Regional spotlight: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in US — what's different and why it matters

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation in the United States has undergone a dramatic acceleration since 2021, yet the American approach differs fundamentally from the European and Canadian models that dominate global policy discussions. While the EU operates under harmonized directives that apply uniformly across 27 member states, the US has adopted a fragmented, state-by-state legislative framework that creates both unique opportunities and significant compliance challenges for producers operating at national scale. Understanding these differences is not merely academic: companies selling consumer packaged goods, electronics, or textiles into US markets face a compliance landscape that is evolving faster than most corporate sustainability teams can track.

Why It Matters

The US generates approximately 292 million tons of municipal solid waste annually, according to the EPA's most recent characterization study, with a recycling rate that has stagnated at roughly 32% since 2018. Packaging accounts for approximately 82 million tons of that total, representing the single largest category by weight. Unlike the EU, where the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) creates binding recycled content mandates and reuse targets at the supranational level, the US federal government has not enacted comprehensive EPR legislation. Instead, individual states have stepped into the regulatory vacuum, producing a patchwork of laws with varying scope, fee structures, and performance targets.

As of early 2026, five states have enacted comprehensive packaging EPR laws: Maine (2021), Oregon (2021), Colorado (2022), California (2022), and Minnesota (2024). At least twelve additional states have introduced packaging EPR bills in their 2025-2026 legislative sessions. The combined market represented by states with active or pending EPR legislation accounts for roughly 40% of the US population and an even larger share of consumer spending. For any producer with meaningful US distribution, EPR compliance is no longer optional or theoretical.

The financial implications are substantial. The Product Stewardship Institute estimates that full implementation of existing US packaging EPR laws will shift $3-5 billion annually in waste management costs from municipalities and taxpayers to producers. This transfer represents the largest structural change in US solid waste economics since the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Companies that fail to prepare face not only direct compliance costs but also competitive disadvantage as early movers optimize packaging portfolios and reduce fee obligations.

Key Concepts

Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) serve as the administrative backbone of EPR systems. In the US model, PROs are nonprofit entities established by producers to collectively manage compliance obligations. Unlike the EU, where multiple competing PROs operate in most countries, US states have generally authorized a single PRO per material category. The Circular Action Alliance (CAA) operates as the primary packaging PRO in Maine and Oregon, while Colorado established its own Producer Responsibility Organization under state oversight. California's CalRecycle retains significant direct regulatory authority, creating a hybrid model distinct from either the European or other US state approaches.

Eco-modulated Fees represent the primary financial mechanism driving packaging design changes under EPR. Producers pay fees based on the weight, material type, and recyclability of their packaging, with rates adjusted to incentivize materials that are readily recyclable and penalize those that contaminate recycling streams. Oregon's eco-modulation framework, for example, assigns the lowest fees to aluminum and corrugated cardboard while charging premium rates for multi-material flexible packaging, polystyrene foam, and PVC. The fee differentials can reach 10:1 or greater between the most and least recyclable formats.

Needs Assessments are a distinctive feature of US EPR laws. Before setting fee rates or performance targets, most state laws require comprehensive evaluations of existing recycling infrastructure, collection gaps, and capital investment needs. Oregon's needs assessment, completed in 2024, identified $280 million in required infrastructure investment over ten years, including 47 new or upgraded material recovery facilities. These assessments create transparency about the true cost of achieving recycling targets, a level of specificity that European EPR systems have historically lacked.

Convenience Standards mandate minimum levels of recycling access for residents. Colorado's law requires that all residents live within 15 miles of a recycling drop-off location by 2030, while Oregon mandates curbside collection in communities with populations exceeding 4,000. These standards directly address one of the most significant gaps in US recycling infrastructure: the estimated 40% of Americans who lack convenient access to recycling services, predominantly in rural communities and environmental justice areas.

EPR Implementation KPIs: US State Benchmarks

Metric	Maine	Oregon	Colorado	California
Law Enacted	July 2021	August 2021	June 2022	June 2022
PRO Registration Deadline	2024	2025	2025	2026
Recycling Rate Target	50% by 2032	25% reduction by 2030	TBD by needs assessment	65% by 2032
Producer Fee Start	2026	2025	2026	2027
Convenience Standard	Universal access	Curbside for 4,000+ pop.	15-mile radius	Varies by jurisdiction
Recycled Content Mandate	None	None	None	Yes (SB 54)
Reuse/Refill Target	None	None	None	25% by 2032

What's Different in the US

State-Level Fragmentation Creates Compliance Complexity

The most consequential difference between US and European EPR is jurisdictional fragmentation. A consumer packaged goods company selling nationally in the EU registers with PROs operating under a single regulatory framework defined by the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. The same company selling in the US must navigate distinct registration requirements, fee structures, reporting formats, and material definitions across each state with active EPR legislation. Procter & Gamble, operating in all 50 states, disclosed in its 2025 sustainability report that EPR compliance across five states requires reporting to three different PROs using incompatible data formats, with material classification systems that define "recyclable" differently.

This fragmentation imposes disproportionate costs on small and mid-size producers who lack dedicated regulatory affairs teams. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition estimated that compliance costs for companies with revenues under $50 million are 3-5 times higher per unit of packaging compared to Fortune 500 producers, reflecting the fixed costs of monitoring, registration, and reporting across multiple jurisdictions.

