Minnesota's HF 3911 (2024), the Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act, requires the PRO to reimburse service providers a rising minimum share of net costs (Minn. Stat. 115A.1455, subd. 4). The PRO funds this with annual fees from member producers that vary with the covered material each producer introduces, calculated per unit such as per ton or per item (115A.1454, subd. 1).
Facts on this page were last verified against primary sources on October 8, 2026. The EPR Atlas is re-checked weekly, and this stamp moves only when a verification pass runs.
Reimbursement rates to service providers must reach at least 50% of net costs by February 1, 2029, 75% by February 1, 2030, and 90% by February 1, 2031 and each year thereafter (Minn. Stat. 115A.1455, subd. 4). Producers fund this through the PRO, which may already charge member producers fees to pay MPCA's estimated implementation costs (115A.1443, subd. 3(c)); Minnesota sets no separate producer fee start date. Administered by MPCA through the Circular Action Alliance (CAA).
The de minimis rule is an either/or test: a producer qualifies by introducing less than one ton of covered material into Minnesota OR by earning global gross revenues under $2 million, and either condition alone is enough (Minn. Stat. 115A.1441, subd. 13). Note the tonnage test is measured on material introduced into Minnesota while the revenue test is global, and the statute says "one ton" without specifying metric or short.
MPCA published a Request for Comments on possible rules (Revisor ID R-04992, MPCA document sw-rule3-06a, dated April 27, 2026) in the State Register on May 26, 2026, and comments closed July 24, 2026; no draft rule text exists yet, and MPCA opened comment on the draft 2026 needs assessment from September 14 through November 13, 2026.
No program fee schedule has been published for Minnesota yet, so this page shows no per-material rates. The fee calculator shows a projection for Minnesota, estimated from Oregon’s 2026 rates and labeled as an estimate.
Source: HF 3911 (2024) / MN Stat. 115A.1455. CAA selected Feb 18, 2025. Eco-mod set in the stewardship plan (PRO plan due Oct 1, 2028); not yet established.
In Oregon this cycle, eco-modulation is three voluntary LCA bonuses, A, B, and C.
Multiplier floor: Not established - stewardship plan due Oct 1, 2028
Plan submitted: No. No program plan has been filed; the implementing rules that will govern one are still being written.
Agency approved: Not applicable yet.
Where it stands: MPCA is at the pre-draft rulemaking stage. Its Request for Comments (Revisor ID R-04992, MPCA document sw-rule3-06a) closed July 24, 2026 and no draft rule text exists yet.
Next milestone: MPCA opened public comment on its draft 2026 Needs Assessment, including a recommended methodology for service-provider reimbursement rates, through November 13, 2026; the statutory deadline for the needs assessment is December 31, 2026 (Minn. Stat. 115A.1450). The PRO may charge member producers fees now (115A.1443 subd. 3(c)); the 50% reimbursement floor is February 1, 2029 (115A.1455 subd. 4).
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Request for Comments (Revisor ID R-04992, document sw-rule3-06a, closed July 24, 2026). Agency program page →
The following categories may be fully or partially exempt from producer obligations in Minnesota. Verify applicability with the CAA producer portal or Minnesota MPCA before excluding any materials from supply reports.
Obligation follows a statutory cascade and the shape differs by state. Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine run five tiers: the manufacturer for goods under its own brand or in packaging lacking brand identification; the licensee that makes or sells under a brand owned by another party; the brand owner; the U.S. importer where none of those exists in the United States; then the person that first distributes the item into the state. The Oregon and Colorado statutes run three tiers: own-brand or unbranded manufacturer, licensee, then the importer into the United States (ORS 459A.866(1)(a); C.R.S. 25-17-703(30)(a)); in Oregon there is no brand-owner tier. The Colorado rule then 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. California reaches a manufacturer that owns or is the licensee of the brand at tier 1, then the brand owner or exclusive licensee, then whoever sells or distributes in or into the state, with no importer tier (PRC 42041(w)). Store-brand and private-label goods usually land on the retailer whose brand appears, but the test differs in two states. In Oregon the retailer is reached only where it directs the manufacturing, including setting packaging specifications, and ordering finished goods for resale in the normal course of business is not directing manufacturing (OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a)). In California an in-state manufacturer that owns the brand or is licensed to manufacture the goods is the producer ahead of the brand owner (14 CCR 18980.1.1(c)(1)).
MN: The standard hierarchy above applies, and producers confirm their determination in the CAA portal. General framework; verify the statutory definition and your specific role before registering.
These attributes are the fee inputs, so they are best captured at design time. CAA collects this once through its producer portal and maps it to each state a producer sells into, and state-specific rules still apply. Retain supporting records to substantiate reports, exemptions, and credits, for the period your PRO agreement and the state program set.
Covered materials list pending the MPCA program plan. Covered materials / recyclability list →
Minnesota requires the MPCA commissioner to set the percentage of postconsumer recycled content that covered materials must contain, and the stewardship plan must carry PCR targets by material type (Minn. Stat. 115A.1451, subd. 5(a) and 7(a)); no percentage has been set yet.
The commissioner must also set the percentage of covered materials that must be waste reduced (115A.1451, subd. 7(a)); none is set yet, and lighter packaging will lower future tonnage-based fees.
Minnesota applies the Toxics-in-Packaging heavy-metals limit and bans food packages that contain intentionally added PFAS (Minn. Stat. 325F.075, subd. 2).
Sources: Minnesota Toxics in Packaging; Minn. Stat. 325F.075 (PFAS in food packaging); Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse member list (Minnesota is a member). The EPR fee calculator models the dollar impact of a design change, and this section does not estimate fees.
Statute: HF 3911 (2024), the Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act, codified at Minn. Stat. 115A.144 to 115A.1463. Read the statute →
Implementing rule: No rule yet. MPCA rulemaking is at the pre-draft stage. The Request for Comments (Revisor ID R-04992, document sw-rule3-06a) closed July 24, 2026 and no draft rule text has been published. Read the rule →
Primary sources. Where the statute and an agency summary disagree, the statute and the adopted rule control.
The EPR Atlas hub includes interactive tools to model your Minnesota EPR cost exposure and compare it across all seven enacted states.