Packaging EPR Update: Week of July 20, 2026

Enforcement  |  OR

On July 16, 2026 the parties in Lollicup USA v. Feldon entered into a stipulation under which Oregon DEQ's Materials Management Program will not issue pre-enforcement notices against Lollicup USA or any member of the putative class through at least August 31, 2026, extendable by written consent. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) DEQ retains authority to investigate, issue warning letters, and conduct other pre-enforcement activity. Read the limit carefully: the Circular Action Alliance is not a party to the stipulation and may continue assessing fees, pursuing compliance actions, and publishing non-compliance lists. Lollicup's litigation deadlines are suspended pending the decision in NAW v. Feldon; the joint status report is due September 10, 2026. The case is Lollicup USA, Inc. v. Feldon, No. 3:26-cv-01287-SI (D. Or.), before Judge Michael H. Simon, the same judge who decided NAW v. Feldon. Source: Arnold and Porter, Environmental Edge (July 22, 2026).

Update, September 24, 2026: the pause ran through August 31, 2026, and nothing on the public docket extends it, 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), 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.

Comment Period  |  MN

MPCA's Request for Comments on rulemaking to implement the Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act (Minn. Stat. 115A.1455) closed on July 24, 2026 at 4:30 p.m., docket sw-rule3-06a. This was a first-stage request for comments rather than a proposed-rule comment period, so no draft rule text exists yet and further comment opportunities are expected before any rule is adopted. The Packaging EPR Advisory Board met on July 15, 2026 in St. Paul. Minnesota producer fees do not begin until 2029, but the rules that decide how those fees are calculated are being written now. Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Request for Comments, docket sw-rule3-06a; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Packaging EPR Advisory Board meeting, July 15, 2026.

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)).

Update  |  ME

Maine DEP survey data shows roughly 80 municipalities, about 18 percent of the state's total and including Portland and South Portland, have indicated they will participate in the packaging EPR program. Twenty declined and the majority did not respond. DEP's tracker places the program at step four of nine, contracting with a Stewardship Organization, with producer registration and invoicing anticipated by the end of 2026 and municipal reimbursements potentially beginning by the end of 2027. Because producer fees fund municipal reimbursement, participation levels are a direct signal on the size of the Maine cost base in year one. Proposals in response to DEP's Stewardship Organization RFP remain due August 3, 2026. Source: Bangor Daily News (July 20, 2026).

(Corrected October 7, 2026: Maine DEP gives the proposal deadline as August 18, 2026 at 4:00 p.m., not August 3.)

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 dates above. See the August 23, 2026 entry, No One Bid to Run Maine Packaging EPR Program.

Deadline  |  CAA

Circular Action Alliance has scheduled four public webinars worth a producer's calendar. August 5, 2026: Understanding California Program Fees, covering CAA's fee-setting approach. It falls inside the SB 54 program plan comment period closing August 14 and speaks directly to the fee-transparency questions at the center of the Oregon litigation. August 12, 2026: Oregon Program Plan 2028 to 2032, eco-modulation and responsible end markets. August 19, 2026: Oregon education, outreach, and equity. September 2, 2026: Oregon materials, the Uniform Statewide Collection List, and RecycleOn Centers. The Oregon series opens the second Oregon plan cycle, which is where the next round of eco-modulation gets decided. Register through the CAA events page. Source: Circular Action Alliance events calendar (July 2026).

Comment Period  |  WA

Washington's Recycling Reform Act advisory council has released a first draft of the statewide collection lists (Statewide Lists V1) for review under E2SSB 5284. The council's Statewide Lists Subcommittee meets virtually on August 4 and August 10, 2026, with a full advisory council meeting on August 13, and a public comment period on the draft lists opens in August, ahead of the initial statewide collection lists that Ecology must develop by October 1, 2026. Update (October 7, 2026): the October 1, 2026 date has passed; the Washington page shows where the lists stand. These lists will define which materials are collected statewide, a key input to producer fees and eco-modulation. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Correction (September 23, 2026): as first published this entry said Ecology plans to publish the lists by October 2026; E2SSB 5284 sec. 109(1)(a) requires Ecology to develop them by October 1, 2026, and publication follows plan approval. The lists are Ecology’s, reviewed by the advisory council’s subcommittee. Source: Washington Department of Ecology (July 2026); RRA Advisory Council; Waste360, Marissa Heffernan (July 23, 2026).

Deadline  |  CA

Producers of plastic covered packaging were required to file an Individual Source Reduction Plan (ISRP) with the Circular Action Alliance through its Producer Portal no later than August 1, 2026. This was a CAA date for the plan PRC 42057(d) requires producers to submit to the PRO, not a CalRecycle regulatory deadline, and CAA may adjust it as rulemaking settles; producers who have not filed should confirm their status in the portal. The plan forecasts how the producer will reach SB 54's reduction targets, 10% by 2027, 20% by 2030, and 25% by 2032, measured against a 2023 baseline, with minimum reuse, refill, or elimination shares of 2%, 4%, and 10%. There is no public fill-in template, but CAA published Individual Source Reduction Plan Guidance in March 2026, available to registered producers in the CAA Producer Portal, where the reporting fields also sit. A step-by-step ISRP readiness checklist is on the source reduction plan page. Source: Circular Action Alliance, California producer guidance.

Correction (September 23, 2026): CAA’s effective deadline was August 3, 2026, because August 1 fell on a Saturday, and CalRecycle sets no ISRP deadline and neither receives nor reviews these plans (CalRecycle Source Reduction Reporting Guidance, August 4, 2026). 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. (Corrected October 12, 2026: the headline is restored to its July 20 wording, an undated line added August 2 is removed, and the citation is corrected to PRC 42057(d).)

