2027 base fees. Colorado's four active bonuses, 1% each in rule, include none for reusable packaging as such, although the case study bonus can cover a reuse study (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 s18.9.2).

U.S. Packaging EPR Regulations and Laws by State, 2026

Name: U.S. Packaging EPR State Compliance Data
Creator: Dave Hartter
Published: 2026-05-01
License: https://epratlas.com/terms

EPRAtlas.com is a free U.S. packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) compliance intelligence hub maintained by Dave Hartter, packaging and product sustainability advisor. It tracks enacted EPR laws, fee tables, compliance deadlines, producer registration requirements, and legislative developments across all U.S. states. Updated weekly. All 7 enacted state programs are covered: Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. Data is sourced from state agency publications, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), and primary legislative text. EPR Atlas is independent and not affiliated with any state agency, PRO, or industry group.

What are the U.S. packaging EPR regulations?

U.S. packaging EPR regulations are state laws, not federal ones. Seven states have enacted packaging extended producer responsibility programs: Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. There is no federal packaging EPR law, and none of the federal bills the Atlas tracks would create one. Each state sets its own producer definition, de minimis exemption, reporting calendar, and fee schedule, so a company selling nationally faces up to seven separate obligations rather than one, six of them running today. As of September 2026, only Oregon and Colorado are invoicing regular program fees; California invoices a separate 2026 Early Fee, charged per pound in six broad material categories, ahead of its full program in 2027.

What is the difference between EPR laws and EPR regulations?

The law is the statute the legislature passes, such as California SB 54 or Oregon SB 582. The regulation is the rule the state agency writes to carry out that statute, such as California's SB 54 regulations approved May 1, 2026 or Maryland's COMAR 26.04.14. In practice the two terms are used interchangeably to mean a state's packaging EPR requirements, and this site covers both. The distinction matters when a statute is in force but its implementing regulation is not yet final, because the obligations that bind you day to day are usually set in the regulation.

What Is Packaging EPR?

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging requires brand owners, importers, and manufacturers who sell packaged goods to fund the collection, sorting, and recycling of their packaging at end of life. Producers pay annual fees to a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) based on the weight and material type of packaging they place on the market. The Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the approved PRO for packaging and paper in six of the seven enacted U.S. EPR states; Maine uses a Stewardship Organization and none has been selected. Colorado also has Interchange 360 for automotive lubricant packaging. Register with CAA at circularactionalliance.org.

The 7 Enacted U.S. Packaging EPR States & Laws

Maine

Law: LD 1541 / LD 1423. First U.S. state to enact packaging EPR (2021, amended 2025). Program is pre-operational as of mid-2026. Maine DEP issued the Stewardship Organization (SO) selection RFP on June 15, 2026; it closed August 18, 2026 with no proposals, so no SO has been selected. Startup fees are expected once the SO is designated and are due within 180 days of the signed contract, and Chapter 428 puts that fee on "producers, other than low-volume producers," so a producer between one and 15 tons pays none. De minimis exemption: producers placing less than 1 ton on the Maine market per year OR with less than $2,000,000 in total gross revenue in the prior calendar year are exempt (38 MRSA 2146(2); the figure is exact, not approximate). A third test also exempts a producer that realized more than 50% of its total gross revenue in the prior calendar year from goods acquired through insurance salvages, closeouts, bankruptcies, and liquidations (38 MRSA 2146(2)(C)). A transitional threshold of $5,000,000 applies for the period beginning one calendar year after the contract between DEP and the stewardship organization takes effect and ending three years after that date. Maine also defines a low-volume producer in statute as more than one ton but less than 15 tons: under Chapter 428 a low-volume producer's mandatory annual filing is a single figure, the total tons of packaging material produced plus the estimation method used, due to the SO by May 31, with reporting by material type and the detailed Section 9(B) fields both optional. Registration in Maine is a rule duty rather than a statutory one, which is easy to get wrong: 38 MRSA 2146 uses the word "register" only for a third party assuming producer responsibility by signed agreement, while Chapter 428 carries both a Start-Up Registration and Payment section and an Ongoing Producer Registration and Reporting section. Start-up registration is due within 90 days of the date the SO makes a registration mechanism available, and ongoing registration means a named responsible individual working directly for the producer, a list of brands sold into the State, and the contact for any authorized third-party reporter, updated within 60 days of a change. Chapter 428 also lets a producer that cannot break out Maine tonnage report its national tonnage at start-up registration, with the SO allocating by Maine's share of the United States population, and states expressly that this method is acceptable only for start-up registration. Separately, and easy to miss, Maine exempts any producer from its FIRST 15 TONS of packaging used for perishable food, a category the statute defines to include bakery products, fresh and processed meats, poultry, seafood, dairy products, eggs in the shell, and fresh fruit and vegetables. Agency: Maine DEP. No stewardship organization has been selected; CAA says it decided not to submit a bid (CAA Maine page; CAA newsletter, August 2026). The RFP closed August 18, 2026 with no proposals, and on September 11, 2026 DEP said it would revise the RFP; no producer registration, reporting, or fee obligation is running.

Oregon

Law: SB 582. Fees active since July 1, 2025. Oregon has a detailed exemption and eco-modulation framework. Penalty: up to $25,000 per day for non-compliance. De minimis: less than 1 metric ton per year placed on the Oregon market OR less than $5 million global revenue, either one alone, and five other small producer conditions in ORS 459A.863(32) also exempt. Oregon is the only enacted state that aggregates across related companies: under OAR 340-090-0860(6) the gross revenues and covered product volumes of associated producers must be added together before the thresholds are applied, and that aggregation also governs eligibility for the ORS 459A.884(6) flat fee. Associated producers include same-family ownership in the same line of business, more than 50 percent direct or indirect control, and Internal Revenue Code section 1563(a) controlled groups. Oregon DEQ also confirms that where a small producer is exempt its products are orphaned, meaning no other party in the chain picks up the fee. Annual Supply Reports covering CY2025 data were due to CAA May 31, 2026, a CAA-set program date rather than a statutory one; DEQ calls it “the annual CAA reporting deadline of May 31”. PRO membership registration through CAA is required. Agency: Oregon DEQ. PRO: CAA. Published fee rates (2026): aluminum containers $0.06/lb, clear PET bottles $0.25/lb, natural HDPE bottles $0.09/lb, PP bottles $0.38/lb, HDPE and LDPE film $0.43/lb, plastic laminates $1.02/lb, and foamed PS containers $1.38/lb (white EPS cushioning $0.72/lb). Eco-modulation this cycle is bonus-only. Oregon's approved CAA plan carries three LCA-based bonuses: Bonus A (conduct and disclose an LCA), Bonus B (an LCA showing substantial impact reduction from a packaging change), and Bonus C (an LCA showing substantial impact reduction from switching a SKU from single-use to reusable or refillable packaging). A producer may receive only one bonus per SKU or batch of SKUs. DEQ approved the eco-modulation amendment that added Bonus C on September 12, 2025. For bonuses granted in 2027, LCA submissions were due to CAA by May 31, 2026, and CAA grants the bonuses as credits on 2027 base fees. Bonus A is worth 10% of the base fees on the primary packaging of a SKU, excluding the reserve portion, capped at $20,000 per SKU or batch of SKUs for up to 10 SKUs per producer (at most $200,000); no maluses are in force this cycle (CAA Oregon program plan as amended May 4, 2026, posted by DEQ; DEQ approval letter, September 12, 2025).

Colorado

Law: HB 22-1355. Fees active since January 2026. Annual Supply Reports were due to CAA May 31, 2026, a CAA-set program date; C.R.S. 25-17-708 and 6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 require the report but fix no date. De minimis: less than 1 ton per year placed on the Colorado market OR under the Producer Exemption Dollar Limit, which is $5,779,297 in realized gross total global revenue as of July 1, 2026 (statutory base $5,000,000 under HB 22-1355, CPI-adjusted by Commission rule each July 1 (C.R.S. 25-17-713(2)) to the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CPI; stated in 6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 s1.8.2 in the rule version effective July 15, 2026, which states the figure as of July 1, 2026; the superseded July 1, 2025 figure was $5,632,843). Eco-modulation: passive factors are already built into the published 2026 and 2027 dues rates, and the four active bonuses are set in rule at 1% each (s18.9.2). Section 18.9.1(B) of 6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 states a producer is eligible for bonuses "equal to a reduction in base dues of 10%" while the four benchmarks in 18.9.2 are 1% each, so whether that 10% is a cap, an aggregate entitlement, or a drafting artifact is unresolved on the face of the rule and no CDPHE guidance on it has been located. Agency: Colorado CDPHE. PRO: CAA. Note: ILMA filed a legal challenge in Denver District Court in March 2026. ILMA says it moved for a preliminary injunction on August 18, 2026, limited to its own members and not the whole program (ILMA release, Aug 18, 2026); no grant of relief has been reported, so fees remain in effect. Denver District Court dockets are not public, so no hearing or ruling is confirmed.

California

Law: SB 54. Permanent regulations took effect May 1, 2026 (approved by the Office of Administrative Law). Producer registration deadline was June 1, 2026 via PEPRS portal or CAA. Producers who missed the deadline face enforcement. Per-category fees begin in 2027; a 2026 Early Fee, charged per pound in six broad material categories, has been invoiced. Penalty: administrative civil penalty up to $50,000 per day per violation (PRC 42081(a)(1)), capped at $25,000 per day instead for producers meeting the small-producer criteria in PRC 42060(a)(5); penalties do not begin accruing until 30 calendar days after notice of violation, and a corrective action plan can avoid assessment entirely. This is the highest fixed per-day civil penalty ceiling that can apply today in any U.S. packaging EPR state; Minnesota's $50,000 and $100,000 repeat-violation tiers (Minn. Stat. 115A.1462(c)) apply only within five years after a stewardship plan is approved, and the first plan is not due until October 1, 2028. De minimis: producers with less than $1 million in California gross sales may apply to CalRecycle for a small producer exemption, and it is not automatic. Under PRC 42060(a)(5) it relieves the producer of the chapter's requirements except the PRC 42050(b) duty that covered material be recyclable or compostable from January 1, 2032; under 14 CCR 18980.5.2(e) an exempted small producer must keep its registration current, and the exemption lasts two years and is renewed by filing between 120 and 90 days before it expires (14 CCR 18980.5.2(b), (c)). A producer that treats the threshold as a full exit and never registers is not compliant. Reusable and refillable packaging that meets SB 54 reuse criteria is treated as exempt (confirm specifics with CalRecycle). Agency: CalRecycle. PRO: CAA.

Minnesota

Law: HF 3911. Interim Producer Reports (simplified reporting categories) were due to CAA May 31, 2026, a CAA-set program date; Minn. Stat. 115A.1443 sets no producer reporting date. February 1, 2029 is the 50% service-provider reimbursement floor (Minn. Stat. 115A.1455, subd. 4); the PRO may charge member fees earlier (115A.1443, subd. 3(c)). De minimis: less than 1 ton of covered material introduced into Minnesota OR global gross revenues under $2 million; either condition alone qualifies (Minn. Stat. 115A.1441, subd. 13). Note the tonnage test is Minnesota-specific while the revenue test is global. Agency: Minnesota MPCA. PRO: CAA.

Maryland

Law: SB 901. First implementing regulations effective May 25, 2026. Producer registration and Interim Producer Report (simplified reporting categories) deadline was May 31, 2026 (now past), a CAA-set program date; COMAR 26.04.14 fixes no May 31 date. By July 1, 2026 the PRO (CAA) files its registration with MDE listing its participating producers, brands, and covered materials (COMAR 26.04.14.07A(1)(a)); a producer seeking approval through an Individual Producer Responsibility Plan instead files its own registration and fee with MDE (.07A(1)(b)), so for that producer July 1 is a producer deadline. The first reimbursement floor, at least 50% of the cost per ton, is July 1, 2028 (9-2505(e)(1)(ii)); COMAR 26.04.14.07C(2) caps what the PRO may pass to members for its MDE registration fee, and CAA says its fee collection dates are not yet set. De minimis: less than 1 ton placed on the Maryland market OR less than $2 million global revenue. Agency: Maryland MDE. PRO: CAA.

Washington

Law: E2SSB 5284. Producers had to appoint a PRO by January 1, 2026 (Sec. 103(1)) and, after July 1, 2026, must be members of a registered PRO, in practice CAA, or register as a PRO implementing an individual plan (Sec. 104(1)(a)). This is a direct producer obligation. Interim Producer Report (simplified reporting categories) deadline was May 31, 2026, a CAA-set program date; RCW 70A.208 fixes no producer reporting date. The July 1, 2026 PRO membership date is statutory. The PRO must establish an initial producer fee structure before plan approval (RCW 70A.208.040(3)(b)), and CAA published its 2027 Washington Early Fees Schedule on October 1, 2026 without an invoice date; service-provider reimbursement ramps from February 15, 2030 (Sec. 117(2)(a)). Ecology begins enforcement against producers that are not PRO members on March 1, 2029 (Sec. 106(2)(m)). De minimis: any one of three tests qualifies under RCW 70A.208.020(16) - under 1 ton of covered materials, or under $5 million global gross revenue excluding on-premises alcohol sales, or an agricultural employer under $5 million in Washington own-brand agricultural sales. January 1, 2031 is when the $5 million figures begin CPI adjustment, not when the exemption begins. Agency: Washington Dept. of Ecology. PRO: CAA.

Extended Producer Responsibility Fee Rates by Material

CAA published its first packaging fee schedule for Oregon's July 1 to December 31, 2025 program year. The rates below are from CAA's 2026 Oregon Producer Fee Schedule, published October 29, 2025; the 2027 schedule was published October 1, 2026. These rates are Oregon's; Colorado, California, and Washington have published their own schedules with different rates. Final rates in CA, MN, MD, and WA will be set during program plan development. Fee formula: Annual Fee = Tonnage x Base Rate x Eco-Modulation Multiplier.

Aluminum cans: approximately $0.06 per pound (the lowest packaging rate in Oregon's 2026 schedule other than non-consumer transport corrugated at $0.00)
Clear PET (#1 plastic): approximately $0.25 per pound
HDPE (#2) natural bottles, jugs, and jars: $0.09 per pound in Oregon's 2026 schedule (pigmented HDPE bottles $0.32)
Polypropylene (PP, #5) bottles, jugs, and jars: $0.38 per pound in Oregon's 2026 schedule (other PP rigid items $0.66, PP film $1.02)
LDPE film / mono-PE flexible packaging: approximately $0.43 per pound
Multi-layer laminates (pouches, stand-up pouches, retort packaging): approximately $1.02 per pound
EPS foam containers and colored foam cushioning: $1.38 per pound in Oregon's 2026 schedule, the highest rate on it (white EPS cushioning $0.72)

EPR Packaging Requirements & 2026 Compliance Deadlines

May 31, 2026 (past due): Annual Supply Reports due to CAA in Oregon, Colorado, and California, and Interim Producer Reports in Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. Contact CAA immediately if not filed.
What a CAA-set date means. The May 31 dates above are program dates set by Circular Action Alliance, not by statute or rule. In Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington no state law or regulation fixes May 31; Oregon DEQ calls it “the annual CAA reporting deadline of May 31”. California’s is CAA-communicated, with PRC 42060 delegating reporting timelines to CalRecycle. This does not make the date optional: it binds CAA participants through the Participant Producer Agreement, and a missed filing first runs through CAA’s Producer Delinquency Policy, which sends unresolved delinquencies to the state regulator for any enforcement.
June 1, 2026 (past due): California producer registration deadline via PEPRS or CAA. Contact CalRecycle if not registered.
July 1, 2026: after this date Washington producers must be members of a registered PRO (in practice CAA) or register to run an individual plan (E2SSB 5284 Sec. 104(1)(a)); they had to appoint a PRO by January 1, 2026 (Sec. 103(1)). This is a direct producer obligation. Separately, CAA submits its producer/brand/material list to Maryland MDE by July 1 (a PRO obligation, except that a producer on the Individual Producer Responsibility Plan route files its own registration with MDE that day, COMAR 26.04.14.07A(1)(b); Maryland’s CAA-set producer deadline was May 31).
August 27, 2026: Oregon Recycling Modernization Act upheld. After the five-day bench trial of July 13-17, Judge Michael H. Simon issued 71-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF 205) holding the RMA violates neither the dormant Commerce Clause nor the Due Process Clause. The opinion recites the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction but issues no order dissolving or modifying it, and final judgment was entered for the Director on August 28, 2026 (ECF 206). NAW filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026 (ECF 209).
December 1, 2026: Rhode Island needs assessment report due.

Pending States

New York's PRRIA (A.1749-A / S.1464-A) stalled for a second consecutive year: the Senate passed the 2025 print 33-25 on May 28, 2025, and the 2026 print, S.1464-A, amended April 27, 2026, was committed to Rules on June 5, 2026 without a floor vote in either chamber. The Senate sponsor said the effort will continue next session. New Jersey's S673 and A3744 were introduced and referred to committee on January 13, 2026; Massachusetts S.571 (House counterpart H.926) has had no action since its September 18, 2025 referral to Senate Ways and Means; formal sessions ended July 31, 2026 (Joint Rule 12A), so it can advance only in an informal session before the 2025–2026 session ends. Rhode Island (HB 6207, enacted June 2025) and Hawaii (HB 750, signed May 27, 2025) are in needs-assessment phases; Rhode Island's final report is due December 1, 2026 and Hawaii's by December 31, 2027, and neither statute creates an EPR program. Illinois and Georgia have packaging EPR bills in their 2025–2026 sessions; Michigan's HB 5902 was introduced in 2024 and did not advance.

About EPR Atlas

EPRAtlas.com is built and maintained by Dave Hartter, a packaging and product sustainability advisor with more than 20 years at global manufacturers, most recently as Director of Sustainability at Huber Engineered Materials (J.M. Huber). He builds the programs that connect regulation and customer requirements to real product decisions.

He now advises manufacturers and packaging suppliers on U.S. packaging EPR: where the fees land, how design and material choices change them, and how to turn early compliance into a sales and product advantage. EPR Atlas is the public version of that work, updated weekly. For advisory engagements or corrections, reach Dave at info@hartteradvisory.com.

Your guide to U.S. packaging EPR regulations.

U.S. packaging EPR regulations are state laws, and seven states have enacted them, two of which charge annual fees today. This page tracks the deadlines, fees, and open questions for each state.

Last updated Wednesday, October 21, 2026. How to interpret the information provided

Am I obligated? Key dates in the next 90 days One-Page EPR Primer

7 States with an enacted packaging EPR law See the State Tracker 2 States charging annual fees today: Oregon and Colorado See where fees apply 3 Of the seven have a published program fee schedule; Washington has published early fees See which schedules exist 6 Live trial-court challenges across three states; Oregon won the seventh, now on appeal What they do and do not change

Where are you with EPR?

Choose the stage closest to yours to see the next three steps.

How to interpret the information provided

Packaging EPR is part settled law and part draft rule.

The tracker, the state pages, and the fee figures use the three labels below to show how settled a figure is, and each page shows the date the site was last updated. A rule that is not yet decided is marked as undecided.

Confirmed

Stated in a statute, an adopted rule, an approved program plan, or a published schedule or agency list, and quotable from the provision cited.

Signaled

Official but not final. A draft rule or a filed program plan that can still move.

Speculative

A projection or a placeholder, to plan around but not to budget from.

Last updated October 21, 2026.

What EPR is and how the fee works

Extended producer responsibility shifts the cost of collecting and recycling packaging from municipalities and taxpayers onto the companies that put packaged goods on the market. Each state EPR law names a responsible producer for each packaging item sold there, requires a periodic report of what was supplied by material and amount, and charges a fee against it.

If your brand name is on the package, the obligation is probably yours. The converter that made the package and the distributor that shipped it are generally not the producer, and in six of the seven states packaging that carries no brand at all reaches the manufacturer instead.

EPR sets a price on each packaging format and does not ban formats by itself. Related rules can remove a format. PFAS in food packaging is separately banned in California, PVC has no California recycling pathway, and Minnesota and Colorado both attach a sale prohibition to producers that do not participate. The highest fee tiers also make some formats costly to keep.

The fee recurs every year. It is a per-unit cost set by decisions made when the packaging was specified, and it is charged again on each annual supply report.

No single function owns EPR by default. The work spans regulatory, packaging, finance, procurement, and data teams, so it often lands with whoever is nearest to it.

Who owes the obligation

Confirmed

Each state names the obligated producer through a ranked list of tiers, and the obligation stops at the first tier that applies. For an ordinary branded consumer good that is usually the brand owner, and the order of the tiers differs by state, as the chart shows.

Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine each add a franchise rule (for example COMAR 26.04.14.02B(25)(g)): where the producer is a franchise business, the producer is the franchisor if it has franchisees with a commercial presence in the state. Colorado's rule makes the franchisor the producer where it has franchisees that operate in Colorado, in a general paragraph of 6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 s18.2.2 and again for service packaging at s18.2.2(D)(3). A private-label retailer sits near the top of the cascade as brand owner or licensee, never as a bottom fallback.

Common misreadings of the producer hierarchy

Tier 1 is narrow in four states and broader in California, Oregon, and Colorado. In Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine it catches only manufacturer-own-brand goods and packaging with no brand identification. California is broader: PRC 42041(w)(1) reaches a manufacturer that owns or is the licensee of the brand. So a contract manufacturer in the state that holds the exclusive right to use the brand there and sells under it is tier 1, and the obligation does not reach the brand-owner fallback. Oregon is broader again by rule: OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a) counts a person who directs the manufacturing, including setting the packaging specifications, as the manufacturer, which is how a brand owner is reached in a state whose statute has no brand-owner tier. Colorado's rule does the same expressly: 6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 s18.2.2(A) puts first the brand owner directing or performing the manufacturing of the packaging.

A tonnage-based exemption claim needs a volume estimate for each state. Every tonnage test is measured per state, so a producer that cannot see its volume in a state has to estimate it before it can know whether it falls under that state’s line.

Four states let a properly executed assignment move the obligation. Washington (RCW 70A.208.020(29)(a)(vi)(A)), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 26(a)(6)(i)), and Maine (38 MRSA 2146) each need the same three formalities: a signed agreement, the assignee registering with the PRO or stewardship organization as the responsible producer, and written certification to that organization. Maryland (COMAR 26.04.14.02B(25)(p)) needs two, an executed agreement and the other entity assuming responsibility by written certification, and it works differently: it excludes the first entity from the definition of producer rather than naming the assignee as one. California, Colorado, and Oregon have no general assignment provision, so there the statute decides who the producer is, whatever the supply agreement says. But California lets brand owners agree which brand is designated on a multi-brand good (14 CCR 18980.1.1(e)(5)). Oregon also relieves a producer of PRO membership fees for any covered product that another person has registered with a PRO as the producer responsible for, and of membership itself where that covers all of its covered product (ORS 459A.869(3), (4)).

Run the scope screener Or get help with it

Where EPR programs are active today

Confirmed

Seven states have enacted a packaging EPR law, and two charge annual fees today: Oregon since July 2025 and Colorado since January 2026. California has a one-time early fee for 2026 and starts annual fees in January 2027. Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington are later still on fees, and none of the four has a program fee schedule, although CAA published 2027 early fee rates for Washington on October 1, 2026. Interim producer reports were already due in Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington on May 31, 2026, and CAA is the designated producer responsibility organization in all three. Washington producers had to appoint one by January 1, 2026 and, after July 1, 2026, must be members of a registered organization or register to run an individual plan (E2SSB 5284 Secs. 103(1), 104(1)(a)). Maine is the only state without a designated organization: its stewardship organization RFP closed August 18, 2026 with no proposals and DEP plans to revise and reissue it, so there is no registration route there yet.

See the seven states, their laws, and their fee status

Key dates in the next 90 days

Confirmed

The list includes comment windows, hearings, court dates, and publications alongside filing deadlines, because each one changes what a producer can plan on.

Key dates in the next 90 days
Date	State	What happens	Days	Status
Oct 23, 2026	California	Defendants' opposition to the preliminary injunction motion and response to the amended complaint due in Nebraska v. Heller (ECF 51)	30	Prepare
Oct 24, 2026	California	CAA comment closes on the draft California Funding and Services Agreement and project schedules	31	Act now
Oct 26, 2026	California	Joint discovery plan and confidential early neutral evaluation statements due in CLFP v. Bonta (ECF 33, as stated in ECF 35)	0	Prepare
Oct 28, 2026	California	Initial disclosures due in CLFP v. Bonta (ECF 33, as stated in ECF 35)	0	Prepare
Oct 28, 2026	Colorado	Producer Responsibility Advisory Board meets, 1:30 to 4:30 p.m.	35	Prepare
Oct 30, 2026	Oregon	Comment closes, 4 p.m., on DEQ's third RMA rulemaking, to RMARulemaking3@deq.oregon.gov	37	Act now
Oct 30, 2026	Washington	Comment closes on Ecology's draft preliminary needs assessment, open since October 1. Comment through Ecology's portal	26	Act now
Nov 4, 2026	California	Early neutral evaluation conference and case management conference in CLFP v. Bonta, 1:30 p.m., set by the September 23 order (ECF 33) as stated in the plaintiffs’ October 8 motion (ECF 35)	28	Prepare
Nov 9, 2026	California	Hearing date the plaintiffs noticed for their motion to add SB 54 claims in CLFP v. Bonta (ECF 35), with no oral argument unless the court requests it	0	Prepare
Nov 13, 2026	Minnesota	Comment closes on the MPCA draft 2026 Needs Assessment, which recommends the service provider reimbursement methodology	51	Act now
Nov 18, 2026	Colorado	Producer Responsibility Advisory Board meets, 12:30 to 2:30 p.m.	56	Prepare
Dec 8, 2026	Minnesota	Producers registered with CAA add their brand information in CAA’s Producer Portal (Brand Management) to be included in CAA’s submission of registered producers and brands to the regulator (CAA-set date)	49	Act now

Show deadlines that have already passed

Deadlines already passed, and the recovery path for each
Date	State	What was due	If you missed it
Sep 10, 2026	Oregon	Comment closed on the CAA Oregon annual report	Nothing to file. Read the report for the fee-base signals; CAA published the 2027 schedule on October 1.
Sep 2, 2026	Washington	Comment closed on Ecology's draft rule language for chapter 173-950 WAC (comment period 2)	Nothing to file. The CR-102 formal proposal is estimated for October 2027 and carries its own comment window.
Sep 2, 2026	Oregon	CAA consultation on materials, the uniform statewide collection list, and RecycleOn centers, for the 2028 to 2032 plan	Nothing to file. CAA's third program plan amendment and DEQ's third RMA rulemaking are open for comment in October, ahead of the 2028 to 2032 draft plan.
Aug 31, 2026	Oregon	DEQ pre-enforcement pause under the Lollicup stipulation ran until at least this date; an October 9 docket entry (ECF 13), labeled Stay, has no readable text, and any written extension is unknown	Do not plan around the pause. Register, report, and pay; ECF 13 and the Oct 16 status report are the next public signals.
Aug 19, 2026	Washington	Comment closed on Ecology's preliminary statewide collection lists	Nothing to file. Ecology was required to develop the initial lists by Oct 1, 2026.
Aug 3, 2026	California	Individual Source Reduction Plans (ISRPs) due to CAA through the Producer Portal	File it with CAA. Joining CAA does not remove this filing: your ISRP is an input to CAA's collective plan. Work the ISRP readiness checklist.
Jun 1, 2026	California	Producer registration deadline under the final SB 54 rules. Missing it is a compliance gap, not a later choice	Register now and disclose late. Waiting makes it worse.
May 31, 2026	OR, CO, CA, MN, MD, WA	2025 annual supply reports	MN, MD, and WA filed CAA interim simplified reports; every May 31 date was set by CAA. File late rather than not at all.

A missed window is recoverable, and exposure increases with each subsequent reporting cycle. What to do if you are behind.

Material choice drives the fee

Signaled

Fees are set per material category, and the same product in a different format can carry several times the fee. The states price recyclability, so packaging decisions made now set a per-unit cost that recurs every year.

Illustrative California fee spread by material
Material	2027 rate, preliminary
Glass bottles and jars	$44 / t
Corrugated	$66 / t
Clear PET bottles	$904 / t
Expanded polystyrene	$948 / t

California preliminary 2027 rates (CAA, October 1, 2026), with the reuse and PPMF fees for an all-plastic item. Non-binding until CalRecycle approves the program plan.

Model your own packaging in the Toolkit

Registration runs through CAA

Confirmed

The Circular Action Alliance is the appointed producer responsibility organization in every state that has one so far. In practice a producer works through one CAA account, one portal, and one invoice path for most of its obligations, adding each state to the same account.

Registration is per state, and a CAA member registers through the same organization in each.
Reporting templates differ by state, and the categories do not fully line up.
CAA sets the fee schedules, subject to each state agency approving the plan.

Start with the scope screener

Litigation watch

Signaled

Six challenges are live across Oregon, Colorado, and California, and the seventh, NAW v. Feldon, was decided for Oregon on August 27, 2026. Nothing in the free public court record suspends a producer’s EPR obligations apart from the NAW v. Feldon preliminary injunction, so registration, reporting, and fees continue in every state while the cases run. That injunction covered only NAW members as of February 6, 2026, and no order has expressly lifted it, although a preliminary injunction ordinarily does not survive a final judgment against the party that obtained it. An Oregon stipulation that paused certain enforcement notices ran through August 31, 2026, and an October 9 docket entry labeled Stay (ECF 13) has no readable text.

Live packaging EPR litigation by case, what is challenged, and what it changes for a producer
Case	State	What is challenged	What it changes for you	Status
NAW v. Feldon also reported as NAW v. Oregon DEQ	Oregon	Whether Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act is constitutional at all, on dormant Commerce Clause and due process grounds.	Nothing, unless you were a NAW member on Feb 6, 2026. A preliminary injunction covered that closed group and no one else, and no order since the August 28 judgment says whether it continues. If you were not a member on that date you register, report, and pay exactly as before.	RMA upheld Aug 27, 2026 Bench trial Jul 13 to 17, 2026; decision ECF 205. NAW appealed to the Ninth Circuit Sep 24, 2026 (ECF 209)
Lollicup USA v. Feldon Filed Jun 25, 2026	Oregon	The same Oregon law, brought as a putative class action for the producers the NAW injunction left out.	The DEQ pause ran through Aug 31, 2026; your obligations never paused. A stipulation the parties filed July 16, 2026 (ECF 9, Exhibit 1; terms as summarized by Arnold and Porter, July 22, 2026) held pre-enforcement notices through at least Aug 31, 2026, and an October 9 entry (ECF 13), labeled Stay, has no readable text, and any written extension is unknown. Fees and reports remain due, and CAA is not a party, so nothing changes on the CAA side.	Pause ran to Aug 31, 2026; ECF 13 (Oct 9, labeled Stay), no docket text on the free mirror Joint status report set for Oct 16 (ECF 12); the free docket, last updated Oct 13, does not show whether it was filed
17 states and NAW v. CalRecycle and CAA E.D. Cal., filed Jun 22, 2026	California	SB 54 itself, under the dormant Commerce Clause, the First Amendment, due process, the Import-Export Clause, and private-delegation grounds. Seventeen state attorneys general and NAW are asking the federal court to enjoin enforcement.	Nothing today. No injunction has issued, so SB 54 registration, reporting, and the 2026 early fee all stand.	No injunction; pending
Oceana, NRDC, and Californians Against Waste v. CalRecycle S.F. Superior Court, filed Jun 2, 2026	California	The opposite direction. Environmental groups say the implementing regulations are inconsistent with SB 54 and arbitrary, including how they treat recycling technologies that produce hazardous waste and relief for federal conflicts granted for an indefinite period.	Nothing today. It attacks the regulations rather than the statute and does not ask to stop the program. It is the case that could change which of your materials count as recyclable, because that is what the regulations decide.	No injunction; pending
SB 343 labeling challenge Case 3:26-cv-01675, filed Mar 17, 2026	California	California’s recyclability labeling law (SB 343). Twenty-one organizations challenge the restriction on chasing-arrows claims; on October 8, 2026 they moved to add claims against SB 54 (ECF 35).	Labeling enforcement is on hold; your EPR duties are not. A July 14, 2026 preliminary injunction blocks enforcement of the labeling rule. SB 54 registration, reporting, and fees are untouched by it.	Enforcement enjoined Jul 14, 2026
ILMA v. CDPHE Denver District Court No. 2026CV30902, filed Mar 12, 2026	Colorado	CDPHE's implementation of the Colorado program under HB 22-1355, including its approval of the LPMA individual producer plan and the fees imposed on lubricant manufacturers, on statutory grounds, brought by the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA), whose August 18, 2026 release also raises due process and private-delegation concerns.	Nothing yet. ILMA says it moved on August 18, 2026 for a preliminary injunction limited to its own members (ILMA release, Aug 18, 2026); no grant of relief has been reported. The program has run normally throughout. Your Colorado dues are due on the published schedule.	PI sought (ILMA statement), none granted
NAW v. Ryan D. Colo., 1:26-cv-03460, filed Jul 30, 2026	Colorado	The same Colorado Act, on private-delegation, unconstitutional-conditions, dormant Commerce Clause, free-speech, and compelled-speech and association grounds.	Nothing yet. NAW filed its motion for a preliminary injunction on August 5, 2026 (ECF 11). ILMA says it filed its own preliminary injunction motion on August 18, 2026, limited to its members (ILMA release, Aug 18, 2026); Denver District Court dockets are not public, so no hearing or ruling is confirmed. No relief has been granted in either case. If it were, it would be the first order in Colorado pausing the program.	PI sought, none granted

The state name in each row opens that state’s profile in the State Tracker, where the case chronology, the court, the docket, and the status date are kept. Sources: Oregon DEQ; Packaging Dive, Waste Dive, and Recycling Today (June 2026); Resource Recycling (June 5 and July 30, 2026); Arnold and Porter (June 1, 2026); CourtListener dockets, accessed October 7, 2026. Each case carries its own sources and chronology on its state page, and the litigation tracker keeps every active case in one place.

The One-Page EPR Primer

The primer explains on one page, in plain language, what packaging EPR is, where it applies, what it is likely to cost, and the decisions to expect. It is written to be sent to colleagues ahead of an internal conversation.

The 2027 fee schedules on one page

This one-page summary covers the 2027 fees CAA published for Oregon, Colorado, and California on October 1, 2026, including how the rates changed and why, how the states compare, and which materials carry the highest fees.

Reporting with missing data

This one-page guide covers filing a CAA report when supply data is incomplete, such as after a late registration or for a first filing built on partial records. It shows the usual fallback for units by state and for component weights, then what can still change once the report is in.

Advisory support

Everything on this site is free and written so that a company can establish its position and file on its own. Advisory support is for teams without the hours or the in-house background to do that, and it usually covers the work below.

Working out which entities in your group are obligated, and where.
Getting a first supply report out of the data you have.
Finding the fee reductions your current packaging already qualifies for.
Catching up when a deadline has already passed.

Start a conversation

Questions companies ask first

These are the questions that come up most often when packaging EPR lands on someone’s desk. Each short answer links to the part of the site with the detail and the sources, and none of it is legal advice.

What are the U.S. packaging EPR regulations?

U.S. packaging EPR regulations are state laws, not federal ones. Seven states have enacted packaging extended producer responsibility programs: Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. Each state sets its own producer definition, de minimis exemption, reporting calendar, and fee schedule, so a company selling nationally faces up to seven separate obligations rather than one, six of them running today. As of September 2026, only Oregon and Colorado are invoicing regular program fees; California invoices a separate 2026 Early Fee, charged per pound in six broad material categories, ahead of its full program in 2027. Compare all seven side by side.

What is the difference between EPR laws and EPR regulations?

The law is the statute the legislature passes, such as California SB 54 or Oregon SB 582. The regulation is the rule the state agency writes to carry it out, such as California’s SB 54 regulations approved May 1, 2026 or Maryland’s COMAR 26.04.14. In practice the two terms are used interchangeably to mean a state’s packaging EPR requirements. The distinction matters when a statute is in force but its implementing regulation is not final, because the obligations that bind you day to day are usually set in the regulation.

Is there a federal packaging EPR law in the United States?

No. There is no federal packaging EPR law, and none of the federal bills the Atlas tracks would create one. The federal bills in play are labeling, recycled-content, and recycling tax-credit measures, not EPR programs: the PACK Act (H.R. 6832), which would preempt state labeling laws; the Truth in Labeling Act (H.R. 10048 / S. 5302, introduced August 6, 2026), which would leave state law in place apart from a narrow carve-out preempting conflicting state resin identification code rules; the Recycled Materials Attribution Act (H.R. 7502); and the CIRCLE Act (H.R. 4466). The PACK Act and the RMAA were ordered reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee on September 16, 2026; no floor vote is scheduled and none is law. Packaging EPR obligations in the United States are created entirely by state law. Track the federal bills.

Which U.S. states have enacted packaging EPR laws?

Seven: Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. Oregon and Colorado charge annual fees today. California has a one-time early fee for 2026 and annual fees from 2027. The other four are later still. See all seven with their laws, thresholds, and fee status.

What are the EPR packaging compliance deadlines for 2026?

The big ones have passed: the May 31 annual supply reports in six states, the June 1 California registration deadline, and the July 1 Washington PRO membership date. If you missed one, file late rather than staying silent, because none of them expires and the exposure grows with the delay. The other 2026 dates are mostly comment windows and California program plan approval, which has a deadline of January 1, 2027; on October 1 CAA published 2027 fee and dues schedules for Oregon, Colorado, and California (preliminary) and a 2027 early fee schedule for Washington. See what is still ahead in the next 90 days, and the passed list underneath it.

How do I register with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) for EPR compliance?

CAA is the appointed producer responsibility organization in every state that has one. A producer registers once at circularactionalliance.org, signs the Participant Producer Agreement, and then adds each state, with one portal, one reporting deadline, and a separate addendum for each state. See what registration through CAA covers.

What are the EPR packaging fee rates by material type?

Rates are per material category and the spread is wide: expanded polystyrene containers cost more than twenty times as much per pound as aluminum containers and corrugated cardboard in Colorado’s 2026 and 2027 dues schedules, as aluminum containers in Oregon’s 2026 fee schedule, and as corrugated cardboard in Oregon’s 2027 fee schedule. Only Oregon, Colorado, and California have published program fee schedules, and Washington has published 2027 early fees. Price your own packaging in the Toolkit, or see which schedules exist.

What is eco-modulation and how can it reduce EPR fees?

It adjusts your fee up or down for design attributes, and Oregon, Colorado, and California each apply it differently. Oregon’s current cycle is bonus-only and the bonuses require a life cycle assessment. Colorado applies passive factors automatically and sets its four active bonuses at 1% each in rule (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 s18.9.2), and Interchange 360, Colorado’s separate program for automotive lubricant packaging, takes 5% off base dues for qualifying recycled content from 2027. California’s preliminary 2027 rates already include two passive factors. One is a 5% bonus for the categories the plan lists, which are those with a recycling rate of at least 30% that are not designated non-recyclable or non-compostable. The other is a 5% malus, or fee increase, for materials that are neither recyclable nor compostable. Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington have not yet set eco-modulation values, and the Maine rule sets multipliers and incentive fee percentages but not the per-ton costs they apply to. See the eco-modulation detail on each state page.

What are the penalties for non-compliance with U.S. packaging EPR laws?

These are statutory maximums, not automatic fines. Oregon is enforcing, at up to $25,000 per day, and it named 304 producers on its first quarterly producer status list on April 9, 2026 and 198 on its second, dated September 4, 2026. California authorizes up to $50,000 per day per violation, or $25,000 for a small producer, and nothing accrues until 30 days after a notice of violation (PRC 42081). Minnesota’s ceiling is higher still, up to $100,000 per day for a third violation; the $50,000 and $100,000 tiers apply to repeat violations within five years after stewardship plan approval, and no plan is approved yet, so the $25,000 per day first tier is the one that can apply today. See the maximum penalty for each state.

Which states are likely to pass packaging EPR laws next?

New Jersey’s S673 and A3744 were introduced and referred to committee on January 13, 2026, and Illinois HB 4064 has been in the House Rules Committee since May 21, 2025. New York’s PRRIA stalled again when the 2026 session ended in June without an Assembly vote, and its Senate sponsor says the effort will continue next session. Massachusetts S.571 is stalled, and because formal sessions ended July 31, 2026, it can advance only in an informal session before the 2025–2026 session ends. Rhode Island and Hawaii have needs-assessment laws rather than full EPR. See active bills and earlier-stage states.

Who counts as the producer: the brand, the importer, or the distributor?

Usually the brand owner, but the order of tiers differs by state. Only Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine run the familiar five-tier shape of manufacturer, licensee, brand owner, importer, first distributor, and only there does an ordinary branded good land on the brand owner at tier 3. Colorado's and Oregon's statutes have no brand-owner tier, running three tiers with the importer last, and both states reach the brand owner by rule. CDPHE's rule sets Colorado's order of obligation in four steps (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, s18.2.2(A)): the brand owner directing or performing the manufacturing of the packaging, then the brand or trademark licensee directing it, then the manufacturer where no brand is identified, then the importer. In Oregon, a person who directs the manufacturing, including setting the packaging specifications, counts as the manufacturer, so an Oregon brand owner that specifies its own packaging is reached at tier 1. California has no importer tier, and its tier 1 reaches a manufacturer that owns or is the licensee of the brand, so a licensee-manufacturer in California never falls to a later tier there. See the hierarchy and where your products land.

