Packaging EPR Update: Week of September 6, 2026

Fee Update  |  CA

CAA published the 2026 California Early Fee Schedule on July 20, 2026 and issued California Early Fee invoices the week of August 17, 2026, with payment due within 45 days of the invoice date. On that timing the first payments fall due around September 25 to October 1, 2026. Late payment carries CAA’s Late Payment Charge of 1 percent compounded monthly.

Two things that are easy to confuse. California Early Fees are separate from California 2027 EPR Fees, even though both are calculated from your 2025 California Supply Report. And the California Illustrative Fees published in May 2026 are, in CAA’s own words, “good-faith, non-binding estimates” of 2027 rates, not the rates you will be invoiced. CAA will publish final 2027 California EPR fee rates on or before October 1, 2026 and issue standard 2027 invoices in January 2027.

What this means for you: if you are a registered California producer, confirm your finance team has the invoice and that CAA is set up as a payee, because the payment clock started in August and the due date lands this month for most invoices. If you are budgeting 2027, the number you need is not published yet and arrives by October 1. Source: CAA, Producer Actions and Key Dates, August 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. Correction, October 1, 2026: the schedule was published on July 20, 2026, not July 21. This entry first gave July 21, the date in CAA’s August bulletin; the schedule document itself reads “Originally published July 20, 2026” (CAA, 2026 California Early Fee Schedule). Update, October 1, 2026: CAA’s September 29, 2026 newsletter lists “paying California Early Fee invoices” among this month’s producer actions, so the invoices have been issued. CAA has not published the date they went out, so the due date printed on your invoice still controls (CAA newsletter, September 2026). Update, October 2, 2026: CAA published the 2027 California rates on October 1, 2026 as preliminary rates, non-binding until CalRecycle approves the program plan, rather than as final rates (CAA, 2027 California Producer Fees Schedule).

Litigation  |  CO

On August 18, 2026 the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association filed a motion for preliminary injunction in its Denver District Court case against CDPHE (No. 2026CV30902, filed March 12, 2026). The motion asks the court to bar enforcement against ILMA members of the contracting, reporting, and dues obligations imposed through the Circular Action Alliance program plan and the Lubricant Packaging Management Association individual producer plan. ILMA states plainly that it is not asking the court to halt Colorado’s entire EPR program. No ruling has issued on either the injunction motion or CDPHE’s pending motion to dismiss.

Separately, NAW filed its own preliminary injunction motion in NAW v. Ryan (D. Colo. No. 1:26-cv-03460) in August 2026. That is also unruled. Both Colorado cases now seek injunctions.

What this means for you: nothing changes today. Colorado dues remain due on the published schedule and no court has paused any obligation for anyone. This corrects earlier Atlas entries which said ILMA had not sought an injunction; that was wrong, and the correction is the reason for this entry. If either motion were granted it would be the first order anywhere actually pausing a U.S. packaging EPR obligation. Source: ILMA, “ILMA Seeks Preliminary Injunction Against Colorado EPR Enforcement”.

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.)

Legislative  |  FEDERAL

On September 1, 2026 the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade voted to advance the PACK Act (H.R. 6832) to the full committee. An amendment from Rep. Russ Fulcher was adopted, clarifying the FTC’s guidance role and setting minimum requirements for third-party certifications and certification bodies. No roll call vote was reported. The bill has 17 cosponsors, 16 Republicans and one Democrat.

The PACK Act is a labeling harmonization bill, not an EPR bill. It carries a preemption provision that would reach state labeling laws including California SB 343, whose enforcement is already preliminarily enjoined. The Recycled Materials Attribution Act (H.R. 7502) was forwarded to the full committee by voice vote at the same markup.

What this means for you: nothing changes for you today and no obligation arises from this. Clearing a subcommittee is an early step, the bill has no Senate companion, and a markup is not a law. Track it only if you sell labeled packaging into California, because it is the main federal route by which SB 343 could be displaced rather than merely enjoined. Source: Resource Recycling, “House subcommittee advances PACK Act” (September 1, 2026); House Energy and Commerce Committee, subcommittee vote summary (September 1, 2026).

Correction (September 23, 2026): as first published this entry said the RMAA remained in committee with no action recorded. The committee’s own vote summary records H.R. 7502 forwarded to the full committee by voice vote on September 1, 2026; both bills were then reported to the full House on September 16, 2026. That summary does not itemize amendments, so the Fulcher amendment described above rests on trade press reporting.

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).