Litigation  |  OR

The five-day bench trial in NAW v. Feldon concluded on July 17, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Judge Michael Simon said from the bench that he had not yet decided how to rule and will issue his decision on the Recycling Modernization Act's constitutionality by the end of August 2026. Following trial, Judge Simon directed the parties to address six specific questions in post-trial briefs due July 31, 2026, and set August 3, 2026 as the deadline for any motion seeking additional oral argument. The briefing is not symmetric across the claims: the court indicated the dormant Commerce Clause issues are fully briefed and need no further submission, and the six questions are weighted to the procedural due process claim, covering whether a protected property interest exists, what process is constitutionally required, arbitration precedents, available remedies, the significance of delegating program administration to a private PRO, and whether confidentiality challenges require exhausting public records procedures first. The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction continues to shield only NAW members pending the ruling; all other producers remain subject to registration, reporting, and fees, though DEQ agreed on July 16, 2026 not to issue pre-enforcement notices to the Lollicup putative class until at least August 31, 2026. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) Source: Oregon Capital Chronicle (July 17, 2026); Waste360, Marissa Heffernan (July 23, 2026); Foley and Lardner via National Law Review (July 23, 2026).

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.)

Update  |  OR

On July 1, 2026 Circular Action Alliance submitted its first Oregon annual report covering the program's first six months, July 1 to December 31, 2025: more than 2,900 participating producers, $167.9 million in producer fee revenue, 409,000+ tons of covered products reported, and 144,000+ tons processed in six months, with 20 new RecycleOn Centers and 42,000+ containers ordered, against about $56.5 million in program expenditures. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) CAA also reported fewer eco-modulation bonus applications than it had anticipated in this first cycle, a signal that many producers have not yet pursued the available fee reductions. CAA describes 2025 as a build year, with full system implementation targeted by the end of 2027. Source: Circular Action Alliance (July 2, 2026); Packaging Dive (July 8, 2026); Waste360, Marissa Heffernan (July 23, 2026).

Litigation  |  CA

On July 1, 2026 the American Chemistry Council and the Alliance of California's Farmers and Ranchers filed motions to intervene in the environmental groups' challenge to the SB 54 regulations (Oceana, NRDC, and Californians Against Waste Foundation v. CalRecycle, San Francisco Superior Court). Separately, the 17-state attorneys general and NAW federal challenge to SB 54 (E.D. Cal.) has been publicly reported as case No. 2:26-at-01047. That is the Eastern District of California's temporary pre-assignment number, applied to newly received filings before a permanent civil action number issues, and it is not a sealing designation; the permanent docket number is not yet confirmed. NAW's own announcement gives the caption as State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al. The complaint also raises a First Amendment claim against SB 54's prohibition on disclosing EPR costs on customer receipts. Source: Packaging Dive (July 10, 2026).

Update, October 7, 2026: the case is State of Nebraska v. Heller, No. 2:26-cv-02214 (E.D. Cal.), before Judge Dena M. Coggins. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on August 19, 2026 (ECF 43), and the hearing is set for January 15, 2027.

Legislative  |  FEDERAL

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held its legislative hearing on July 22, 2026. The PACK Act (H.R. 6832), which would create FTC-administered federal labeling standards, and the Recycled Materials Attribution Act (H.R. 7502) were 2 of 12 bills on a broad consumer protection docket rather than the subjects of a dedicated packaging hearing. John Hewitt of the Consumer Brands Association and the Recycling Leadership Council testified in support of both; John Breyault of the National Consumers League opposed both, arguing the PACK Act would preempt state labeling standards without a strong federal baseline and that the RMAA would legitimize mass balance accounting. No markup, vote, or next step was announced, and both bills remain referred to committee with no action recorded. Producers should note the preemption design: the bill as introduced bars any state or local requirement that is not identical with the federal requirement, which makes the federal standard a ceiling as well as a floor. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) The California law the PACK Act would displace, SB 343, is itself currently enjoined. Source: House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing docket, EventID 119489; Packaging Dive (July 23, 2026).

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).

Update  |  ME

Proposals in response to Maine DEP's June 15 Stewardship Organization RFP are due August 3, 2026; CAA has said it intends to respond. DEP now anticipates producer registration and invoicing will begin at the end of 2026 and municipal reimbursements may begin at the end of 2027, with producer guidance expected in summer 2026. Once the selected SO opens its registration mechanism, producers will have 90 days to register. Source: Maine DEP (July 2026); Sustainable Packaging Coalition (June 22, 2026).

Correction, August 23, 2026. Two things in this entry are now superseded. First, the proposal deadline was not August 3: Maine DEP’s own announcement gives it as August 18, 2026 at 4:00 p.m., and the August 3 date came from a secondary read that was never checked against the RFP. Second, the RFP closed with zero proposals and CAA declined to bid, so the registration timeline this entry described does not exist. DEP said on August 20 that it is assessing all options and that further information will be forthcoming. (Corrected October 12, 2026.) See the current entry, No One Bid to Run Maine Packaging EPR Program. Source: Maine DEP (August 20, 2026).

Site Update

The Design for Recyclability Rater is now live in beta. Build a package component by component and it scores the design against APR and How2Recycle recyclability logic, then maps the result to each active EPR state: California from the SB 54 CMC list, Oregon from its Uniform Statewide Collection List, and the other active states shown as pending. You get a DfR score, a recyclable-weight share, likely How2Recycle labels per component, an EPR fee-risk read, and re-scored design moves that raise the score. It is a planning estimate, not a compliance or on-pack-claim determination, and feedback on the tool shapes the next iteration. Source: EPRAtlas.com.