Is my B2B or transport packaging exempt, and am I a producer if I only sell empty packaging?

If you sell empty packaging to a company that fills it and sells it on, as a converter, bottle maker, or carton supplier, you are generally not the producer. That is a scope question rather than a B2B exemption: CAA’s California guidance says empty packaging materials not yet used by a good are not covered material, and that a person is not a producer merely because they make or sell them. Maryland says the same in its regulation, and the other states reach the same conclusion through their own definitions, which attach the obligation to packaging used with a product. Each of these can pull it back onto you: food serviceware is covered even when sold empty (in California, plastic single-use food service ware), anything you sell under your own brand makes you the brand owner for that line, and packaging with no brand on it reaches the person that manufactures the item at tier 1 under the Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Maine, and Maryland definitions and Colorado's statute (C.R.S. 25-17-703(30)(a)(I)). For empty packaging sold to a filler, that person is the filler, so the unbranded case reaches you only where you also make or fill the item. Colorado's rule reaches the manufacturer of an unbranded item only at the third step of its order of obligation, after the brand owner and licensee steps (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 s18.2.2(A)(3)). If your finished packaged product only goes to business customers, the answer changes by state. Washington and Maryland reach it by definition, packaging being only what is supplied to a consumer for personal, noncommercial use. Colorado excludes packaging used solely that way; the statute does not say whether that is tested per unit or per packaging type, so a mixed-channel shipper is likely covered at least for units shipped to consumers. Maine counts a business customer on municipal collection as a consumer, and Minnesota has only a narrow industrial-input exemption. Oregon has no general exclusion for transport packaging: non-consumer tertiary corrugated is zero rated but still reportable, and non-consumer pallet wrap is priced at 34.0 c/lb in 2026. California has no general B2B exemption. Work through it state by state.

Is my company small enough to be exempt?

Every state exempts small producers, but the test differs by state. Oregon exempts under 1 metric ton placed on market or under $5M global revenue; Washington has three separate tests and any one qualifies. The revenue tests are global, but the tonnage tests are per state, so you have to work out your volume in each state before you can know whether you are under its line. Minnesota makes the split explicit: tonnage measured into Minnesota, revenue measured globally. Oregon is the only state that aggregates associated producers, so a group cannot split itself into qualifying entities there. And California relief is not automatic at all: it must be applied for and approved. See each state’s threshold in the enacted table.

How is my fee calculated?

Weight times rate, adjusted for design: your tonnage in each material category, times the state’s per-material base rate, times an eco-modulation multiplier. Material choice dominates the outcome: expanded polystyrene containers cost more than twenty times as much per pound as aluminum containers and corrugated cardboard in Colorado’s 2026 and 2027 dues schedules, as aluminum containers in Oregon’s 2026 fee schedule, and as corrugated cardboard in Oregon’s 2027 fee schedule. Price your own packaging in the Toolkit.

When do California fees start, and how much will they be?

In two stages, under two different fee instruments. The 2026 Early Fee Schedule is published and is what CAA invoices for program year 2026: six flat per-pound rates, issued July 20, 2026 and revised August 25, 2026, with the revision restating the same rates in dollars per pound and moving no rate and no category. The full program starts January 2027 on a per-material-category schedule; CAA published preliminary 2027 rates on October 1, 2026, non-binding until CalRecycle approves the program plan. The fee calculators on this site price either one, by the rate year you pick. See which fee schedules exist.

Could the lawsuits stop these programs?

None has so far. On August 27, 2026 the court upheld the Recycling Modernization Act against both the dormant Commerce Clause and the due process challenge in NAW v. Feldon, and final judgment was entered the next day. NAW filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026. Six cases remain live in the trial courts across three states: one more in Oregon, two in Colorado, both of which now seek injunctions, and three in California, none of which has so far disturbed registration, reporting, or the 2026 early fee. On the free public record, fees remain due everywhere they are active, though an October 9, 2026 Lollicup v. Feldon entry labeled Stay (ECF 13) cannot yet be read on the free docket. The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction for NAW members reached only members as of that date, and neither the opinion nor the judgment says what becomes of it. It has not been dissolved on the docket, and a preliminary injunction does not ordinarily outlive a final judgment against the party that obtained it. Take advice rather than planning around it either way. See every case and what it changes for you.

Does black plastic really raise my fee?

It can, because carbon black and other dark colorants that most sorters cannot see make PET effectively non-recyclable, and recyclability is what the fee factors read. Removing it strengthens an Oregon LCA bonus and lowers future-cycle malus risk rather than earning a flat credit; Oregon pays no standalone carbon-black credit this cycle. See the design features that raise the fee.

What data should my team be collecting now?

Per-SKU packaging data underneath, filed as category totals. The report itself is weight by reporting category (62 categories in Oregon, 61 in Colorado, California's covered material categories, a shorter simplified list in Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington) plus the brands covered and your methodology; no state files per SKU. To build those totals you need the full component list with weights by material and the units supplied into each state in the reporting year. Design attributes like whether a dark colorant is detectable to a near-infrared sorter matter today only where you claim an eco-modulation adjustment, although the final draft California program plan CAA submitted on October 13, 2026 proposes, from 2029, a malus on packaging features that disrupt recycling, with undetectable carbon black among its examples. Use the supplier data request to ask for exactly these fields.

What if we do not have complete data for our EPR report?

CAA accepts, and can require, estimated, forecast, or pro forma data where complete records do not exist, including for the earlier years a late registrant also has to report. CAA may charge interest on those years and can waive or reduce it (CAA Reporting Policy V2.0, sections 3.3 and 3.4; Payment Policy V1.0, section 3.8). CAA does not preapprove methods, the method is disclosed in the report, and an Adjustment cannot be made only to change the method, although an estimate can be replaced with actual data within the 24-month Adjustment window (sections 3.5 and 3.12). Colorado and Maryland rules allow prorated national data where state-specific data is not available or feasible to generate, Maryland only with MDE approval (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 s18.2.5(B); COMAR 26.04.14.09D). Get the one-page guide to reporting with missing data.

Do reusable or refillable packages escape the fees?

In California and Colorado some do, and in Oregon most pay base fees, apart from narrow exclusions such as refillable LPG containers, returnable agricultural-chemical containers, and certain reusable pressurized cylinders. Packaging that meets California’s SB 54 definition of reusable or refillable (PRC 42041(af)) is not covered material, so it pays no fee, and a producer whose reuse claim does not hold is in violation (14 CCR 18980.2.1). CAA’s Colorado plan exempts return-from-home, return-on-the-go, and refill-on-the-go packaging from dues but not refill-at-home packaging (CAA Colorado Program Plan, section 11.1), and CDPHE’s four active bonuses, 1% each in rule, include none for reusable packaging as such, although the case study bonus can cover a reuse study (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 s18.9.2). Oregon charges base fees on most reusable and refillable packaging and rewards a switch to it through a third LCA bonus, Bonus C, added by the eco-modulation amendment DEQ approved on September 12, 2025. See the eco-modulation detail on each state page.

Who maintains EPR Atlas

Confirmed

EPR Atlas is built and maintained by Dave Hartter, a packaging and product sustainability advisor with more than 20 years inside global manufacturers, most recently as Director of Sustainability at J.M. Huber. Figures here cite their sources and carry a confidence label where one applies, the site shows the date it was last updated, and a review pass runs weekly.

This is not legal, regulatory, or compliance advice. Verify anything consequential with the Circular Action Alliance, the relevant state agency, or qualified counsel before acting on it.

Full notice and evidence labels

Deadlines, thresholds, fee rates, and exemptions change as rules are finalized, and several programs are currently subject to litigation. Verify all information with the Circular Action Alliance, the relevant state agency, or qualified legal counsel before taking any compliance action.

Figures labeled Signaled or Speculative are planning estimates drawn from draft rules and filed program plans. They are not rates you will be invoiced, and they should not be used as the sole basis for a budget or a filing. The three labels are defined at the top of this page.

More about the author, the method, and advisory services

EPR Toolkit

The four tools below follow the order a producer works in, from the scope question to the fee and then to the design changes that lower it, and the design rules they score against come after them. Each tool opens on its own page and keeps its own saved work. Every tool and the supplier checklist need a free EPR Atlas account, and the same account opens Ask Atlas, which allows 3 questions a day per account.

1. The scope question

Scope Screener

Am I an obligated producer?

Seven questions cover the states you sell into, your role in the supply chain, revenue, per-state volume, and packaging types. It returns a verdict for each state with the rule behind it and a confidence label, and where the rules leave a case open, it says so.

You give it: States, role, company revenue, rough tonnage, packaging types
You get back: In scope / exempt / needs review for each state, with the rule cited
Takes: About three minutes

Run the screener

For the rules in full, Am I an Obligated Producer works through the cascade state by state, and EPR laws by state puts the seven enacted statutes side by side.

2. Pricing what you supply

Portfolio Estimator

Total EPR Fee Estimator

Enter annual tonnage by material for a state to get a base-fee total for the whole portfolio, with a second scenario alongside it to show what a material shift is worth.

You give it: State, metric tons per year across 25 material categories
You get back: Annual base fee, per-material breakdown, scenario comparison
Good for: A budget number and a board conversation

Open the estimator

Fees by state carries the published rates without the modeling.

Unit Calculator

Unit EPR Fee Calculator

It prices one SKU from its bill of materials. Add each component with its format, material, and weight, and it returns the fee for one unit and for your annual volume and names the component that drives most of it.

You give it: One SKU, its components, materials, and gram weights, annual units
You get back: Per-unit fee before and after eco-modulation, fee by component, a baseline-versus-alternative comparison, material risk flags
Good for: Deciding between two packaging options before you specify

Open the calculator

A guided tour is available for first-time users. The Portfolio Estimator carries the method notes and the published rates behind both tools.

What to ask your suppliers for

The tools above need component weights and recycled content from your converters before they produce a real number, and that data sits outside your own systems. A request scoped once at this level of detail serves reporting, fees, recyclability scoring, and later life cycle work.

Per component: Name and function. Material and format at the level your state's category list uses. Empty component weight in grams, not the filled product. Whether it contains any plastic element at all.
Recycled content: Post-consumer only, with evidence. Factory regrind, offcuts, and pre-consumer scrap do not count, and they are the most common error in what comes back.
Decoration: Label or sleeve material, coverage as a percentage of the container surface, ink and coating type, and whether any dark colorant is carbon black or otherwise undetectable to a near-infrared sorter.
Per SKU: Full component list with quantities, and units supplied into each state in the reporting year.
Housekeeping: The reporting year the answer covers, a named contact, and a date. Ask for estimates to be marked as estimates with the method attached, so next year is a refresh rather than a rebuild.

Building the request pack, wording it so suppliers answer it, and holding data quality across a supplier base is advisory work.

3. Reducing the fee

Recyclability Rater

Design for Recyclability Rater

It scores a package against each state's own recyclability determination, then re-scores it with specific design changes applied to show which ones move the fee. California reads from the covered material category list and Oregon from the statewide collection list, and states that have not finalized a determination are shown as unresolved.

You give it: Components with material, format, and decoration attributes
You get back: Recyclable share by weight, per-state determinations, component verdicts, and re-scored design moves

Beta. Determinations follow published state lists; where a state has not published one, the rater says so.

Open the rater

The rater scores the package, and the Design for Recyclability guide sets out what to change, material by material.

The design rules, material by material

Confirmed unless marked

Under U.S. packaging EPR, whether a package is recyclable is a legal determination, and in Colorado and California it drives the eco-modulation factors. Each material is recovered through a different system, so each has a different governing rule: plastics are sorted optically by resin and color, glass by light transmission, fiber by coating and contamination, and metal by how much of it stays mono-metal. This section describes the rules and does not prescribe a redesign. These are the Design for Recyclability guidelines the rest of the site refers to: the Recyclability Rater scores against exactly these rules, and the standalone Design for Recyclability guide is the same material in a printable form.

Meeting the design rules makes a package designed for recycling. What you may legally put on-pack, and the fee you pay, also depend on collection access and on the state.

Each layer of the determination has its own authority

Who decides each layer of a recyclability determination
Layer	Question it answers	Set by
Design	Is it built so it can be recycled?	APR Design Guide, RecyClass in the EU
Access to recovery	Is it collected, sorted, reprocessed, and sold into an end market in practice?	How2Recycle and the SPC four-criteria definition
Legal determination	May you label it recyclable, and what fee applies?	California SB 343 and the CMC list; state EPR eco-modulation

APR and the U.S. Plastics Pact set design criteria but do not determine recyclability, which is why a mono-material PE film pouch can be designed for recycling and still fail: it is collected mainly through store drop-off, so it does not meet California's 60 percent curbside collection test and could be labeled recyclable there only through one of SB 343's alternative pathways.

Plastics: the design rules and the features that raise the fee

One polymer family: Mono-material construction is rewarded, and mixed and multilayer constructions are penalized.
Clear or light PET: Clear unpigmented, or transparent light blue or light green only. Carbon black and other near-infrared-undetectable dark colorants make PET non-recyclable, because most sorters cannot see them at all.
No problem resins: PVC and PVDC, PS and EPS, and rigid PETG are flagged by APR and targeted for elimination by the U.S. Plastics Pact.
Compatible, separable components: Closures, pumps, labels, sleeves, and liners can decide whether the whole package is recyclable, and metal springs and full-body sleeves are flagged.
The small-format test: Parts smaller than two inches in at least two dimensions must pass APR's size-sortation protocol or they fall through the screens at a materials recovery facility.
Compatible inks and coatings: Heavy inks, dark pigments, and wash-resistant coatings contaminate the recycled stream and interfere with optical sorting.
Real on-pack instructions: How2Recycle is the standard North American label, and APR Preferred designs are likelier to qualify as widely recyclable.

Features that push a plastic package into higher fees

Plastic features and their fee consequence
Feature	U.S. recyclability	Fee consequence	Evidence
PVC / PVDC	Non-recyclable	No recyclability credit; elimination-list material	Confirmed
Carbon black or NIR-undetectable dark	Non-recyclable, most sorters cannot detect it	Can fall under the California malus on detrimental packaging features CAA proposes from 2029, which names undetectable carbon black among its examples; CAA lists the features each year and has set no values	Signaled
PETG, rigid and full-body sleeves	Contaminates the PET stream	Degrades the host container's determination	Confirmed
PS / EPS	Very low recyclability	No recyclability credit; targeted by state bans	Confirmed
Full-body non-perforated shrink	Detrimental; hides the host resin	Design-based malus risk in Colorado	Signaled

Claims: what SB 343 lets you put on the pack

A product or package may be labeled recyclable in California under the main test only if its material type and form is collected by programs serving at least 60 percent of Californians and is sorted by facilities serving at least 60 percent of the state's programs, as characterized in CalRecycle's SB 343 material characterization findings. A material can alternatively qualify with a demonstrated recycling rate of at least 75 percent.

The 60 percent test is about access, not the recycling rate. There is no simple weight cutoff, but a detractor that pushes an item out of a recyclable type and form, a full-body sleeve or carbon black for instance, can disqualify it on its own.

The covered material category determination is category-level and does not clear an on-pack claim by itself. SB 343's population-coverage test applies on top of it, with a compliance date of October 4, 2026.

The date applies to when packaging is manufactured, not when it is sold. CalRecycle states the restrictions apply to products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026, which is 18 months after publication of the Final Findings Report, and that packaging manufactured before that date is not subject to them regardless of when it is sold. Stock made before that date stays outside the rule, so the question for your converter is when each run was produced. Source: CalRecycle, Accurate Recycling Labels, accessed August 12, 2026. CalRecycle's own page now notes that the October date “may be impacted by ongoing litigation”; see the injunction below.

Attorney General enforcement is paused, and other enforcement channels are unresolved. On July 14, 2026 a federal court granted a preliminary injunction (ECF 24) enjoining "Defendant Rob Bonta, and all those in privity or acting in concert with Defendant Bonta" from enforcing SB 343 until further order. Four provisions were held likely unconstitutionally vague and each was found severable, but severance did not save the rest: the court held the law also fails First Amendment intermediate scrutiny "with respect to both the version of SB 343 as enacted by the legislature and as altered in the Court's preceding analysis regarding vagueness". So the 60 percent collection-and-sorting threshold survives as text and is enjoined along with everything else, rather than surviving as an enforceable rule. SB 343 is also enforceable by local jurisdictions (PRC 42358(a) and (b), per CalRecycle’s SB 343 FAQ), and Business and Professions Code remedies may also be available (42358(c)), and the order does not say whether those actors are bound; treat non-AG enforcement as unresolved rather than enjoined. No security bond was required. The ruling is preliminary and the case continues in the district court, so design to the test rather than to the pause. The covered material category list is CalRecycle's recyclability determination for SB 54 purposes only, and CalRecycle states that it is not a determination of whether any particular label violates PRC 42355.51 or 42357. See the California litigation detail.

How2Recycle: a label based on collection access

How2Recycle is a North American on-pack recycling label, run by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, covering plastic, glass, fiber, and metal. It uses the same access-to-recovery logic as SB 343: the format must be collected from a meaningful share of households, sortable at a materials recovery facility, reprocessable, and sold into an end market. APR-preferred design helps a package qualify, and collection access sets the tier.

How2Recycle label tiers
On-pack label	What it signals
Widely Recyclable	Curbside access for most of the population: PET bottles, HDPE bottles, aluminum cans. The outcome to design toward.
Check Locally	Collection is inconsistent and depends on the community: PP tubs, aseptic cartons.
Store Drop-Off	Not curbside; returned to retail collection: PE film, bags, air pillows.
Not Yet Recyclable	No broad recovery pathway exists today: multi-material laminates, foamed PS.

How2Recycle is voluntary and North American, while SB 343 is mandatory and California-specific. The two usually agree but are assessed separately, so confirm the SB 343 determination before selling a How2Recycle-labeled package in California.

Glass: light transmission decides it

Glass is optically sorted, and the sorter reads each piece as glass or as a ceramic, stone, or porcelain contaminant based on how much light passes through it. For decorated cosmetic glass, opacity rather than color is what usually causes rejection.

Light transmission: Target 5 percent or above. Below roughly 2 percent a package is rejected as a contaminant; 3 percent is the observed minimum that passes. This one number covers lacquering, silk-screen, and dark or feeder color.
Opacity: All colors can sort as glass, and opacity is what makes the sorter read a piece as a contaminant.
Soda-lime only: The container-glass chemistry that North American curbside streams collect. Borosilicate, opal, and aluminosilicate contaminate the cullet.
Metallization is chemistry: Metallic coatings contaminate cullet at parts per million and must be blended down even when the piece sorts correctly. Use as an accent or remove.
Small formats: Containers and closures at or under about 2.5 inches, sample and perfume vials, drop out of recovery regardless of the glass.

Glass that sorts correctly can still end up as landfill cover or aggregate, and mixed and tinted cullet often does. Labels and sleeves separate during crushing and do not impede recovery. Ceramic swing-top closures are a contaminant.

Paper and fiber: coatings decide it

Clean fiber is among the most recyclable packaging in the U.S., and it loses that through what is added to it: plastic coatings, lamination, and heavy metallization.

Uncoated and clean: Uncoated paperboard is recyclable in California at about 30 percent; corrugated at about 68 percent, the strongest recyclable secondary pack there is.
No plastic coating or lamination: California classes paperboard with a plastic coating on both sides as a multi-material laminate, which is not on its recyclable list, is recycled at under 6 percent, and carries a higher preliminary 2027 base fee than board coated on one side ($0.07 per pound against $0.05). Board coated on one side stays in the paperboard category, which is recyclable.
Limit foil and metallization: Solid metal foil and heavy metallized decoration move fiber toward non-recyclable, on the same coverage logic as plastics.
Cartons are their own stream: Aseptic and gable-top cartons are collected in some programs, Oregon's statewide list among them, but are not on California's recyclable list, so check each state.

Metal: recyclable by design, limited by collection access

A mono-aluminum or mono-steel can, bottle, tube, or closure recycles at close to its full weight, and standard decoration is separable in reprocessing rather than disqualifying. For aerosols the gating question in the U.S. is collection access, not design.

