Packaging EPR Update: Week of August 16, 2026

Legislative  |  CA

On August 13, 2026 the California Senate Appropriations Committee sent AB 2253 (Boerner) out on a 5-2 vote, do pass as amended. The bill was read a second time, amended, and now sits on the Senate second reading file. The substance moved in the opposite direction from what the bill was known for. The prohibition on credit-based mass balance accounting was struck by the July 2, 2026 amendment, and the August 13 amendment expressly permits a claim based on “proportional attribution, as defined in ISO standard 22095-2:2026, as long as no recycling credits are provided to any form of fuel use or fuel production and without credit transfers between unrelated processes,” alongside the segregated, controlled blending and rolling average models in ISO 22095:2020(E). The expansion from plastic food container products to all products making recycled content claims begins January 1, 2030.

What that ISO citation actually is. ISO 22095-2:2026 was published in January 2026 and is titled “Chain of custody, Part 2: Requirements and guidelines for mass balance.” Its clause 3.25 defines proportional attribution as the “assignment of credits to one or more outputs according to the proportion of the individual outputs with respect to the total output,” and clause 3.6 identifies the assignment of credits as the credit method, which clause 3.19 lists as one of the two implementation methods of the mass balance model. So the bill does not merely stop banning credit-based mass balance accounting. It permits it by name, using the ISO term for it. Two limits are worth noting: ISO also defines non-proportional attribution at 3.20 and the bill does not permit that, and ISO published book and claim as a separate standard, Part 3, in the same month, which the bill does not cite. Book and claim, named in the introduced text, remains outside what AB 2253 allows. Source for the definitions: ISO Online Browsing Platform, ISO 22095-2:2026 clause 3 (read August 16, 2026). What this means for you: if you were preparing for California to ban mass balance recycled content claims, that is no longer what this bill does, and nothing in it takes effect before 2030. This corrects what we published on August 10 and in July. We verified it by running the legislature’s own Compare Versions tool against the June 25 and July 2 texts; the prohibition appears as deleted text in one and is absent from the other. Source: California Legislature, AB 2253 Compare Versions (read August 16, 2026).

Litigation  |  OR

Judge Michael Simon declined oral argument on August 4, 2026 and ordered five-page supplemental briefs on a single question: whether the Recycling Modernization Act’s small producer exemption for certain Oregon public bodies, at ORS 459A.863(32)(b) and ORS 459A.872(1), is facially discriminatory under the Dormant Commerce Clause. Oregon’s brief was due August 7 and NAW’s response August 10. Separately, Oregon raised Pullman and Burford abstention for the first time in post-trial briefing, and the court did not ask for further briefing on it. No decision has issued as of August 16, 2026. What this means for you: nothing changes today. The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction still covers only companies that were NAW members on that date, and every other producer remains fully obligated. A narrowed question suggests the court considers the due process and delegation record complete, but it is not a signal about the outcome. Source: Bergeson & Campbell (August 6, 2026).

Deadline  |  CA

The public comment period on CAA’s draft California SB 54 program plan closed on August 14, 2026. CAA’s page now states that comments are being reviewed and summarised as it prepares the final program plan for submission to CalRecycle in October 2026. Separately, the SB 54 advisory board finalised its own comments on August 7 after disagreement over the chemical recycling provisions, and its final version records that the board could not reach agreement on that topic. What this means for you: the window to influence fee structure and eco-modulation through public comment has passed. The next decision point is CalRecycle’s review of the final plan, and every California fee figure on this site stays draft until the final schedule appears. Source: Circular Action Alliance, California program plan public comment page (read August 16, 2026).

Comment Period  |  WA

Alongside the collection lists comment that closes August 19, Washington Ecology is running a separate comment period on draft rule language for chapter 173-950 WAC, open August 5 to September 2, 2026. Rulemaking Advisory Committee meeting #2 is August 19, 2026. These are two different tracks and a comment on one is not a comment on the other. What this means for you: if you only responded to the collection lists, you have until September 2 to respond to the rule text that governs how those lists get used. The rule is the durable document; the lists get revised against it. Source: Washington Department of Ecology, chapter 173-950 WAC rulemaking (read August 16, 2026).

Legislative  |  FEDERAL

The Truth in Labeling Act of 2026 was introduced on August 6, 2026 as H.R. 10048 (Rep. J. Luis Correa, D-CA-46) and S. 5302 (Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-OR), referred to House Energy and Commerce and Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation respectively. It would set national standards for recyclable, compostable, reusable and refillable claims, enforced through the FTC Act, and it is explicitly non-preemptive of state law, with one narrow exception: section 4(c) would preempt state resin identification code requirements that conflict with the federal code (savings clause at section 11(f)(4); bill text read at govinfo, August 16, 2026). That puts two competing federal labeling frameworks in the same House committee, since the PACK Act (H.R. 6832) would preempt state labeling laws including California SB 343. Neither has been marked up. What this means for you: nothing to comply with. This matters as a directional signal on whether recyclability labeling ends up as a federal ceiling or a federal floor, which decides whether your state-by-state artwork work is durable. Source: Resource Recycling (August 10, 2026).

Comment Period  |  OR

Circular Action Alliance has begun a consultation series for Oregon’s next program plan cycle. The August 12, 2026 session covered eco-modulation and responsible end markets, August 19 covers education, outreach and equity, and September 2 covers materials, the uniform statewide collection list and RecycleOn centres. What this means for you: Oregon’s current 2025-2027 plan applies bonuses only and has no maluses in force. The 2028 to 2032 cycle is where any fee surcharge for hard-to-recycle design would first be proposed, so if eco-modulation risk matters to your portfolio, this consultation is the room to be in rather than the one to read about afterwards. Source: Resource Recycling (August 3, 2026).

Regulatory  |  WA

The Recycling Reform Act Advisory Council met on August 13, 2026 and took up two votes on its Statewide Lists Subcommittee’s recommendations: one on the subcommittee’s proposed feedback on the preliminary statewide collection lists, and one on recommended additions to the Alternative Collection List. The proposed feedback would align the residential recycling and public place lists, include a broader range of materials than is commonly recycled today so the needs assessment can evaluate feasibility and cost, and revisit glass collection methods, aseptic and gable top carton sortation, and fiber food service packaging once needs assessment findings arrive. The draft Alternative Collection List v2 carries #1, #2 and #5 black pigmented rigid plastic (or black plastic nursery pots), #6 EPS non-food packaging, PE bags and film, aerosol cans, compressed gas cylinders and small format metal packaging. Vote outcomes publish with the meeting notes, due on the council site within ten days of the meeting. What this means for you: these lists become the yardstick your packaging is measured against once the program charges, and black pigmented rigid plastic currently sits on the alternative collection draft rather than residential recycling, consistent with the NIR sorting design risk this site flags. Ecology’s preliminary lists are due October 1, 2026, and the first draft preliminary needs assessment goes to Ecology and the council September 29, 2026 with public comment in October. Source: RRA Advisory Council, August 13, 2026 meeting materials (read August 20, 2026).