Keep it mono-metal: Only metallic aluminum counts as recyclable value. Laminates are defensible, since the plastic burns off in reprocessing, but true mono-aluminum maximizes recovered weight.
Coatings: Eliminate PFAS coatings, which are targeted by state packaging bans, and vapor-deposited metallized layers, which count as loss rather than recyclable content. Carbon black is a plastics sorting problem, not a barrier to metal recycling.
Small size is not a barrier: Modern sorters recover even very small metal items. Any minimum-metal-content rule is economic rather than a recyclability determinant.
Aerosols: The constraint is collection access rather than design, and cans must be empty. The industry initiative targets 85 percent recycling access by 2030. Non-aerosol aluminum is recyclable in California at under 39 percent.

The per-format design detail is European; the physics translate, but the California recyclability determination comes from the CalRecycle category list and aerosol collection access from the industry initiative. Signaled

Decoration and metallization: the amount decides it

Decoration is a common reason an otherwise recyclable design loses its determination, and the rules differ by substrate.

Decoration rules by substrate
On	Rule	Evidence
Plastic	Solid metal foil decoration generally renders a package non-recyclable. For metal sorting, APR rates metallic ink, metallized transfer, and metallized film as Preferred from 0 to 12 mm spherical equivalent on HDPE and PP and from 0 to 8 mm on PET; on PET, 8.1 to 15.9 mm is Detrimental to Recycling, and 16 mm or more (12 mm or more on HDPE and PP) renders the package non-recyclable. APR treats label or sleeve coverage up to 75 percent of the side wall and shoulder (55 percent for containers of 550 ml or less) as Preferred for PET, HDPE, and PP containers; above that the package requires testing, because coverage can affect NIR and color sorting, unless on PET the label is a perforated crystallizable PET sleeve of 50 microns or less, which APR also treats as Preferred.	Confirmed
Glass	Judged by resulting opacity. Any decoration that drops light transmission below the 5 percent threshold rejects as a contaminant. Metallic coatings also contaminate the cullet chemically.	Confirmed
Metal	Vapor-deposited metallized layers count as loss, not recyclable content. Lacquers and printed inks are separable and acceptable in moderation.	Signaled

The exact plastics metallization limit sits in an APR sorting resource. The 12 mm and 16 mm figures come from APR program guidance rather than the primary document, which is why they are marked signaled.

California: the recyclable determination and the recycling rate

CalRecycle's January 2026 covered material category list is the authoritative California reference under SB 54. For the first time it publishes an estimated recycling rate for each category alongside the recyclable determination, and a format can be deemed recyclable and still be recycled at a single-digit rate. The table below is a working subset of the 95 categories.

California recyclable determination against actual recycling rate
Format	Recyclable in CA	Recycling rate	How to read it
Clear PET bottle	Yes	16%	Among the highest California plastic rates, and still low
Colored or pigmented PET	Yes	5%	Pigment cuts the real rate to a third of clear
HDPE bottle	Yes	19%	Among the highest California plastic rates
PP jar	Yes	2%	Recyclable, but recycled at 2 percent; a PP cap measuring 2 inches or less on two or more sides falls in the small-plastic category, which is not on the recyclable list
PE film or pouch	No	~5%	Not on the recyclable list; store drop-off is the likely main route, not curbside
Multi-material laminate	No	under 2%	Redesign or take-back
PS / EPS	No	under 1% (EPS); under 2% (solid PS)	Eliminate
PVC / PVDC	No	insufficient data	Contaminant
Paperboard poly-coated on both sides	No	under 6%	Do not claim recyclable on board poly-coated on both sides
Uncoated paperboard	Yes	30%	The defensible recyclable carton
Corrugated	Yes	68%	Strongest recyclable secondary pack
Glass bottle or jar	Yes	65%	Opaque coatings can cause rejection at the optical sorter (glass study)
Aluminum, non-aerosol	Yes	under 39%	Strong mono-material option

Source: APR Design Guide, with label and metallization thresholds from APR program guidance (2025) and APR RES-SORT-03b; How2Recycle and the SPC Guide to Recyclability; RecyClass; U.S. Plastics Pact Recyclable Packaging Design Handbook, 3rd edition, July 2026; CalRecycle SB 54 covered material category list, January 2026 update, 95 categories across six material classes; California SB 343; Oregon DEQ statewide collection list, August 2025; glass thresholds from the 2024 cosmetic-glass study and the Glass Packaging Institute; aluminum from the Metal Packaging Europe design guideline, September 2025, and the aerosol recycling initiative. Figures current as of July 2026.

The guides behind the tools

These guides cover the same questions as the tools, with the statute and rule citations behind every claim, which helps when a tool returns "needs review" or when you have to show your work to someone else.

Am I an obligated producerThe producer cascade, state by state Design for recyclabilityWhat "recyclable" means, by material Prepare for EPRThe annual cycle and the common exemption mistakes California source reduction plansWhat an Individual Source Reduction Plan (ISRP) has to contain

What the tools are for

Every tool here produces an estimate from published schedules, and the California 2027 figures are preliminary until CalRecycle approves the program plan. They are built to reach a defensible position quickly, and they do not file on your behalf. Advisory support is available when the answer has to be exact.

State Tracker

Seven states have enacted packaging extended producer responsibility, eight more are tracked as bill states, and nine more are at an earlier stage. Of the seven, two charge annual fees today (Oregon and Colorado), one has issued invoices for a one-time 2026 early fee ahead of its 2027 program (California), and the other four are at different stages of setting up a program.

Comparing the seven side by side is usually the faster way in, because reporting and fee decisions turn on the differences.

Compare all seven statesEleven categories, side by side, with the provision under every cell

Where things stand

Confirmed

Pick a state for its status in one line. Tile shading is the stage the law has reached. A colored dot marks the three states where a fee obligation is live or imminent, and it means the same thing as the badge in the table below.

Enacted law (7)Active bill (8)Earlier stage (9) Nothing filed Fees due Fees imminent

Select a state to see where it stands. The seven enacted states carry full detail in the table below; the rest show the stage they have reached and what, if anything, it obliges you to do today.

The seven enacted states

Confirmed

Enacted packaging EPR programs by state
State and law	Fees	First data year	De minimis	Maximum penalty	Status
Oregon SB 582 (2021)	Charging since Jul 2025 Oregon DEQ	CY2024 Due Mar 31, 2025; CY2025 report due May 31, 2026	<1 metric ton OR <$5M global revenue	$25,000 per day	Fees due
Colorado HB 22-1355 (2022)	Charging since Jan 2026 Colorado CDPHE	CY2024 Due Jul 31, 2025 (CAA)	<1 ton, unit not stated in statute or rule, OR <$5,779,297 global revenue Jul 1 2026 figure	Administrative penalties (C.R.S. 25-17-710), plus sales prohibition	Fees due
California SB 54 (2022)	Early fee Aug 2026 CalRecycle; full program 2027	CY2025 Plus a CY2023 source-reduction baseline	<$1M California gross sales, must apply	Up to $50,000 per day per violation $25,000 for small producers; accrues from 30 days after notice; PRC 42081(a)(1), (a)(3)	Prepare
Maine LD 1541 (2021), amended by LD 1423 (2025)	Not yet operating Maine DEP	Estimated tons, period set by the SO contract Once a stewardship organization is contracted	<1 ton OR roughly <$2M revenue	Up to $10,000 per day (38 MRSA 349(2))	Monitor
Minnesota HF 3911 (2024)	Reimbursement at least 50% of net cost by Feb 1, 2029 Minnesota MPCA CAA confirmed as the PRO Feb 18, 2025	CY2025 Interim Producer Report (simplified reporting categories), due May 31, 2026	<1 ton introduced into MN OR <$2M global gross revenue, either test	Up to $25,000 per day, rising to $50,000 then $100,000 for repeat violations Minn. Stat. 115A.1462(c); the repeat tiers run five years from plan approval	Duty already past
Maryland SB 901 (2025)	Reimbursement ramp from Jul 1, 2028 Maryland MDE	CY2025 Interim Producer Report (simplified reporting categories), due May 31, 2026	<1 ton OR <$2M global revenue	$5,000 to $20,000 per violation	Monitor
Washington E2SSB 5284 (2025)	2027 early fees published Oct 1, 2026; invoice date not given Washington Ecology	CY2025 Interim Producer Report (simplified reporting categories), due May 31, 2026	<1 ton OR <$5M global revenue OR agricultural employer under $5M in WA own-brand ag sales, any one qualifies	Sales prohibition for non-members from Mar 1, 2029	Duty already past

Select a state name for its full profile: fee schedule, eco-modulation, dates, scope, reporting, and design levers. The law number opens the bill or statute itself. De minimis tests are per state, and every enacted state with more than one test joins them with OR, so meeting any one of them is enough, including in Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 13); California has a single test, gross sales under $1 million in the state, and its exemption must be applied for and approved. The unit of a ton also differs: Oregon is the only enacted state that says metric ton (about 2,205 lb, ORS 459A.863(32)(d)). Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, and Maine each say "one ton" and none of them defines the unit, which matters because a short ton is 2,000 lb, a difference of about 10%. In Colorado, 6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 uses "dry short tons" explicitly in two TENORM sampling provisions (sections 8.6.7 and 14.4.9) and plain "one ton" in the producer exemption at 18.2.3(B), so neither reading can be assumed (accessed August 27, 2026). As a result, a volume between 2,000 and 2,205 lb is settled only in Oregon. California has no tonnage test, and its revenue exemption must be applied for. Every threshold, with the statute and the unit each state measures in, is on de minimis thresholds by state.

First data year is the earliest calendar year of supply data a producer has had to report, not the year fees start, and the two are usually years apart. Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington all took a CY2025 report in May 2026. Minnesota's reimbursement to service providers must reach at least 50 percent of net cost by February 1, 2029. Maryland's reimbursement starts July 1, 2028, and CAA says Maryland fee collection will likely begin before that date on a schedule it has not set. Washington's first charge is the 2027 early fee CAA published on October 1, 2026, with no invoice date given. The data duties come first and need the lead time.

What is happening in each one

Oregon. CAA published the 2027 fee schedule on October 1, 2026. NAW v. Feldon is on appeal after Oregon won at trial, and Lollicup v. Feldon is pending; no order has lifted the NAW member injunction, and the docket does not show whether the Lollicup pause, which ran until at least August 31, 2026, was extended.
Colorado. The revenue threshold is CPI-adjusted every July 1, and the figure shown is the July 1, 2026 adjustment.
California. Draft program plan submitted to the Advisory Board June 15, 2026, with a corrected fee table posted June 18. Comment window closed August 14, 2026. Preliminary 2027 rates published October 1, 2026. CAA submitted the final draft plan to CalRecycle October 13, 2026.
Maine. No stewardship organization. The DEP RFP closed Aug 18, 2026 with zero proposals and CAA declined to bid, so no registration, reporting, or fee obligation is running and fee timing is not established.
Minnesota. CAA was confirmed as the producer responsibility organization on February 18, 2025, so the state has one. The January 1, 2025 date in the statute is a duty on producers to appoint a PRO, and it has passed (Minn. Stat. 115A.1443 subd. 3(a)). De minimis is an OR test like every other enacted state (Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 13); the tonnage test is measured into Minnesota while revenue is global. Rulemaking opened May 2026.
Maryland. Statewide list of covered materials recyclable or compostable through curbside programs due July 1, 2027. A written responsibility transfer is recognized at COMAR 26.04.14.02B(25)(p), as assignment is in Washington, Minnesota, and Maine; California, Colorado, and Oregon have no assignment provision, although Oregon relieves a producer of PRO membership fees for covered product that another person has registered as the producer responsible for (ORS 459A.869(3), (4)).
Washington. Program plan due October 2028. Its packaging definition excludes business-to-business packaging, which California's does not.

The national timeline

Signaled

Dated items are confirmed, and state counts beyond 2026 are a projection from bills currently filed, not a forecast of passage.

National EPR timeline by period
Period	What happens	States
2026 to date	Oregon and Colorado fees active; Oregon DEQ enforcement underway, first noncompliance list April 2026. Oregon constitutional trial held July 13 to 17; the court upheld the Recycling Modernization Act on August 27, 2026. California Individual Source Reduction Plans were due to CAA Aug 3; program plan comment closed Aug 14. NY PRRIA failed June 2026; the Senate sponsor said the effort will continue next session.	7 enacted
Late 2026	Maine DEP is revising its Stewardship Organization RFP after the first drew no proposals; DEP says it is reassessing the schedule, so no Maine fee date exists. CAA published preliminary 2027 California rates on October 1 and submitted its final draft program plan to CalRecycle on October 13, and CAA's schedule has CalRecycle approving the plan on or before January 1, 2027. Rhode Island needs assessment report due Dec 1. Oregon top 25 producers on both DEQ lists owe mandatory life cycle evaluations by Dec 31 (the five added on the final list have until June 30, 2027).	7
2027 to 2028	California per-category fees begin. Maryland reimbursement obligations start July 1, 2028; Minnesota follows February 1, 2029. New Jersey (S673 and A3744) and Illinois (HB 4064) have bills in committee; Massachusetts S.571 is stalled after formal sessions ended July 31, 2026. Rhode Island and Hawaii needs assessments complete, and either state could then take up full EPR legislation.	9 to 12
2029 to 2030	Washington service-provider reimbursement ramps from 50% (Feb 15, 2030) to 90% (Feb 15, 2032). States now at an earlier stage on the State Tracker could enact. Oregon and Colorado second-generation fee schedules. More pressure for federal harmonization.	13 to 17
2032 to 2035	Possible federal EPR framework. Southeast states may begin enacting; Tennessee’s bills died when its 2025 to 2026 session ended.	26+

Periods beyond late 2026 are an editorial read of filed legislation, not a prediction of passage. Dated obligations inside them are confirmed and carry their own entries on the state pages.

Which fee schedules exist

Reviewed monthly

Every fee number on this site, and in both calculators, can only be as current as the schedules the states and their producer responsibility organization have published. Three of the seven have a program fee schedule, and Washington has published 2027 early fees. For program fees in the other four, the figures are Oregon’s published rates multiplied by a factor, which is a planning proxy only. Anything marked estimated is a planning figure, not a rate you will be invoiced.

Fee schedule status by state
State	Schedule in force	What the calculators use	Next one expected

Active bills

These bills have been introduced, and none creates an obligation yet. Signal is an editorial read of legislative momentum, not a prediction of passage.

New YorkWatch

S.1464-A / PRRIA

Last actionJun 5, 2026: S.1464-A committed to Rules without a floor vote (second year stalled)

NextJan 2027, Expected reintroduction

Sponsorship76 Assembly co-sponsors; an April 27, 2026 amendment (the A print)

S.1464 (Senate): passed May 28, 2025, 33-25; the 2026 S.1464-A was committed to Rules June 5, 2026 without a floor vote
A.1749-A (Assembly): 76 co-sponsors, no floor vote

New JerseyMedium

S673 / A3744 (2026-27)

Last actionJan 13, 2026: S673, A3744, and S614 introduced and referred to committee

Next2026-27 session, Senate Environment and Energy; Assembly Environment and Solid Waste

S673 (2026-27): Packaging and Paper Product Stewardship Act, successor to S3398 (2024-25), in Senate Environment and Energy
A3744 (2026-27): identical Assembly bill, in Assembly Environment and Solid Waste
S614 (2026-27): packaging product stewardship plans, successor to S208

IllinoisMedium

HB 4064 · SB 1817

Last actionMay 2025: HB 4064 referred to Rules

NextNov 1, 2026, SRNA needs assessment due to be finalized by Illinois EPA

HB 4064 (House, full EPR text)
SB 1817 (Senate, short-title shell)

TennesseeDead

SB 269 / HB 600

Last actionMar 2026: SB 269 sent to a Senate general subcommittee (Mar 11) and HB 600 taken off notice (Mar 18); the 114th General Assembly has adjourned sine die

NextJan 12, 2027, The 115th General Assembly convenes; the bill would need reintroduction

SB 269 (Senate)
HB 600 (House)

North CarolinaWatch

HB 882

Last actionApr 2025: HB 882 introduced; no action

NextNone scheduled, No committee action since introduction

HB 882 (2025): introduced

WisconsinDead

SB 778 / AB 772 (failed)

Last actionMar 23, 2026: SB 778 and AB 772 failed to pass under Senate Joint Resolution 1

NextNone, Both bills failed when the session ended; watch for reintroduction

AB 772 (Assembly)
SB 778 (Senate)

GeorgiaDead

HB 1237 (2026)

Last actionFeb 10, 2026: HB 1237 second reading in the House, first Georgia EPR packaging bill; no committee action

Next2027+, Reintroduction watch; HB 1237 cannot pass in 2027

HB 1237 (2026): introduced Feb 6, 2026, no committee action; died when the 2026 session adjourned sine die Apr 2, 2026

MissouriWatch

HB 3504 (2026)

Last actionMay 15, 2026: HB 3504 referred to House Emerging Issues committee

Next2027+, Reintroduction watch; no hearing scheduled

HB 3504 (2026): Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act, introduced Feb 26, 2026 by Rep. Wick Thomas; referred to Emerging Issues May 15, 2026, hearing not scheduled

Earlier stage

These states have an enacted law with no program yet, a study mandate, or a dormant bill.

Rhode IslandMedium

HB 6207 (2025)

Last actionJun 11, 2026: S2656 full EPR bill got no action before the session recessed

NextOct 15, 2026, Comment opens on RIDEM’s draft Statewide Implementation Analysis, through Nov 16; hearing Nov 4

HB 6207 (2025): enacted needs-assessment law
S2656 (2026): full EPR bill, no action before the session recessed Jun 11, 2026
H7910 (2026): same-titled House EPR bill (LC005309, Rep. Bennett), died
H7911 (2026): a separate packaging EPR bill (LC004624, Rep. McEntee), died

HawaiiWatch

HB 750 (2025)

Last actionMay 27, 2025: HB 750 signed as Act 103; $1.5 million appropriated for each of fiscal years 2025-26 and 2026-27

NextDec 31, 2027, Needs assessment report due

HB 750 (2025): enacted needs-assessment law

MichiganMedium

HB 5902 (2024)

Last actionJul 31, 2024: HB 5902 introduced and referred to committee; it did not advance

Next2027, New legislative session; no packaging EPR bill filed in 2025-2026

HB 5902 (2024): introduced, did not advance

ConnecticutWatch

HB 6917 (died)

Last action2025: died on Senate calendar

Next2027+, Reintroduction possible

HB 6917: passed House 138-0, died in Senate

MassachusettsMedium

S.571 / H.926

Last actionSep 18, 2025: S.571 referred to Senate Ways and Means; stalled (formal sessions ended Jul 31, 2026)

NextInformal session only before the 2025–2026 session ends, otherwise refiling in 2027

S.571 / H.926: full EPR bills, stalled (formal sessions ended Jul 31, 2026); no action since the Sep 18, 2025 referral to Senate Ways and Means
S.3050 (2026): omnibus, reported from Senate Ways and Means April 8, 2026; reprinted as amended as S.3064, which passed the Senate 36-3 on April 15, 2026 and the House 151-0 on June 17, 2026; in conference committee since July 1, 2026

VirginiaWatch

Prior bills failed (2022)

Last action2025: neighboring Maryland enacted SB 901

Next2026+, Reintroduction watch

No active bill; HB 647, HB 709, and HB 918 failed 2022

VermontWatch

SB 236 failed (2022)

Last action2022: SB 236 introduced; did not advance

Next2026+, Watch if NY or MA enact

No active bill; SB 236 failed 2022

NebraskaDead

LB 607 (postponed)

Last actionApr 17, 2026: LB 607 indefinitely postponed

Next2027, Reintroduction watch

LB 607: adopts an Extended Producer Responsibility Data Collection Act and a Minimum Recycled Content Act, among others; indefinitely postponed Apr 17, 2026

New HampshireDead

HB 1789-FN (dead)

Last actionFeb 19, 2026: voted inexpedient to legislate

NextNone, Bill defeated; possible future reintroduction

HB 1789-FN: voted down Feb 19, 2026

Which of these apply to you

Selling into a state triggers the obligation, whether or not you are located there. The screener works the cascade and the thresholds in full for California, Colorado, and Oregon. Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington are screened on their de minimis thresholds, producer exclusions, and registration and membership dates, without a producer cascade, and Maine is reported rather than screened, because it has no registration, reporting, or fee obligation yet.

Run the scope screener

Laws reported as EPR that are not packaging EPR

Two 2026 laws are often described as EPR but do not appear above, because neither creates a packaging and paper producer obligation. Both are producer responsibility laws for beverage containers, a different instrument with a different scope.

Vermont H.915: Signed June 17, 2026. Beverage container producer responsibility. No packaging and paper program.
Connecticut Public Act 26-148: SB 457, signed June 4, 2026. Beverage container producer responsibility. Connecticut has no packaging EPR law and no packaging EPR study: HB 6917 (2025) passed the House 138-0 but died on the Senate calendar.

A headline saying a state passed EPR usually refers to one of these when the state is not listed above. Bottle-deposit and beverage-container programs are a separate instrument from packaging EPR and are tracked separately.

Compare one thing across every state

The table above compares states on everything at once, while the fees, reporting deadlines, and de minimis pages each take one dimension across all seven, which is usually faster for a specific question. Each carries its own sources.

Compare statesEleven rows, seven states, side by side Fees by stateRates and schedules, compared Reporting deadlinesEvery date, one calendar De minimis thresholdsWho is small enough to be out Litigation trackerEvery active case and what it pauses Federal packaging billsWhat is moving in Congress Latest updatesWhat changed, dated ResourcesStatutes, rules, and source documents

Get Ready

The first two of these four steps overlap, because testing the thresholds needs a rough volume estimate. Several registration dates have already passed, so register for each state as soon as its answer is clear rather than waiting for step 2 to finish.

1. Confirm who is obligated in each state

Work the producer cascade for each state you sell into, then check the de minimis test. The general revenue thresholds are measured on company-wide revenue in every state except California, which measures in-state gross sales, and the agricultural employer tests in Colorado and Washington also count only in-state sales. Settle the entity question at the same time. Each subsidiary with its own EIN registers separately with CAA in all cases, and the parent and state addendum exceptions only let the parent sign one agreement covering them (CAA Registration Policy v1.0, s. 3.5). A parent and its affiliates can choose to report as a single producer or separately, and each report must list every affiliate and say whether it is included (CAA Reporting Policy v2.0, s. 3.1).

Register with CAA for a state as soon as you have its answer. Start with the states whose date has already gone: California producer registration was due June 1, 2026, Washington PRO membership July 1, 2026, and Minnesota required producers to appoint a PRO by January 1, 2025. Oregon treats failure to register as a violation in its own right. Every date in one calendar is on reporting deadlines by state. The exceptions are California, which expects small producers to register even when they claim the exemption, and Maine, which has no registration route open yet.

Where each type of company sits in the cascade

Brand owner or filler: You sell products in packaging under your own brand, whether you fill it or a co-packer does. In most cases you are the producer.
Co-manufacturer or co-packer: You make or fill product under someone else's brand. The obligation follows the brand, so it usually sits with the brand owner rather than with you; Oregon assigns it to the brand licensee, and California can reach an in-state manufacturer that holds an exclusive license. Exceptions include unbranded product, a foreign brand customer with no U.S. entity, and anything you sell under your own brand.
Retailer with private label: Your store brand makes you the producer for those lines, and you sit near the top of the cascade rather than the bottom.
Importer or first seller: Colorado and Oregon reach you when no brand owner or licensee exists within the United States. California has no importer tier and instead catches whoever sells or distributes into the state.
Packaging maker or supplier: Usually not the obligated producer, but your customers cannot file without your component data, so expect structured data requests every year.
E-commerce seller or 3PL: Colorado and Oregon run a separate rule for shipping packaging that points at whoever packs and ships the order to the consumer, overriding the general cascade, and in California the person who adds packaging is its producer only where it is not the brand owner or acting on the brand owner’s behalf.
Food service and hospitality: Service packaging and food serviceware follow their own hierarchy, which in Oregon lands on the first seller in or into the state, while Colorado starts service packaging with the brand owner that directs or performs its manufacture.

The screener asks for your role as its second question, so it is worth settling here first. Read the full cascade on Am I an Obligated Producer.

Scope screener

2. Build the component-level data set once

Every state report comes out of the same underlying data, so build it once and map it to each state rather than assembling it for each deadline.

Per component: Material, format, empty weight in grams, and whether it carries a plastic element
Per SKU: Component list, and units supplied into each state
Per material: Post-consumer recycled content as a percentage, evidenced

Every supplier request should say that only post-consumer recycled content counts, not factory regrind or offcuts, and that weight means the empty component rather than the filled product.

What to ask suppliers for

3. Register and report, then reconcile the invoice

Registration runs through the Circular Action Alliance in every state that has a program, with four exceptions. A California producer may register directly with CalRecycle in the PEPRS portal, and must do so to comply as an independent producer or to apply for the small producer exemption. A Maryland producer may register with MDE under an individual producer responsibility plan, and a Washington producer may register as its own PRO under an individual plan. Colorado lubricant producers register with Interchange 360, which operates under an individual program plan. Reports have been due at the end of May in the operating states, but the Circular Action Alliance sets that date as the PRO rather than a statute, so confirm it each cycle. Reconcile each invoice against your own tonnage before you pay it.

1RegisterPer state, one organization

2ReportAnnual supply data, end of May, set by the PRO

3PayInvoiced in two halves, January and July

4ReconcileCheck the invoice against your numbers

4. Feed the data back into design

Once the data set exists, packaging design can change the fee. Material choice and eco-modulation move it, and a decision made when a package is specified sets a cost paid every year after.

Unit calculator and recyclability rater

Common questions

Eight answers

These eight come up most often, and a wrong assumption on any of them is expensive.

Am I the obligated producer, or is my packaging supplier?

Almost always you, because the obligation follows the brand on the package, and your packaging manufacturer generally has no filing duty but carries the data work in practice. The exception to check is where your supplier also makes or fills an item sold in packaging with no brand, or sells a line under its own brand, which can put the supplier in the producer tier for those items.

Is my small company exempt?

Possibly, and the tests differ by state. Colorado and Oregon exempt a producer meeting any one of several criteria, and both exemptions apply automatically. California has no tonnage exemption, and its small producer exemption must be applied for and approved. The Colorado and Oregon revenue thresholds are measured on company-wide revenue, not sales in that state.

Does business-to-business packaging count?

In California, yes. SB 54 reaches primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging placed on the California market whether the sale is to a consumer or a business, so a company selling only to business customers is still an obligated producer there. Colorado excludes it only where the packaging is used solely that way; the statute does not say whether that is tested per unit or per packaging type, so a mixed-channel shipper is likely covered at least for units shipped to consumers. Oregon has no general exclusion for it: non-consumer tertiary corrugated is zero rated but still reportable, and non-consumer pallet wrap is priced. Do not assume transport packaging is out of scope anywhere without checking the state.

What drives the fee?

Weight by material category, adjusted for recyclability. Well-sorted, high-value materials such as aluminum, clear PET, and corrugated sit at the low end, while flexible film, multi-material laminates, and foam sit at the high end, sometimes by an order of magnitude. That spread is why component-level material data matters more than total tonnage.

Do I need a life cycle assessment?

In Oregon, sometimes yes, in two different ways. The voluntary eco-modulation bonuses all require an LCA conducted under DEQ's life cycle evaluation rules, with a compliant project report and third-party verification. Separately, Oregon requires its largest producers to submit mandatory life cycle evaluations on DEQ templates, first due December 31, 2026. Neither is a general requirement in California or Colorado today.

The programs are being sued. Can I wait?

No. Six challenges are live, including a seventeen-state action against California filed in June 2026, and the seventh, the Oregon case tried in July 2026, was decided for Oregon on August 27, 2026 without disturbing any producer obligation and is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. None of the EPR challenges has produced an injunction reaching producers generally, and on the free public record deadlines and penalties remain in force. An October 9, 2026 entry in Lollicup v. Feldon labeled Stay (ECF 13) has no text on the free docket, so its effect is not yet known. The litigation tracker carries every active case and what each one does and does not pause.

How much of this can I hand to the PRO?

The administration, but not the judgment or the data. CAA runs the portal, validates submissions, files with the agencies, and invoices you, but it cannot tell you which entity is obligated, cannot build your bill of materials, and has no view on whether your packaging should change.

What mistake comes up most often?

Importing a rule from somewhere else, such as a European mechanism applied to a U.S. state, one state's bonus assumed to exist in another, or last year's threshold assumed to still hold. The programs look similar and differ in the places that cost money.

If you are behind

Guidance

Register and disclose rather than waiting until the data is complete. In every operating state, CAA’s policies separate a producer that never registered from one whose report is late and accept a first report built on a documented supply estimate, and California’s penalty statute also weighs timely correction and voluntary reporting. Record your method and your assumptions as you go; that record is what makes an estimate defensible later.

Talk through the recovery path

CAA registration rules for corporate groups

Confirmed

CAA's registration policy sets four rules for how a corporate group registers and who inside it may act, and none of them appears in a state statute.

A deal must be reported within 30 days. A producer must notify CAA within 30 days of any business change that affects its obligations, including a sale, merger, or acquisition, and must name the other party. The same 30-day clock covers any change to the information given at registration. If you buy or sell a brand, the EPR notification is part of closing, not part of next year's reporting.

Your two binding roles must be employees. The Authorized Representative and the Primary Contact must be employees of the company. CAA does not verify anyone's authority to bind you or to file on your behalf, and says that confirming it is your job. An outside adviser can be named a Reporting Contact, which can prepare and edit a report but cannot submit it. Whoever prepares your data, the signature and the submission stay inside your company.

Every EIN registers separately. Each parent, subsidiary and affiliate with its own EIN completes its own registration form, signs its own Participant Producer Agreement, and signs its own addendum in each state. Two exceptions let a parent sign once on behalf of subsidiaries, but they are signing conveniences only: the policy requires you to "register all EINs separately as described above in all cases."

One day of supply brings the whole year’s obligations. Supply covered materials at any point in a program year and the registration, reporting, and fee obligations apply for that year, and the policy offers no partial-year exit, which matters when you enter a state late, discontinue a line, or divest mid-year.

Source: CAA Registration Policy v1.0 (June 2025), sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, and 4, with the Reporting Contact limit from Reporting Policy v2.0 section 3.2. CAA states separately that it does not decide whether you are a producer: that determination is yours to make and to defend.

What California's 2027 fees have to cover

Signaled

CAA's final draft program plan, submitted to CalRecycle on October 13, 2026, says its five-year budget “will be fully financed through annual producer fees for covered materials.” CAA also says it will keep a separate fee mechanism for administrative, legal, and other organizational operating costs that plan implementation revenues do not fund. The figures below are CAA's proposed budget from chapter 8.3.1, Table 1 of that plan, in millions of dollars.

2027: $1,105. 2028: $1,360 to $2,210. 2029: $1,605 to $2,785. 2030: $1,820 to $3,380. 2031: $1,920 to $3,570. Five-year total: $7,810 to $13,050. CAA calls its 2027 figure a balanced estimate, a 50/50 forecast, and gives low and high scenarios for 2028 to 2031. In those four years the high case is about 1.6 to 1.9 times the low case, a measure of how unsettled the costs still are.

By the high case, the largest lines across five years are the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund at a flat $2,500, processing capital and operating at $1,365 to $2,350, reuse and refill and source reduction at $901 to $1,975, end markets incentives and REMs at $269 to $1,410, collection capital and operating at $471 to $1,140, and education and outreach at $740 to $924. Note that the mitigation fund appears here as a budget line at exactly $500 million a year, which is the PRC 42064(e)(1) surcharge: it is both a statutory obligation and a cost the fees must fund.

CAA published preliminary 2027 rates on October 1, 2026, non-binding until CalRecycle approves the program plan, so treat any 2027 California number, including ours, as provisional until then. The budget figures above are also proposed until then, and CAA notes that budget line items may not precisely equal program year totals because of rounding.

California's $500 million surcharge is assessed on the PRO, and your share follows your plastic packaging

Confirmed

This is the payment that sits on top of EPR fees in California, and the September 2026 veto of SB 1180 put it back in the news. Source: Public Resources Code section 42064.

It is a flat statutory amount imposed on the PRO, not on you. Section 42064(e)(1): commencing in the 2027 calendar year and annually thereafter, a PRO pays an environmental mitigation surcharge of $500,000,000 each year. It is not set per ton, per material, or per unit of revenue. Producers meet it as a share the PRO passes down, and PRC 42064(f) and 14 CCR 18980.6.7(g) set each producer's share by the weight of its plastic covered material and its number of plastic components.

Up to $150 million can come from resin, and the shortfall comes back to you. Under 42064(e)(2) the PRO may collect up to $150,000,000 from plastic resin manufacturers selling plastic covered material to its participants. If it does not collect that money, the PRO "is still responsible for the total remittance", so whatever is not recovered upstream lands on participant producers.

$500 million is the statutory amount, with a 2030 review. Section 42064(i): in 2030 CalRecycle determines whether the surcharge "should be increased", based on the evaluation under PRC 42057(h). If the number of plastic components or the weight of plastic covered material in the state has changed, CalRecycle adjusts the amount by regulation in proportion, and a PRO must conform the surcharge it imposes on its participant producers to the adjusted amount. The statute states no floor and no ceiling.

The surcharge is collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration rather than CalRecycle, due 30 days from assessment and remitted by electronic funds transfer, with CalRecycle sending CDTFA the list of liable persons each March 1 from 2027. The section is repealed on January 1, 2037 under 42064(n), so the surcharge runs for the 2027 through 2036 calendar years. Packaging design cannot lower the $500 million total, but it does move your share, because each producer's share is set by its plastic weight and number of plastic components. Your exposure moves with your share of plastic weight and plastic components supplied into California and with how much the PRO recovers from resin, so reducing plastic reduces your share. The vetoed SB 1180 concerned how the fund is spent, not how it is assessed, so nothing about your payment changed.

How a material enters or leaves California's covered material category list, and the April 1 cut-off

Confirmed

The CMC list sets the category a covered material is reported in, its recyclability and compostability determinations, and its estimated recycling rate. The mechanism for changing it sits in the adopted SB 54 regulations at 14 CCR 18980.2.5 and 18980.2.6, effective May 1, 2026.

CalRecycle updates it, not the PRO. The Department reviews and, where necessary, updates the list on the schedule in PRC 42061(e) or (f) or PRC 42082(a). One timing rule is easy to get wrong: the review period runs on calendar years, expressly not from the date of the most recent update, so a mid-cycle change does not restart the clock. An update is required when new information or changed circumstances render the list out of date, incomplete, or otherwise inaccurate.

The deadline that matters to producers is April 1. Under 18980.2.5(f)(1), information submitted after April 1 in a given year is considered for that year's update only if CalRecycle decides it is "sufficiently limited" that it can be evaluated before January 1 of the next year. In practice April 1 is the cut-off for influencing that year's list. A PRO, participant producer, or independent producer may also formally recommend changes under 18980.2.6, on the same timing.

Do not read the one-year delay as a grace period. 18980.2.5(g) delays effect by a year only for updates that impose additional obligations on local jurisdictions or recycling service providers under PRC 42060.5(a). It does not delay producer obligations. If a material of yours sits near a recyclability or rate threshold, the window to influence the list is the spring before the update, and characterization studies and needs assessments feed the determination, so study workshops bear on fees as well as labels.

Correcting a filed report: resubmission, correction, and adjustment

Confirmed

These are the three ways a filed report gets corrected, and they pair with the Inaccurate Reporting Charge in the next section. The source is CAA's Reporting Policy v2.0, June 2026, sections 3.8, 3.11, and 3.12, and procedure 4.4.

1. Resubmission, before the data is finalized. Open to Participants in Good Standing, and it is not automatic: requests are subject to CAA approval and may be limited in timing, frequency, and scope. An approved resubmission you do not then file promptly may be treated as an unsubmitted report, which moves you into the late-report consequences. Once a report is no longer eligible for resubmission, Adjustment is the only route left.

2. Correction, which CAA starts, not you. CAA may require a Correction where a report is inaccurate, incomplete, or inconsistent with program requirements. Corrections are mandatory and must be addressed within the timeframe CAA sets in its outreach. A significant Correction requires you, on request, to submit a corrective action plan.

3. Adjustment, the route you start once the resubmission window has closed. Only Participants in Good Standing may request one, and its limits need planning. One Adjustment per report per report year, so bundle every change into a single request. Within 24 months of the Report Date, with nothing allowed after that. And if CAA comes back for more information, you have 30 calendar days; miss it and the request is closed and the Adjustment rejected. The policy's procedure 4.4 says to email the Adjustment Request Form to Producer.Support@circularaction.org with the subject line "Adjustment Request"; CAA's August 2026 bulletin says requests on 2026 reports are submitted "through the Help and Support tab in the Producer Portal", so use the portal. If it is approved, credits and debits follow.

What changed in August 2026. The June and July resubmission window for 2026 reports, covering 2025 data in all six states, is closed, so those changes now go through Adjustment. Oregon and Colorado 2025 reports, covering 2024 data, keep the prior process. If you suspect an error, raise it early, because there is one Adjustment per report, a 24-month limit, and a 30-day response window inside it.

State penalties and PRO charges

Confirmed

State penalties are the familiar layer, from Oregon's $25,000 per day to Colorado's escalating schedule and Minnesota's tiers. No state monetary packaging EPR penalty against a producer has been located, while the second layer, the PRO's own charges, is billed today.

Your PRO can charge you directly under the Participant Producer Agreement, with no agency involved and no enforcement decision required. These apply in every state where CAA operates.

Late payment. Interest at 1%, compounded monthly, on whatever is unpaid past the due date, running until it is paid. The policy sets no cap.

Inaccurate reporting. Up to $5,000 or the producer fees on the material you misreported, whichever is greater, so for a large producer with a large error the fee-based limit is the one that applies. CAA's definition of inaccurate reporting covers over-reporting, under-reporting, and reporting late, and it applies whether the error was accidental, careless, or deliberate. So a late report can draw this charge and the interest above.

Losing Good Standing. A past-due registration, report, or payment puts your account out of Good Standing. CAA may withhold credits you are owed until it is restored, and may notify the state regulator of your standing. Registering late also means reporting the earlier years, and CAA may charge interest on them, though it can waive or reduce it.

Self-reported errors corrected within 60 days carry no charge. CAA assesses no inaccurate reporting charge for an error you identify yourself and correct within 60 days of discovering it, so the cheapest time to raise a mistake in a filed report is the day you find it. Keep the working papers behind every filed number so that a correction can be evidenced.

Source: CAA Payment Policy v1.0 (June 2025), sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.8, and Reporting Policy v2.0 (June 2026), section 3.3. Both are public on CAA's producer policies page. These are contractual charges between a producer and its PRO. They are separate from, and additional to, the statutory penalties in each state's law.

If you find an error after filing, the route changed in August 2026

During the June and July review period CAA handled changes through a Report Resubmission. That window is closed. From August 2026, changes to a 2026 Producer Report (2025 data) in California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Maryland, or Washington go through a formal Report Adjustment request, submitted through the Help and Support tab in the Producer Portal.

CAA follows up on any request that is missing any of the six things it asks for: the producer company name; the state and report year; an explanation of the change; the categories impacted; the number of pounds increased or decreased; and a Corrective Action Plan setting out how the company will prevent inaccuracies in future reports.

The Corrective Action Plan needs the most preparation, because it cannot be written from the corrected number alone, and a producer without the working papers behind the original filing will struggle to explain why the error will not recur. Only Participants in Good Standing may request an Adjustment once the Resubmission period has closed (Reporting Policy v2.0, section 3.12), so a past-due payment can block the cure for a reporting error. The adjustment processes for the Oregon and Colorado 2025 reports (2024 data) are unchanged, with their own request forms in the Producer Portal's Guidance and Tools article.

Source: CAA Producer Actions and Key Dates, August 2026 edition, and CAA Reporting Policy v2.0 (June 2026), sections 3.8 and 3.12. As of October 1, 2026, CAA's Producer Resource Center still linked only the August 2026 edition, although CAA's September newsletter refers to a September issue sent to registered producers.

Alcohol packaging: one wine bottle under three different rules

A 750 ml glass wine bottle sold into California, Maine, and Oregon is tested under a different rule in each, so a national producer cannot carry one answer across states.

California excludes it, at any size. PRC 42041(e)(2)(E) excludes beverage containers subject to the Beverage Container Recycling Act, and 14 CCR 18980.2(c) routes that to PRC 14504 and 14505. Wine is a beverage at 14504(a)(11); a glass container survives the 14504(b)(1) carve-out; and 14505 covers the bottle as a receptacle in which a beverage is sold. Neither section carries a volume ceiling, so a magnum is excluded on the same footing as a split.

Maine excludes it only at 4 liters and under. 38 MRSA 2146(1)(I)(2) excludes "a beverage container, as defined in section 3102, subsection 2, subject to the requirements of chapter 33", and 3102(2) defines that as a container "sealed by a manufacturer and at the time of sale contains 4 liters or less of a beverage". Wine and spirits are beverages at 3102(1). So a format above 4 liters stays covered material, and the container has to be subject to Maine's deposit system rather than merely resemble one.

Oregon does not exclude it at all. ORS 459A.863(6)(b)(A) and (P) exempt beverage containers and wine or spirit containers that carry an Oregon refund value. SB 1520 (2022) extended that refund value to wine in cans only, from July 1, 2025, and ORS 459A.702(3) excludes "wine in a container other than a can". So glass wine has no Oregon refund value and is covered material, priced at the glass rate.

The California closure question is partly settled. PRC 14505 defines the beverage container as the receptacle. A cork, screwcap, or capsule is not a receptacle, and the section says nothing about closures. Neither the adopted SB 54 regulation text nor CalRecycle’s May 11, 2026 scope guidance answers the question directly, but two points that were open are now settled.

The closure is a separate item from the bottle, and the regulation says so about excluded packaging specifically. 14 CCR 18980.1(a)(12) defines “item” to apply “with respect to covered material, packaging, or food service ware, including packaging and food service ware that is excluded from the definition of covered material or exempt from requirements of the Act”, then states: “A group of physically connected non-detachable components is a single item. Detachable components are distinct items.” A screwcap detaches without tools and a cork is removed through ordinary use before the bottle is discarded, so both are detachable under 18980.1(a)(4)(C). It follows that the bottle’s exclusion is not automatically the closure’s exclusion, because the two are not the same item, and the regulation applies that unit of analysis to excluded packaging on its face.

A plastic closure has no de minimis route out. 14 CCR 18980.2.2(b) makes material of de minimis weight or volume not packaging at all, but 18980.2.2(b)(2)(A) allows that only where the component “is not an independent plastic component”. 18980.2.2(b)(1)(B) defines an independent plastic component as one that wholly or partially comprises plastic, is detachable, and is “not a coating, film, tape, sticker, label, or other sheet-like material adhered to the surface of another component”. A plastic screwcap meets all three, so it can never be de minimis. A natural cork is not plastic and is not blocked by that clause, but it would still have to clear five further tests at (b)(2)(B) through (F), and de minimis status is granted by CalRecycle on a published list under (b)(3) and (b)(4) rather than claimed by the producer.

CalRecycle has not decided whether a closure is covered. CalRecycle published Identifying Covered Materials: Guidance For Producers on May 11, 2026. It carries the beverage-container exclusion and qualifies it exactly once, in a footnote: “Secondary and tertiary packaging of beverage containers are considered as covered material.” A closure is primary packaging, so the footnote does not reach it, and nothing else in the eight pages mentions a cap, lid, or closure in the beverage context. The guidance says of itself that it is informational only and that the statute or regulation controls where they conflict.

The closest CalRecycle has come is in its rulemaking record. Wine Institute’s comment on the proposed regulations asked for clarity on “small components of wine bottles or boxes”, “such as corks and capsules” (SB 54 45-Day Comment Matrix, comment I-62-7). CalRecycle rejected the request the comment was making, which was about setting small components aside until de minimis determinations are made, and added that “the components identified may, in any event, be parts of beverage containers and therefore are not covered material (see Public Resources Code section 42041(e)(2)(E)).” That points toward the closure being excluded with the bottle. It is a “may” in a comment response rather than regulation text, and CalRecycle did not return to it when Wine Institute repeated the comment in the 15-day round or in its Final Statement of Reasons.

The Beverage Container Recycling Program regulations, 14 CCR Division 2, Chapter 5, pull in both directions. They do not define “beverage container” at all, leaving the base definition in PRC 14505, and “Rejected Container” at section 2000(41) attaches “container tops, lids, or other components” to the container only where the top or lid itself bears the CRV message required by PRC 14561, which a wine cork or screwcap normally does not. The SB 1013 permanent regulations, effective July 9, 2026, go the other way for one report: section 2240(b)(3)(C) requires the plastic-content report to include “any component that is part of or affixed to the beverage container at the point of sale, such as caps, labels, straws, or dispensing valves.” That report covers plastic containers and plastic-component cartons and pouches, not glass, so it shows how the deposit program counts a cap rather than answering the SB 54 question.

The bottle is out at any size. The closure is a distinct item, CalRecycle has not decided whether it is covered, and the signals split, with CalRecycle’s comment response and the plastic-report rule pointing one way and the item definition and section 2000(41) pointing the other, and the de minimis route is closed for plastic. Treat a plastic closure as covered material until CalRecycle decides, and put the question to CalRecycle and CAA producer support in writing rather than assume the exclusion carries. We will publish the answer here when one exists.

Maine drafted the same definition differently. 38 MRSA 3102(2) describes a container "sealed by a manufacturer", where California's PRC 14505 says only "receptacle". Maine's wording brings the seal into the description of the thing being defined; California's does not mention it. That is a textual difference rather than a decided one, and no Maine guidance has been found applying it to a closure, so it is offered as a reason the two states may not land in the same place rather than as an answer for either.

Sources: CalRecycle, SB 54 Final Regulation Text, OAL approved and effective May 1, 2026, 169 pages, sections 18980.1(a)(4), 18980.1(a)(12), 18980.2, and 18980.2.2, read 2026-09-21; CalRecycle, Identifying Covered Materials: Guidance For Producers of Single-Use Packaging and Single-Use Plastic Food Service Ware, May 11, 2026, read 2026-09-21; PRC 14504 and 14505, and 38 MRSA 3102, all read and archived 2026-09-20; 38 MRSA 2146(1)(I)(2); ORS 459A.863(6)(b), Oregon SB 1520, and OLCC guidance; CalRecycle CMC Reporting Guidance, September 8, 2025; 14 CCR Division 2, Chapter 5 (Division of Recycling), CalRecycle edition of regulations in effect January 1, 2024, sections 2000(38) and 2000(41), read 2026-09-20; CalRecycle, SB 54 45-Day Comment Matrix, comment I-62-7 and response, pages 77 and 78, and 15-Day Comment Matrix, comment O-23-1 and response, read 2026-09-30; CalRecycle, SB 1013 Final Regulation Text, section 2240(b), effective July 9, 2026, read 2026-09-30.

Latest Updates

Each entry covers a regulatory change and what it means for a producer.

This tab shows the last two weeks of regulatory and site updates, and a button under each section opens the earlier entries. Every entry links to its full write-up, with sources for each regulatory entry, and the complete archive keeps every entry published since the Atlas launched at a permanent address.

Jump to site updates

Regulatory and policy

Updated Oct 21, 2026

RegulatoryCAWeek of Oct 19

CalRecycle Confirms It Received CAA's California Plan and Has 75 Days to Act

CalRecycle received CAA’s plan on October 13, 2026 and acts within 75 calendar days of receipt, a window that ends December 27, 2026. Its Advisory Board meets November 6. Full entry and sources

LitigationORWeek of Oct 19

NAW Files a Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal in Its Oregon Case

NAW filed a motion for a stay pending appeal in NAW v. Feldon on October 16, 2026. As of the free docket's last update, on the morning of October 20, it showed no ruling, and the docket text does not say what NAW asks the court to stay. Full entry and sources

RegulatoryMNWeek of Oct 19

CAA Sets December 8 for Registered Minnesota Producers to Add Their Brand Information

CAA posted a notice in its Producer Portal saying it will leave out of its next submission to the Minnesota regulator any producer that has not entered its brands in the Brand Management tab by December 8, 2026. Full entry and sources

LitigationCOWeek of Oct 12

Auto Care Association Moves to Join NAW's Challenge to Colorado's EPR Law

The Auto Care Association asked the federal court in Denver on October 15, 2026, to join NAW v. Ryan as a plaintiff. As of October 16, the court had not ruled on NAW's preliminary injunction motion, and no order blocks Colorado's program. Full entry and sources

RegulatoryCAWeek of Oct 12

CAA Takes Comments on Its Draft California Reimbursement Application Through November 3

CAA is taking comments through November 3, 2026, on its draft application for how eligible entities will request reimbursement for covered costs under SB 54, and invites local jurisdictions, recycling service providers, Tribes, and other interested parties to comment. Full entry and sources

RegulatoryCAWeek of Oct 12

CAA Submits Final Draft California Plan to CalRecycle

CAA submitted its final draft California program plan to CalRecycle on October 13, 2026, with the same 2027 rates the Atlas already shows and a 5 percent bonus and malus for 2027. Nothing is binding until CalRecycle approves the plan, and CAA does not intend to add eco-modulation factors for 2028. Full entry and sources

LitigationCAWeek of Oct 5

Food and Packaging Groups Move to Add SB 54 Claims to Their SB 343 Lawsuit

On October 8, 2026, the trade groups suing over SB 343 asked the court to let them add claims against SB 54 and name the CalRecycle and CDTFA directors as defendants, with the motion noticed for November 9. Nothing changes yet; SB 54 registration, reporting, and fees continue. Full entry and sources

Fee UpdateCOWeek of Oct 5

Interchange 360 Posts Its 2027 Colorado Eco-Modulation Guidance

Interchange 360’s 2027 guidance takes 5 percent off Colorado lubricant packaging dues for containers averaging 25 percent or more North American recycled content, on top of the state’s 1 percent bonuses. If your containers qualify, gather the certification and claim the bonus through Interchange 360, with renewals due each January 31. Full entry and sources

Fee UpdateWAWeek of Sep 28

CAA Publishes 2027 Washington Early Fees

CAA published eight per-pound Washington early fee rates for 2027 on October 1, 2026, from $0.002 to $0.030 by material category. It has not said when it will invoice them, so watch for CAA’s notice and see the rates on the Washington page. Full entry and sources

Fee UpdateCOWeek of Sep 28

Interchange 360 Moves Colorado Lubricant Packaging Dues to Material-Based Rates in 2027

From January 1, 2027, Interchange 360 charges Colorado lubricant packaging dues by material, from $0.76 to $1.88 per gallon, instead of a flat $0.56. If you sell automotive fluids into Colorado, rebudget 2027, because a PET or PP container more than triples. Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodWAWeek of Sep 28

Washington Opens Comment on Its Draft Preliminary Needs Assessment

Ecology is taking comment on its draft preliminary needs assessment through October 30, 2026. It sets the baseline for the program your Washington fees will fund, so flag gaps that affect your materials now. Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodRIWeek of Sep 28

Rhode Island Sets a Comment Period and Hearing on Its Packaging EPR Implementation Analysis

RIDEM takes comment on its draft analysis of a packaging EPR program and a deposit return system from October 15 to November 16, 2026, with a hearing November 4. There is no obligation today; the final report, with its findings and recommendations, goes to the Governor and legislative leaders by December 1, 2026. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Full entry and sources

LitigationORWeek of Sep 28

NAW’s Oregon Appeal Gets a Ninth Circuit Briefing Schedule

The Ninth Circuit set briefing in NAW’s appeal (No. 26-6404) to run into January 2027, and no stay has been sought. Oregon’s law stands, so keep registering, reporting, and paying. Full entry and sources

LitigationCAWeek of Sep 28

Court Denies Environmental Groups’ Bid to Defend California’s SB 343

The court denied two environmental groups leave to intervene in the SB 343 case on September 28, 2026, so it stays between the plaintiff groups and the Attorney General. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) The injunction stands; keep designing to SB 343, which feeds your SB 54 fees. Full entry and sources

Fee UpdateORCOCAWeek of Sep 28

CAA Publishes 2027 Fee Schedules for Oregon, Colorado, and California

CAA published 2027 rates on October 1, 2026: Oregon down a median 48% on returned reserves, Colorado up on 44 of 61 materials, and California preliminary, with clear PET at 41 cents per pound. Re-run your 2027 budget and plan January cash for California. Full entry and sources

EnforcementORWeek of Sep 28

Oregon Publishes Its Second Producer Status List, Naming 198 Producers

DEQ’s September 4, 2026 list names 198 producers that did not register, report, or pay after warnings, down from 304 in April. Not being on the list is not proof of good standing. Full entry and sources

LegislativeCAWeek of Sep 21

Newsom Vetoes AB 2253 on Recycled Content Claims

Governor Newsom vetoed AB 2253 on September 27, 2026, so California’s recycled content documentation rules will not expand to all products in 2030. Nothing changes for you. Full entry and sources

LitigationORWeek of Sep 21

NAW Appeals the Oregon EPR Ruling to the Ninth Circuit

NAW appealed the ruling that upheld Oregon’s law on September 24, 2026, without seeking a stay. Nothing changes in Oregon: keep registering, reporting, and paying. Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodORWeek of Sep 21

Oregon Proposes New Packaging Exemptions in Its Third RMA Rulemaking

DEQ proposes new exemptions, including leased reusable containers, raw meat film, and some industrial packaging, new conditions on the existing ag-chemical exemption, and lighter glass duties. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) If one fits your packaging, comment by 4 p.m. October 30, 2026; until then, keep reporting as today. (Corrected October 1: the garbage-bag exclusion is already in force.) (Corrected October 7, 2026: the exemption for ag-chemical HDPE containers eligible for Ag Container Recycling Council collection is already in force at OAR 340-090-0840(2)(d)(D). Rulemaking 3 would make it subject to new conditions in a new OAR 340-090-0841 rather than create it.) Update, October 7, 2026: CAA’s 2027 Oregon Producer Fees Schedule, published October 1, 2026, sets Glass Bottles and Jars & Other Containers at a base rate of 4 cents per pound and a final rate of zero after reserve drawdowns (CAA, 2027 Oregon Producer Fees Schedule). Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodORWeek of Sep 21

Oregon Opens Comment on Changes to Its Covered Material Categories

CAA proposes new Oregon reporting categories: PET thermoforms get their own line, and aluminum foil, PP and HDPE tubs, and nursery pots split out. If you sell these items, comments were due by October 19, 2026. Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodCAWeek of Sep 21

CalRecycle Opens Feedback on the Study That Defines Recyclable in California

CalRecycle consulted on the scope of the 2027 study that decides which packages may claim to be recyclable in California. Nothing to do now, but a material the study does not measure cannot pass the test later. (Corrected October 7, 2026: this entry is dated September 21, 2026, before the September 29 workshop it describes, so it should have reported the workshop as scheduled rather than held.) Full entry and sources

LegislativeCAWeek of Sep 21

Newsom Vetoes SB 1180; AB 2253 Still Undecided

Governor Newsom vetoed SB 1180, which would have set rules for spending from California’s plastic mitigation fund, on September 20, 2026. Your payments through the PRO are unaffected. (Update: AB 2253 was vetoed September 27.) Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodCACAAWeek of Sep 21

CAA Opens Comment on the California Funding and Services Agreement

CAA takes comment through October 24, 2026 on what it will pay California recycling and reuse service providers. Producers have nothing to file. (Corrected October 8, 2026: the ranking of these payments as the largest input to future fees is withdrawn, because no source establishes it. The draft California Funding and Services Agreement and Project Schedules set the terms on which CAA will pay California recycling and reuse service providers, and CAA’s page gives the comment period as August 26 to October 24, 2026.) Full entry and sources

LegislativeFederalWeek of Sep 14

The PACK Act and the RMAA Clear the Full Energy and Commerce Committee

On September 16, 2026 the full House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to report the PACK Act (H.R. 6832), 25 to 18, and the Recycled Materials Attribution Act (H.R. 7502), 28 to 19. The PACK Act sets requirements for recyclable, compostable, and reusable packaging claims; the RMAA prohibits misleading recycled content claims and would accept mass balance. As introduced, both preempt state law. Neither has a House floor date, and the Library of Congress lists no Senate companion for either. Nothing changes today. Full entry and sources

LitigationCOWeek of Sep 14

Colorado Responds to NAW's Injunction Motion in Federal Court

In NAW v. Ryan (D. Colo., No. 1:26-cv-03460-PAB), CDPHE Executive Director Jill Hunsaker Ryan filed her response to NAW’s August 5, 2026 preliminary injunction motion on September 16, 2026 (ECF 15). Her answer is due October 5 (ECF 13), and a telephone scheduling conference is set for October 21 at 11:30 a.m. (ECF 12). The docket, as last refreshed September 21, 2026, shows no reply and no ruling, so nothing in this case has paused Colorado’s program. Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodMNWeek of Sep 14

Minnesota Opens Comment on Its Draft Needs Assessment

MPCA has published the draft 2026 Needs Assessment for the Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act, prepared by Eunomia, and opened a 60-day comment period. It opened September 14, 2026 and closes November 13, 2026. In scope: a baseline for recycling rates, where to invest in collection, sorting, and end markets, a recommended methodology for service provider reimbursement rates, sustainable design, and education and outreach. The reimbursement methodology bears on what producers will eventually pay, and Minnesota has no published producer fee yet. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) (Corrected October 7, 2026: February 1, 2029 is the date by which reimbursement rates must reach at least 50 percent of net cost, not the date a cost share starts (Minn. Stat. 115A.1455, subd. 4(a)). The PRO may already charge member producers a fee to cover MPCA’s costs (Minn. Stat. 115A.1443, subd. 3(c)).) (Corrected October 8, 2026: “the cheapest point at which to influence the number” is withdrawn, because no source measures it. The comment period closes November 13, 2026, while Minnesota has no published producer fee.) Full entry and sources

UpdateMEWeek of Sep 14

Maine Will Rewrite Its Stewardship Organization RFP

DEP has said what it will do after RFP-202605094 closed August 18, 2026 with zero proposals and CAA declined to bid. A September 11, 2026 newsletter says the Department will revise the request for proposals. Its program page places the program at step four of nine, Contracting with a SO, and says the schedule is being reassessed. No reissue date has been given and there is no open solicitation, so every downstream Maine obligation still hangs off a contract that does not exist. (Corrected October 7, 2026: DEP’s program page status line names step four “Contracting an SO”.) (Corrected October 7, 2026: under Chapter 428 the start-up registration fee is due within 180 days of the SO entering into a contract with DEP, as invoiced by the SO, so its clock runs from the contract rather than from registration.) Full entry and sources

LitigationORWeek of Sep 14

The Oregon Enforcement Pause Date Has Passed With No Extension on the Docket

The July 16, 2026 stipulation in Lollicup USA v. Feldon paused DEQ pre-enforcement notices against Oregon producers above the de minimis thresholds that are not covered by the NAW injunction through at least August 31, 2026. After August 31 the docket shows ECF 11, the joint motion, and ECF 12, the September 10 order that moved the status report to October 16. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) No extension, amended stipulation or dismissal appears on the public docket. The parties could extend by written agreement without filing it, so the record cannot tell a quiet extension from a pause that expired. Do not treat it as still in force. (Corrected October 8, 2026: the public docket, as mirrored on September 21, shows two entries after August 31, the parties’ joint motion to extend the status report deadline (ECF 11, September 9) and the order granting it (ECF 12, September 10), which moved the joint status report to October 16, 2026.) Full entry and sources

UpdateMDWeek of Sep 14

Maryland issued a September 2026 compliance guide for its packaging EPR rules

MDE posted a 36-page Compliance Guide with FAQs for COMAR 26.04.14, marked Rev 1, September 2026. It is guidance, not new law. It also states the registration duty more loosely than the regulation does: COMAR .07A(1) puts the July 1 filing on the PRO and on Individual Producer Responsibility Plan producers, while a PRO member reports to its PRO on the PRO-set date under .07A(2). (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Three dates the guide states plainly and that are now on this site: the recurring annual deadline is June 30 from 2027, IPPs are due July 1, 2028, and from October 29, 2028 no producer may sell covered materials in Maryland without an approved plan on file. CAA members: nothing changes today. Update, September 24, 2026: COMAR 26.04.14.07C(1) does set one part of the MDE registration fee: the record-keeping component is capped at $1,000 a year (“not to exceed $1,000”), alongside the costs of the 9-2508 list and of regulations and, from 2028, service-provider registration. No total amount is published. Full entry and sources

LitigationCAORWeek of Sep 14

Two dates now govern the SB 343 and Oregon cases

CLFP v. Bonta, the case behind July's preliminary injunction against SB 343 labeling enforcement, has an early neutral evaluation set for October 28, 2026. The window for NAW to notice an appeal of the August 28 judgment upholding Oregon's Recycling Modernization Act runs out around September 28, thirty days from judgment, and no notice appears on the public record as of September 14. That is a search of the record rather than a docket read. Nothing changes for you today in either state: SB 343 enforcement stays enjoined against the Attorney General, and Oregon stays in force for every producer that was not an NAW member as of February 6, 2026. Update, September 24, 2026: in CLFP v. Bonta a motion to continue was filed September 22 and an order on it entered September 23, 2026 (ECF 32, 33); the order’s terms are not yet public, so the October 19 joint discovery plan and October 28 early neutral evaluation dates may have moved (CourtListener docket 72503977, accessed September 24, 2026). Update, October 7, 2026: NAW filed its notice of appeal on September 24, 2026 (ECF 209), and the Ninth Circuit docketed it on September 30 as No. 26-6404, with NAW’s opening brief due December 17, 2026 and the Director’s answering brief due January 18, 2027. Neither docket, as mirrored October 1 and 2, 2026, shows a motion for a stay. Full entry and sources

Fee UpdateCAWeek of Sep 6

California early fee payment is due within 45 days of the August invoice

CAA scheduled California Early Fee invoicing for the week of August 17, 2026, with payment due within 45 days of the invoice date, which puts the first payments due around October 1 to October 5, 2026. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Late payment carries CAA's 1 percent compounded monthly charge. Early Fees are separate from 2027 EPR Fees even though both derive from your 2025 California Supply Report, and the May 2026 Illustrative Fees are non-binding estimates rather than the rates you will be invoiced. CAA publishes final 2027 California rates on or before October 1, 2026. Update, September 24, 2026: the due window above was miscalculated. Forty-five days from invoices issued the week of August 17, 2026 (Monday August 17 to Friday August 21) falls on October 1 to October 5, 2026, not September 25 to October 1. The due date printed on your invoice controls (CAA, Producer Actions and Key Dates, August 2026: invoices the week of Aug. 17, 2026, “with payment due within 45 days of the invoice date”). Update, September 25, 2026: the week of August 17 is the invoice date CAA scheduled, not a confirmed issue date. CAA’s August 2026 bulletin says it “will issue California Early Fee invoices the week of Aug. 17, 2026”, and its Producer Report Planning table lists “Aug 2026 (one installment)” as the estimated invoice date. No later CAA document confirms when the invoices went out, so treat the dates in this entry as CAA’s schedule. The due date printed on your invoice controls. Update, October 1, 2026: CAA’s September 29, 2026 newsletter tells producers to pay their California Early Fee invoices, so the invoices have been issued; CAA has not published the date they went out. Update, October 2, 2026: CAA published the 2027 California rates on October 1 as preliminary rates, non-binding until CalRecycle approves the program plan. Full entry and sources

LitigationCOWeek of Sep 6

ILMA has asked a Colorado court to pause EPR obligations for its members

ILMA says that on August 18, 2026 it filed a motion for preliminary injunction in its Denver District Court case against CDPHE, asking the court to bar enforcement against ILMA members of the contracting, reporting, and dues obligations imposed through the CAA program plan and the LPMA individual producer plan. ILMA is not asking the court to halt the whole program. No ruling has issued, and NAW's separate August injunction motion is also unruled. Colorado dues remain due on the published schedule. This corrects earlier entries saying ILMA had not sought an injunction. Update, September 24, 2026: the August 18 filing rests on ILMA’s own release; the Denver District Court docket is not public, so the Atlas carries the motion as ILMA’s statement (signaled) until the filing or the docket is read. CDPHE’s motion to dismiss was reported pending as of June 2026 (Arnold and Porter, June 1, 2026); its current status is not confirmed. (Corrected October 7, 2026: a grant would not be the first such order anywhere. The District of Oregon’s February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction in NAW v. Feldon already barred DEQ from enforcing the Recycling Modernization Act against NAW and its members (ECF 205, note 13). A grant here would be the first such order in Colorado.) Full entry and sources

LegislativeFederalWeek of Sep 6

The federal PACK Act cleared its first subcommittee markup

On September 1, 2026 a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee voted to advance the PACK Act (H.R. 6832) to the full committee, adopting a Fulcher amendment on the FTC's guidance role and third-party certification requirements. No roll call was reported. It is a labeling harmonization bill, not an EPR bill, and its preemption provision would reach state labeling laws including the already-enjoined California SB 343. Nothing changes for you today. Update, September 24, 2026: the committee’s own vote summary records H.R. 6832 forwarded to the full committee by voice vote, and the Library of Congress bill status records it forwarded “(Amended)”. Rep. Weber’s office says the amendment was a substitute offered by Rep. Russ Fulcher that clarified the role of FTC guidance and set minimum requirements for third-party certifications. On September 16, 2026 the full committee reported the PACK Act to the House, 25 to 18 (Energy and Commerce Committee release, September 16, 2026). Full entry and sources

LegislativeCAWeek of Aug 30

California AB 2253 has passed the legislature and is on its way to the Governor

The Senate passed AB 2253 on August 28, 2026 by 27 ayes to 10 noes, and the Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments on August 30. The bill was enrolled on September 3, 2026 and has not been signed. Nothing changes for you now: its recycled content substantiation duties are operative January 1, 2030. The operative text is the August 21 Senate floor amendment, which permits five chain of custody models by name, including proportional attribution under ISO 22095-2:2026, subject to two limits: no recycling credits to any form of fuel use or fuel production, and no credit transfers between unrelated processes. Update, September 24, 2026: the Governor need not act. The bill was presented to him September 10, 2026, and a bill he does not return by September 30, 2026 becomes a statute without his signature (Cal. Const. art. IV, sec. 10(b)(2)). Update, September 30, 2026: Governor Newsom vetoed AB 2253 on September 27, 2026, so the bill does not become law (Office of the Governor, legislative update, September 27, 2026). (Corrected October 7, 2026: the August 21 text caps the claim at the third-party certified recycled content introduced into the manufacturer’s or supplier’s overall supply stream for that product line, not the producer’s.) Full entry and sources

UpdateRIWeek of Aug 30

Rhode Island names its needs assessment consultant, and the date to watch is September 1

Rhode Island's statewide study is being run by RRS, and its draft report is due to RIDEM on September 1, 2026, not December 1 as the headline date suggests. December 1 is when RIDEM hands the finished report to the Governor. A stand-alone packaging EPR program is one of five plans being costed, separately from a deposit return system and separately from the proposed legislation. Rhode Island has no EPR program and no producer obligation; the study's findings and recommendations go to the Governor and legislative leaders and may inform a future bill. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Update, October 4, 2026: RIDEM takes comment on the draft from October 15 to November 16, with a hearing November 4. Full entry and sources

LitigationORWeek of Aug 23

Oregon wins: court upholds the Recycling Modernization Act on every claim

On August 27, 2026 a federal judge held that the Recycling Modernization Act violates neither the dormant Commerce Clause nor the Due Process Clause, in the first ruling on a packaging EPR statute decided on a full trial record. Nothing changes for producers outside the February 6 injunction, which the opinion recites only as background and does not dissolve. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Update, October 7, 2026: NAW filed its notice of appeal on September 24, 2026 (ECF 209), and the Ninth Circuit docketed it on September 30 as No. 26-6404, with NAW’s opening brief due December 17, 2026 and the Director’s answering brief due January 18, 2027. Neither docket, as mirrored October 1 and 2, 2026, shows a motion for a stay.

Full entry and sources

DelayMEWeek of Aug 23

No One Bid to Run Maine Packaging EPR Program and the State Is Reassessing

Maine DEP's Stewardship Organization solicitation, RFP-202605094, closed August 18, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. with zero proposals submitted. DEP announced this on August 20 and said it is assessing all options. The Circular Action Alliance, the organization holding this role in six other states, publicly declined to bid, as Resource Recycling reported on August 19, saying the RFP scope did not align with its operational practices and data stewardship standards. Maine producers still have no registration, reporting, or fee obligation, because the clock only starts once a Stewardship Organization exists. Take Maine startup fees out of a late 2026 budget. Update, September 24, 2026: two points in this entry are corrected. The August 19 date is the date of Resource Recycling’s report, which says CAA announced its decision “this week”; CAA’s own Maine page says it “has decided not to submit a bid in response to Maine’s RFP”, and its August 2026 newsletter carries the statement. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Update, September 25, 2026: CAA’s August 2026 newsletter carries no send date; it is headed “August 2026” and lists press items dated August 20, so cite it as the August 2026 newsletter, not August 21. And the program had not sat at step four since December 2024: DEP’s program page lists step three as Packaging Material Types List Adoption, Chapter 428 was amended in March 2026, after its December 2024 adoption, to add that list as Appendix A, and step four, contracting with a Stewardship Organization, began with the June 15, 2026 RFP. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) (Corrected October 8, 2026: DEP’s announcement names no expected bidder, so CAA should not have been called the only one. CAA is the PRO in the six other enacted states, and its Maine page says the RFP “as scoped is not aligned with our operational practices, systems and data stewardship standards”.) Full entry and sources

LitigationCAWeek of Aug 23

Seventeen States and NAW Move to Block SB 54 Outright

On August 19, 2026 the plaintiffs in the multi-state challenge filed a preliminary injunction motion and an amended complaint, asking the court to stop CalRecycle and CAA from enforcing SB 54 while the case runs. The amendment adds a due process vagueness count built on the July 14 SB 343 ruling, arguing the 2032 recyclability mandate leans on a standard a federal court already enjoined as vague. Nothing changes today: no court has granted anything, and registration, reporting, and the 2026 early fee remain in force. Labeled confirmed. Corrected August 31, 2026: the docket is public, not sealed, and the permanent number is 2:26-cv-02214. The amended complaint and the injunction motion were both entered August 19, 2026, and the court has set the injunction hearing for January 15, 2027. Full entry and sources

RegulatoryWAWeek of Aug 23

Washington Advisory Council Published Its August 13 Votes and Both Passed

The outcomes we declined to guess at last week are now public. Vote 1, on the Statewide Lists Subcommittee's four recommendations, passed unanimously among voting members. Vote 2, expanding the Alternative Collection List to version 2, passed by majority with one no: Danielle Waterfield of AMERIPEN, on shredded paper being included without further evaluation. Version 2 narrows version 1, dropping small format paper, EPS food service and #2/#4/#5 plastic products, and cutting black pigmented rigid plastic from #1 through #7 down to #1, #2, and #5. That placement feeds recyclability determinations and therefore fees later. Full entry and sources

LegislativeCAWeek of Aug 23

California AB 2253 Was Amended on the Senate Floor With a Week Left

AB 2253 cleared Senate Appropriations 5-2 on August 13, reached third reading on August 17, then on August 21 was amended on the floor and sent back to second reading. It sits on the file for August 24 and there has been no floor vote, with adjournment around August 31 and Assembly concurrence still to come. The current text still does not ban credit-based mass balance. It expands PRC 42357.6 to all products making recycled content claims and requires certified supply-stream documentation, furnished to the Attorney General on request. Operative January 1, 2030. Update, October 7, 2026: AB 2253 passed the Senate 27 to 10 on August 28, 2026, the Assembly concurred 42 to 20 on August 30, and Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 27, 2026, so the bill does not become law (AB 2253 bill history; Governor’s veto message, September 27, 2026). Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodWAORWeek of Aug 23

Washington Posted New Draft Rule Text and Oregon Held Its Second Consultation

Both moved on August 19 and both are still open. Washington Ecology's rulemaking advisory committee for chapter 173-950 WAC held its second meeting on August 19, on draft rule language posted for comment from August 5 to September 2, 2026. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) CAA held the second of three Oregon consultation sessions feeding its 2028 to 2032 program plan. The eco-modulation session on August 12 has passed; the last session, on materials and the statewide collection list, is September 2. If maluses ever arrive in Oregon, this plan cycle is where they come from. Full entry and sources

DeadlineWAWeek of Aug 23

Washington Ecology Published a Single Needs Assessment Timeline

Ecology now carries one key dates table: draft preliminary needs assessment out for comment September 2026, final preliminary December 31, 2026, draft full September 2027, final full December 31, 2027. The August 13 council notes agree, recording a September 29 draft and an October 8 council meeting on it. This site had published no single date because three Ecology surfaces disagreed; that is now resolved. The preliminary needs assessment draws on the collection lists and estimates what existing recycling services in each county and city cost, and the needs assessments inform the producer responsibility plans that producer fees pay for. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Update, October 4, 2026: the comment period runs October 1 to 30, 2026. Full entry and sources

RegulatoryWAWeek of Aug 16

Washington Advisory Council Takes Two Votes on What the Statewide Recycling Lists Should Include

The Recycling Reform Act Advisory Council met August 13, 2026 and took up two votes on its Statewide Lists Subcommittee's recommendations: proposed feedback on the preliminary statewide collection lists, and recommended additions to the Alternative Collection List. The draft alternative list carries #1, #2, and #5 black pigmented rigid plastic, EPS non-food packaging, PE film, aerosols, and small format metal. Outcomes publish with the meeting notes within ten days. These lists become the yardstick your packaging is measured against once the program charges. Full entry and sources

LegislativeCOWeek of Aug 10

Colorado came one day short of putting a dues appeal process in statute

SB26-192 would have reaffirmed in statute a route for a producer to contest its eco-modulated dues before the state EPR Advisory Board, with a CDPHE determination in 45 days and judicial review after that. It passed the Senate 22-12 and cleared House committee on May 12, then was laid over to May 14. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) The legislature adjourned May 13. Colorado’s rule already lets a producer contest the eco-modulation factors in its dues before the advisory board after mediation (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 section 18.2.7, in the version effective July 15, 2026). NAW's Colorado suit, filed July 30, pleads that producers must give up their rights to due process of law and a federal judicial forum, and pay fees not even roughly proportional to their impacts, in order to sell in Colorado. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Full entry and sources

UpdateGAWeek of Aug 10

Georgia sets up a Senate recycling study committee

SR 610 passed the Georgia Senate 48-0 on March 31, 2026, creating a study committee on recycling that meets through the interim. Georgia's packaging EPR bill, HB 1237, had no action after its February 10, 2026 second reading in the House and did not leave committee this session. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Nothing to comply with and Georgia is not an EPR state, but the Senate voted 48-0 to create a recycling study committee, and a unanimous vote says more than a failed bill does. (Corrected October 8, 2026: the statement that a study committee is the normal first step on the path every enacted state took, which the heading repeated, is withdrawn, because no source establishes it. The 48-0 Senate vote creating the committee stands.) Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodWAWeek of Aug 10

Washington opens public comment on its draft recycling lists, closing August 19

Ecology took comment on the preliminary statewide collection lists from August 5 to 11:59 p.m. Pacific on August 19, 2026, through an online comment form. That window has closed. These lists decide which materials Washington will require to be collected statewide, and that becomes the yardstick your packaging is measured against once the program charges. Ecology has published no comment summary and no revised list as of September 7, and must develop the initial statewide collection lists by October 1, 2026 (E2SSB 5284 sec. 109(1)(a), which sets no publication date for the initial lists). (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Update (October 7, 2026): that date has passed; the Washington page shows where the lists stand. A separate comment period on the rule text itself closed September 2. Full entry and sources

LegislativeCAWeek of Aug 10

California AB 2253 clears suspense 5-2, and its mass balance ban is gone

Senate Appropriations sent AB 2253 out 5-2 on August 13, 2026, do pass as amended, and it now sits on the Senate second reading file. The substance moved the other way from what the bill was built on. The prohibition on credit-based mass balance accounting was struck by the July 2, 2026 amendment, and the August 13 amendment expressly permits proportional attribution as defined in ISO 22095-2:2026, provided no recycling credits go to fuel use or fuel production and there are no credit transfers between unrelated processes. That ISO standard, published in January 2026, is titled Chain of custody, Part 2: Requirements and guidelines for mass balance, and it defines proportional attribution as the assignment of credits to outputs in proportion to their share of total output. Credit assignment is the mass balance credit method. So the bill does not merely stop banning credit-based mass balance; it permits it by name, under the ISO term for it. Book and claim, which ISO covers in a separate Part 3 the bill does not cite, stays out. The expansion to all products begins January 1, 2030. Update, October 7, 2026: AB 2253 passed the Senate 27 to 10 on August 28, 2026, the Assembly concurred 42 to 20 on August 30, and Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 27, 2026, so the bill does not become law (AB 2253 bill history; Governor’s veto message, September 27, 2026). Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodORWeek of Aug 10

Oregon opens comment on the CAA annual report, due September 10

CAA filed its 2025 Oregon annual report on July 1, and DEQ is taking comment by email to RethinkRecycling@deq.oregon.gov until 5:00 p.m. Pacific on September 10, 2026. Nothing is required of you and no deadline of yours moves. The report states FY’25 producer fee revenue of $167.9 million against program expenses of $56.5 million, which makes it the document to cite if you later want to question a rate. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Full entry and sources

LegislativeFEDERALWeek of Aug 10

New Senate bill would study recycled content tracking, not regulate it

Sen. Adam Schiff introduced S. 5182, the Tracking Plastic Act of 2026, on July 30 and it went to Senate Commerce the same day. It creates a federal working group on how recycled plastic content should be measured and traced. It is not a recycled content standard: no target, no mandate, no change to any state obligation you already carry. Watch one duty it gives the working group, to describe a federal recycled plastic content tracking system that could help harmonize state recycled plastic content requirements, which is the same preemption question the PACK Act raises. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Full entry and sources

EnforcementORWeek of Aug 10

Oregon has not published its second noncompliance list, and the first one is now email only

DEQ named roughly 250 companies on its first quarterly producer status list on April 9. The second is overdue, and as of August 7 CAA still says it will post it “when available” while the April list is no longer downloadable anywhere. Do not read the gap as enforcement easing off: not appearing on an unpublished list is not the same as being in good standing, exposure still runs to $25,000 per day, and the stipulated pause on DEQ pre-enforcement notices for putative class members in Lollicup v. Feldon runs until at least August 31, 2026, and the parties may extend it in writing (as summarized by Arnold and Porter, July 22, 2026). (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Corrected October 1, 2026: the April list names 304 producers, not roughly 250, and DEQ’s second list, dated September 4, 2026, names 198. Full entry and sources

RecyclabilityCAWeek of Aug 3

CalRecycle raises carton sortation coverage to 62%, and that does not make cartons recyclable in California

A June 24, 2026 update letter added three large volume transfer and processing facilities that sort non-CRV gable-top and aseptic cartons into PSI Grade 52 bales, moving Table 2 of the SB 343 Final Findings Report from 18 counties served, 53%, to 21 counties, 62%. A follow-up letter on July 23 restated the same three facilities and the same figure against the covered material category codes. CalRecycle says in the letter itself that it "is not making any determination of recyclability with this update," so a higher figure here does not by itself make a carton recyclable in California. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Full entry and sources

Fee ScheduleCAWeek of Aug 3

CAA publishes California’s 2026 early fee schedule, six flat per-pound rates for this program year

Published July 20, 2026 and revised August 25, 2026: Glass and Ceramics 0.3 c/lb, Metal 0.8 c/lb, Paper and Fiber 0.4 c/lb, Plastic Rigid 1.3 c/lb, Plastic Flexible 2.5 c/lb, Wood and Other Organic Materials 0.8 c/lb. The August revision restates these same rates in dollars per pound and moves no rate and no category assignment. This is a separate instrument from the draft 2027 per-material schedule, and Table 2 maps each category to a defined list of covered material categories. Update, October 7, 2026: CAA published its 2027 California Producer Fees Schedule on October 1, 2026. Its rates “remain preliminary pending regulatory approval of the California program plan and should be considered non-binding until that process is complete.” Full entry and sources

LegislativeMAWeek of Jul 27

Massachusetts packaging EPR stalls as the formal session closes

The formal session ended July 31, 2026 with no floor vote on either bill. S.571 and H.926 both stayed in Ways and Means. Both bills remain pending in Ways and Means, and under Joint Rule 12A no formal business may be taken up after July 31 except in the cases the rule lists. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Update, September 24, 2026: S.571 and H.926 did not die on July 31, 2026. Joint Rule 12A provides that “all formal business of the second annual session shall be concluded not later than the last day of July”; a bill can still advance in an informal session before the 2025–2026 session ends. S.571 has had no action since its September 18, 2025 referral to Senate Ways and Means, so it is stalled, not dead (malegislature.gov, Joint Rules, and S.571 history, accessed September 24, 2026). Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodMNWeek of Jul 20

Minnesota opens packaging EPR rulemaking

MPCA’s Request for Comments under Minn. Stat. 115A.1455 closed July 24, 2026, docket sw-rule3-06a. This was a first-stage request rather than a proposed-rule comment period, so no draft rule text exists yet and further comment opportunities are expected before anything is adopted. Update, September 24, 2026: as first published this entry cited Minn. Stat. 115A.1455 and called sw-rule3-06a a docket. The Act is Minn. Stat. 115A.144 to 115A.1463, and sw-rule3-06a is MPCA’s document number for the Request for Comments (Revisor ID R-04992) (MPCA rulemaking page). Minnesota also sets no producer fee start date: February 1, 2029 is the first 50% reimbursement floor for service providers (Minn. Stat. 115A.1455 subd. 4), and the PRO may charge member producers fees earlier (115A.1443 subd. 3(c)). Full entry and sources

DeadlineCAWeek of Jul 27

California individual source reduction plans were due August 1

The filing window has closed. If you did not file, the recovery path is to register and disclose rather than wait for the next cycle. The ISRP prep checklist sets out what a plan has to contain, and the California SB 54 page carries the rest of the requirement. Update, September 24, 2026: the body of this entry is restored as first published; on September 23, 2026 its clause “and CAA may adjust it as rulemaking settles” was deleted when the entry should have been corrected by note. What is right: the deadline was CAA’s, not CalRecycle’s, and it has passed. CalRecycle’s Source Reduction Guidance (August 4, 2026) says producers submit Individual Source Reduction Plans to the PRO “according to the PRO’s guidance” and that CalRecycle will not review them, and CAA’s Reporting Policy moves a Report Date that falls on a weekend to the next business day, which made August 3, 2026 the effective deadline. Separately, the statute sets the 2% (2027) and 4% (2030) minimums only through shifting to reusable or refillable packaging (PRC 42057(a)(2)(C), (D)); eliminating a plastic component counts toward the 10% minimum by 2032 (PRC 42057(a)(2)(A)). CAA’s plan Table 1 groups all three milestones as reuse, refill, and elimination.

Full entry and sources

LitigationCOWeek of Jul 27

Colorado challenge still pending; the second suit does seek an injunction

Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association v. CDPHE, Denver District Court No. 2026CV30902, filed March 12, 2026, sought no preliminary injunction. A second Colorado suit, NAW v. Ryan (D. Colo., reported 1:26-cv-03460, filed July 30, 2026), did move for one, and no relief has been granted. Registration, reporting, and fee obligations continue normally for every producer. Update (September 23, 2026): this was accurate when published. ILMA says that on August 18, 2026 it filed a motion for a preliminary injunction limited to its own members; see the September 6, 2026 entry, ILMA Seeks a Colorado Injunction for Its Members.

Full entry and sources

UpdateMEWeek of Jul 27

Maine publishes a fixed annual compliance calendar

Maine DEP’s program page lists the recurring annual dates that Chapter 428 sets: producer reports by May 31, invoices by July 1, payment by September 1, and municipal reimbursement by October 1. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Useful for planning, though no stewardship organization has been selected and no fee clock has started. Update, October 7, 2026: the Stewardship Organization RFP closed August 18, 2026 with no proposals (Maine DEP, August 20, 2026). On September 11, 2026 DEP said it is revising the RFP, and its program page says it is reassessing the anticipated schedule and will post a revised one, so do not plan on the end-of-2026 registration and invoicing expectation above. The annual calendar in Chapter 428 is unchanged. See the August 23, 2026 entry, No One Bid to Run Maine Packaging EPR Program.

Full entry and sources

EnforcementORWeek of Jul 20

Oregon pauses pre-enforcement notices against producers outside the trade-association injunction

A stipulation the parties filed July 16, 2026 pauses pre-enforcement notices against putative class members through at least August 31. Read the limits: obligations are not suspended, the agency keeps investigative authority, no class has been certified, and the producer responsibility organization is not a party. Update, September 24, 2026: the pause ran through August 31, 2026, and nothing on the public docket extends it, and any written extension is unknown, so do not treat it as in force. On September 10, 2026 the court moved the joint status report to not later than October 16, 2026 (ECF 12). The pause terms rest on the stipulation the parties filed July 16, 2026 (ECF 9, Exhibit 1; terms as summarized by Arnold and Porter, July 22, 2026), which is not on the public docket mirror; the court’s July 17 entry (ECF 10) does not mention the pause, so the Atlas no longer describes the stipulation as entered by the court. (Corrected October 7, 2026: the stipulation paused DEQ pre-enforcement notices until at least August 31, 2026 and allows extension by written agreement (as summarized by Arnold and Porter, July 22, 2026), so the public record does not show when the pause ended.) Update, October 12, 2026: an October 9, 2026 docket entry (ECF 13) is labeled Stay, and its text is not on the free docket.

Full entry and sources

LitigationORWeek of Jul 20

Oregon trial concludes, ruling expected by end of August

The five-day bench trial on the constitutionality of the Recycling Modernization Act ran July 13 to 17, 2026. The judge indicated a ruling by the end of August. Update, October 7, 2026: the court ruled for the DEQ Director on August 27, 2026, holding that the Recycling Modernization Act does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause (ECF 205), and entered judgment for the Director on August 28, 2026 (ECF 206). NAW appealed to the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026 (No. 26-6404). The ruling removed the basis on which the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction was granted, though ECF 205 mentions the injunction only in its procedural history, ECF 206 does not mention it, and no order has expressly lifted it, although a preliminary injunction ordinarily does not survive a final judgment against the party that obtained it. (Corrected October 12, 2026.)

Full entry and sources

Comment PeriodWAWeek of Jul 20

Washington releases preliminary statewide collection lists

Draft lists are out for comment. These determine what counts as collected, which feeds recyclability determinations and therefore fees later.

Full entry and sources

UpdateORWeek of Jul 20

First Oregon annual report: $167.9 million in 2025 producer fee revenue

The producer responsibility organization published its first Oregon annual report. Useful as a scale check when sizing your own exposure against the program total.

Full entry and sources

LegislativeFederalWeek of Jul 20

Federal packaging bills get a first hearing, no markup scheduled

The PACK Act and the Recycled Materials Attribution Act (H.R. 7502) got a first hearing on July 22, 2026, were forwarded from subcommittee by voice vote on September 1, 2026, and were reported to the full House by the Energy and Commerce Committee on September 16, 2026 (25 to 18 and 28 to 19). Neither creates an obligation and neither has a floor date. The federal packaging bills tracker follows all three and says plainly what each one would change. Update, September 24, 2026: this was accurate when published. Both bills were forwarded from subcommittee by voice vote on September 1, 2026 and reported to the full House by the Energy and Commerce Committee on September 16, 2026, the PACK Act (H.R. 6832) 25 to 18 and the RMAA (H.R. 7502) 28 to 19 (Energy and Commerce Committee releases, September 1 and September 16, 2026). (Corrected October 8, 2026: the federal packaging bills tracker follows four bills, these two and two other federal bills.)

Full entry and sources

Site updates

Updated Oct 21, 2026

These are changes to how the site works, kept apart from the regulatory news so a returning reader can see what is new here.

NewWeek of Oct 12

New One-Pager on the California Final Draft Plan

A one-page summary of the final draft California plan CAA submitted on October 13, 2026 is on the California page and downloads with a free EPR Atlas account. Go to the one-pager. Full entry

NewWeek of Sep 28

Both Fee Calculators Now Use the 2027 Rates

Both fee calculators now default to the 2027 rates, with a switch back to 2026, and price California’s plastic fees on cartons and coated board. Get the one-page summary of the changes. Full entry

NewWeek of Sep 14

Compare seven states on eleven rows, with the provision behind every cell

EPR laws by state now compares all seven enacted states across eleven rows: the statute, the PRO, when fees begin, whether a fee schedule is published, which data years you report and when, the de minimis test, covered scope, key exemptions, eco-modulation, the maximum penalty, and the next dated action. Under every cell sits the provision it comes from and a link to the publisher that issues it. Pick the states you sell into and the rows you care about, hide the rows where those states agree, and take the result away as a CSV; the selection travels in the link. The cells are generated from the same data behind the state pages, so the comparison cannot drift away from them. Full entry

NewWeek of Aug 30

New: two pages on B2B packaging and on reporting volumes you cannot see

A question kept arriving that the site answered only in pieces. B2B Packaging and EPR separates whether a seller of empty packaging is a producer from how each state treats packaging that only reaches businesses, which is not the flat exclusion most summaries describe. Reporting EPR Volumes You Cannot Directly Measure covers selling through distributors without state-level data: the three allocation methods, the states whose rules expressly permit estimation, and the document that makes an estimate hold up. Writing them corrected the producer cascade for Colorado, Oregon, and California and the B2B rows on four state cards. Update, September 24, 2026: this entry said Colorado has no brand-owner tier. That is true of the statute, C.R.S. 25-17-703(30)(a), which runs the manufacturer (own brand or unbranded), then the licensee, then the importer. CDPHE’s rule sets a four-step order of obligation that puts first the brand owner directing or performing the manufacturing of the packaging, then the brand or trademark licensee directing it, then the manufacturer where no brand is identified, then the importer (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, s18.2.2(A)). Full entry

NewWeek of Aug 10

The State Deep Dive now jumps to sections, and every state announces how it differs

The state profiles are thorough, and thorough means long. A pinned row of six questions now sits at the top of every state profile; pick the one you are asking, "What will it cost?" or "Am I a producer here?" among them, and the page goes straight to the cards that answer it. A "How this state differs" button on each state header opens a compact list of where that state departs from the other six, without adding anything to scroll past. Every item on it is stated in full, with its source and evidence label, on the card it points to. Full entry

NewWeek of Aug 3

A rebuilt EPR Atlas, organized around where you are rather than what we have

Conversations with companies kept showing that no two are at the same point. Some are still working out whether they are obligated at all; some registered months ago and are looking at what the fee actually depends on. The site is now organized around where you are rather than around subject matter. Nothing was removed. Full entry

CorrectionCAWeek of Aug 3

Correction: the California 2026 early fee schedule was missing from two pages

What was wrong. California producers are invoiced this year against a 2026 early fee schedule CAA published on July 20, 2026. Between July 20 and August 3, our EPR fees by state page said California had no published 2026 schedule. That was incorrect. What to check. If you looked up California on the fees-by-state page in those two weeks and came away thinking nothing was published to pay against for 2026, look again. The California state page, the fee calculator, and Ask Atlas carried the correct rates throughout, so anything you took from those is unaffected. Resolved August 3, 2026. Full entry

How this page is maintained

A monitor runs weekly against state agency pages, the producer responsibility organization's publications, and the litigation dockets. Every entry carries the week it was found. Where something is reported only in trade press, the entry names the outlet.

Resources

These are the primary sources and further reading behind this site, chosen for accuracy and usefulness to a packaging producer rather than completeness. Where the statute and an agency summary disagree, the statute and the adopted rule control, which is why the regulators come first.

Official and regulatory

The bodies that write the rules and run the programs. Many facts marked Confirmed on this site cite one of these bodies.

Circular Action Alliance (CAA)

The PRO for packaging and paper in six of the seven enacted states; Maine uses a Stewardship Organization and none has been selected. Colorado also has Interchange 360 for automotive lubricant packaging. Producer portal, program plans, registration, and the Oregon producer registry.

Program Administrator

CalRecycle (California)

California's EPR oversight agency. SB 54 rulemaking, the PEPRS producer portal, and Advisory Board materials.

State Agency

Oregon DEQ

Administers Oregon's Recycling Modernization Act, the first program with live fees under an approved plan. Fee schedules, the acceptance list, and enforcement.

State Agency

Colorado CDPHE

Oversees Colorado's program. The eco-modulation schedule (6 CCR 1007-2) and the Minimum Recyclable List.

State Agency

Maine DEP

Oversees the first U.S. packaging EPR law. Stewardship Organization selection (RFP drew no bids, Aug 2026) and program rulemaking.

State Agency

Nonprofit and industry groups

Standards bodies, trade associations, and research organizations. They do not set law, and several of them set the design criteria that law then prices.

Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC)

Membership organization. A public EPR policy guide and a bill comparison tool, plus member-only analysis.

Nonprofit

Product Stewardship Institute (PSI)

Advances producer responsibility policy nationwide. An EPR laws map and technical assistance for states.

Nonprofit

The Recycling Partnership

Funds recycling-system improvements. An EPR policy toolkit and data on system performance.

Nonprofit

AMERIPEN

Packaging industry trade association. Policy positions and member guidance on EPR design.

Industry Group

Ellen MacArthur Foundation

Circular-economy research and policy frameworks, including EPR program design.

Research

How2Recycle

A standardized on-package recycling label from GreenBlue's Sustainable Packaging Coalition; guides how packaging recyclability is communicated to consumers and is referenced in design and eco-modulation.

Labeling Program

Legal analysis

Law firms publishing frequent, dated client alerts. Useful for spotting a filing early, and never enough on their own: this site does not confirm a regulatory fact from an alert.

Holland and Knight

Frequent, detailed EPR client alerts and multi-state deadline summaries.

Law Firm

Mayer Brown

Compliance-focused analysis of packaging EPR laws.

Law Firm

Keller and Heckman

Packaging and food-contact regulatory tracking, including EPR and the SB 343 labeling litigation.

Law Firm

Trade press

Daily and weekly trade press is the fastest to report a development and the most likely to compress a nuance, so treat a headline as a pointer to the primary source.

Packaging Dive

Daily packaging-industry news, including EPR coverage.

Publication

Waste Dive

Waste and recycling policy news; tracks EPR implementation and litigation state by state.

Publication

Resource Recycling

Recycling-industry trade publication that covers EPR.

Publication

Policy Pickup

Marissa Heffernan (formerly Resource Recycling) on North American and global recycling policy. Weekly bill tracking, litigation roundups, and regulatory analysis; free tier plus paid.

Publication

How this list is used

Figures carry an evidence label where one applies, and each page shows the date the site was last updated. Confirmed means it is stated in a statute, an adopted rule, an approved program plan, or a published schedule or agency list. Signaled means an official but non-final source, or a reputable source citing the rule, which is usually the second or third group. A trade-press headline on its own never moves a figure here.

The same directory is a standalone page: resources carries these entries with the statutes, adopted rules, and program plans behind them, which is the version to send someone who needs the primary sources rather than the tour.

Missing something that belongs here? Tell us what to add.

Tell us what this page should cover

A source you rely on that is not listed here, a document that should be, or a link that has moved. Every message is read by a person.

Suggest a resource

About EPR Atlas

EPR Atlas is a single reference for U.S. packaging extended producer responsibility, covering every state that has enacted a law. The source material is spread across seven agencies, the producer responsibility organizations that run the programs, and an active docket of litigation, and this site brings it into one place.

About the author

EPR Atlas is published by Hartter Advisory, LLC.

I am Dave Hartter, a packaging and product sustainability advisor in Charlotte, North Carolina, with more than 20 years of experience inside global manufacturers including General Electric, Newell Brands / Rubbermaid, and J.M. Huber.

I approach EPR from a product development perspective rather than a reporting one. Since EPR fees are directly tied to material choices and recyclability, the decisions that set them are made on the front end, during product development.

Today I advise manufacturers and packaging suppliers on the impact those fees have and how design and material choices move them. I help companies build the strategy and the tools to make those calls intentionally, so the regulation becomes a cost they control rather than an invoice they receive.

As Director of Sustainability at J.M. Huber, and earlier at Newell Brands, I built product and packaging programs tied to business objectives, operationalizing Life Cycle Assessment and Design for Recyclability so cross-functional teams could deliver on them.

Reach out whether you have not filed your first report or you are past that and need a strategy to bring the fees down.

Connect with me on LinkedIn (opens in a new tab)

Advisory services

EPR Atlas is built so a company can work through EPR on its own, and I work with companies that want help with their specific situation on the following:

EPR strategy and fee-reduction roadmaps, covering where your fees will land across states and which design, material, and data moves reduce them.
Design for recyclability, assessing a portfolio against state recyclability lists and eco-modulation criteria and prioritizing the changes that pay back.
LCA and packaging sustainability programs, building the measurement and design capability in-house, from a first LCA to portfolio coverage.
Regulatory readiness, covering registration, reporting, and data requirements and getting a company through its first compliance cycle.

Many companies start this work after a deadline has already passed.

Start a conversation

How the data is maintained

Cite the primary source. The statute, the adopted rule, the approved program plan, the published fee schedule, or the agency's own published list. Trade press and law firm alerts are used to find the primary source, and stand in for it only where the primary source is not freely available, in which case the entry says so. Every source the site relies on is named, so you can read it yourself rather than take the summary on trust.
Label the confidence. Confirmed, Signaled, or Speculative, so a figure stated in an adopted rule is distinguishable from a projection without reading a footnote. The three levels are below.
Date the site. Every page shows the date the site was last updated. The date moves when a review pass ships changes, not when the site rebuilds. The full pass runs weekly.
Say what is not decided. Where a rule is open, the site says so rather than filling the gap with a plausible number. It also separates not yet published from not yet checked: the first is a fact about the regulation, the second would be a fact about this site, and you need both to decide how much weight to put on a page.

What each label is telling you to do

Confirmed

Rely on it. Stated in a statute, an adopted rule, an approved program plan, or a published schedule or agency list, and quotable from the provision cited.

Signaled

Plan around it, do not file on it. An official draft, a filed program plan, or an agency statement exists, but nothing is adopted. Directionally reliable, and still subject to change before it is final.

Speculative

Discount it. Nothing has been published. The figure is this site's own projection, usually another state's published rate carried across. Provisional at best, and useful for sizing a range rather than setting a number.

Fee figures come from the published fee schedules, and the source documents are watched for silent replacement, because one schedule this site relied on was withdrawn and re-issued by its publisher two days after it was loaded.

When something here is wrong

Rules move weekly and no process makes a site like this error-free. Reports are reviewed by a person against the source the figure cites.

The reports worth sending

A figure against its source

A number here that does not match the document in front of you.

Something that moved

A rule, a date, or a threshold that has changed since the site was last updated.

Two pages disagreeing

This site saying different things about the same provision in different places.

A citation that does not hold

A source link that does not contain the claim attached to it.

Report a correction

Important notice

This hub is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, or compliance advice. Deadlines, thresholds, fee rates, and exemptions change as rules are finalized, and several programs are currently subject to litigation. Verify all information with the Circular Action Alliance, the relevant state agency, or qualified legal counsel before taking any compliance action.

Figures labeled Signaled or Speculative are planning estimates. They are not rates you will be invoiced, and they should not be used as the sole basis for a budget or a filing. The three evidence labels are defined above.

Quoting a figure from this site with attribution and a link is fine and encouraged. The copyright notice and the full terms are in the footer of every page.

Your guide to U.S. packaging EPR regulations.

Where are you with EPR?

How to interpret the information provided

What EPR is and how the fee works

Who owes the obligation

Where EPR programs are active today

Key dates in the next 90 days

Material choice drives the fee

Registration runs through CAA

Litigation watch

The One-Page EPR Primer

The 2027 fee schedules on one page

Reporting with missing data

Advisory support

Questions companies ask first

Who maintains EPR Atlas

EPR Toolkit

Scope Screener

Portfolio Estimator

Unit Calculator

What to ask your suppliers for

Recyclability Rater

The design rules, material by material

Each layer of the determination has its own authority

Features that push a plastic package into higher fees

The guides behind the tools

What the tools are for

Ask Atlas

Ask a question

What it will and will not do

Why Ask Atlas needs an account

State Tracker

Where things stand

The seven enacted states

The national timeline

Which fee schedules exist

Active bills

Earlier stage

Which of these apply to you

Laws reported as EPR that are not packaging EPR

Compare one thing across every state

Get Ready

1. Confirm who is obligated in each state

2. Build the component-level data set once

3. Register and report, then reconcile the invoice

4. Feed the data back into design

Common questions

If you are behind

CAA registration rules for corporate groups

What California's 2027 fees have to cover

California's $500 million surcharge is assessed on the PRO, and your share follows your plastic packaging

How a material enters or leaves California's covered material category list, and the April 1 cut-off

Correcting a filed report: resubmission, correction, and adjustment

State penalties and PRO charges

If you find an error after filing, the route changed in August 2026

Alcohol packaging: one wine bottle under three different rules

Latest Updates

Regulatory and policy

CalRecycle Confirms It Received CAA's California Plan and Has 75 Days to Act

NAW Files a Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal in Its Oregon Case

CAA Sets December 8 for Registered Minnesota Producers to Add Their Brand Information

Auto Care Association Moves to Join NAW's Challenge to Colorado's EPR Law

CAA Takes Comments on Its Draft California Reimbursement Application Through November 3

CAA Submits Final Draft California Plan to CalRecycle

Food and Packaging Groups Move to Add SB 54 Claims to Their SB 343 Lawsuit

Interchange 360 Posts Its 2027 Colorado Eco-Modulation Guidance

CAA Publishes 2027 Washington Early Fees

Interchange 360 Moves Colorado Lubricant Packaging Dues to Material-Based Rates in 2027

Washington Opens Comment on Its Draft Preliminary Needs Assessment

Rhode Island Sets a Comment Period and Hearing on Its Packaging EPR Implementation Analysis

NAW’s Oregon Appeal Gets a Ninth Circuit Briefing Schedule

Court Denies Environmental Groups’ Bid to Defend California’s SB 343

CAA Publishes 2027 Fee Schedules for Oregon, Colorado, and California

Oregon Publishes Its Second Producer Status List, Naming 198 Producers

Newsom Vetoes AB 2253 on Recycled Content Claims

NAW Appeals the Oregon EPR Ruling to the Ninth Circuit

Oregon Proposes New Packaging Exemptions in Its Third RMA Rulemaking

Oregon Opens Comment on Changes to Its Covered Material Categories

CalRecycle Opens Feedback on the Study That Defines Recyclable in California

Newsom Vetoes SB 1180; AB 2253 Still Undecided