De Minimis Thresholds and Small Producer Exemptions

Unlike most European EPR systems, which apply to all producers regardless of size, US state laws include de minimis thresholds that exempt small businesses. Maine exempts companies with less than $2 million in gross revenue. Colorado exempts those with under $5 million. California's threshold is $1 million. These exemptions reflect political compromises necessary to pass legislation in states where small business advocacy organizations wield significant influence. However, the exemptions create market distortions: exempt companies have no financial incentive to optimize packaging, and as thresholds differ across states, a company may be obligated in one state but exempt in another.

Municipal Integration Rather Than Replacement

European EPR systems typically operate parallel collection infrastructure managed by PROs, with varying degrees of integration with municipal waste services. US states have taken a different approach, requiring EPR systems to fund and improve existing municipal collection programs rather than replace them. Oregon's law explicitly mandates that PRO funding flow through existing haulers and material recovery facilities, preserving local government control over waste management contracts. This design choice reflects the political reality that municipal solid waste management in the US is deeply embedded in local government operations, with approximately 9,000 curbside recycling programs operated by or contracted through municipalities.

Waste Management Inc. and Republic Services, the two largest US waste and recycling companies, have actively shaped EPR implementation to preserve their existing collection contracts. Both companies lobbied successfully in Oregon and Colorado for provisions ensuring that PRO funding supplements rather than supplants existing service arrangements. This dynamic has no direct parallel in European EPR, where waste management companies compete for PRO contracts on terms defined by national regulation.

Recycled Content Mandates as a Complementary Tool

California's SB 54, enacted alongside its EPR law, represents a distinctly American innovation: binding recycled content mandates for plastic packaging (15% by 2027, 25% by 2030, 50% by 2032) paired with source reduction requirements (25% plastic packaging reduction by 2032). No other US state has enacted comparable mandates, though Washington and New Jersey have introduced similar legislation. The California approach creates demand-side pull for recycled materials that complements the supply-side improvements funded by EPR fees, addressing a fundamental weakness of fee-only EPR systems where improved collection may outpace end-market demand.

Eastman Chemical Company's investment in a $1 billion molecular recycling facility in Longview, Texas, was explicitly driven by anticipated demand from California's recycled content mandates. The facility, expected to begin operations in 2026, will process 250,000 metric tons of hard-to-recycle plastic waste annually, converting it to feedstock for new PET and polyester production.

What's Not Working

Delayed Implementation Timelines

Every US state with enacted EPR legislation has experienced implementation delays relative to original statutory timelines. Maine's PRO was supposed to be operational by January 2024 but did not begin accepting registrations until mid-2024. Oregon's needs assessment took 18 months longer than anticipated. California's implementing regulations remained in draft form through most of 2025, creating uncertainty for producers attempting to plan packaging changes. These delays reflect both the genuine complexity of standing up new regulatory systems and the resource constraints facing state environmental agencies tasked with implementing legislation that requires expertise they historically have not maintained.

Fee Rate Uncertainty Discourages Investment

Producers making packaging design decisions with multi-year lead times need predictable fee structures to calculate return on investment for packaging changes. However, no US state has published final, multi-year fee schedules. Oregon's preliminary fee modeling suggests rates of $0.01-0.15 per unit depending on material and format, but final rates await completion of the needs assessment process. This uncertainty is particularly problematic for companies evaluating capital investments in packaging line changes, where equipment modifications may cost $5-15 million and require 3-5 year payback periods.

Interstate Coordination Gaps

Despite growing recognition that harmonization would reduce compliance costs, no formal mechanism exists for coordinating EPR requirements across states. The Product Stewardship Institute has facilitated voluntary discussions among state agencies, but these lack binding authority. The National Caucus of Environmental Legislators has proposed model legislation intended to standardize definitions and reporting requirements, though adoption remains voluntary. Without coordination, the US risks creating a compliance environment so complex that it undermines the environmental outcomes EPR is designed to achieve.

Action Checklist

• Conduct a packaging audit identifying all materials, formats, and weights sold into states with active or pending EPR legislation
• Register with applicable PROs in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California, and monitor registration deadlines in additional states
• Evaluate packaging portfolio against eco-modulation fee structures to identify high-fee materials eligible for substitution
• Model compliance cost scenarios across current and anticipated state EPR laws, including de minimis threshold applicability
• Assess recycled content availability and pricing for packaging materials subject to California SB 54 mandates
• Engage with industry coalitions (Sustainable Packaging Coalition, Consumer Brands Association) to participate in regulatory development processes
• Develop internal data management systems capable of generating material-specific reporting across multiple state formats
• Establish cross-functional EPR compliance teams spanning packaging engineering, procurement, regulatory affairs, and sustainability

FAQ

Q: How do US EPR fees compare to European EPR fees? A: US fees are expected to be significantly higher than mature European systems, at least initially. European packaging EPR fees range from $5-40 per metric ton depending on material and country. Preliminary US modeling suggests rates of $30-120 per metric ton, reflecting the substantially higher cost of building recycling infrastructure from a lower baseline. As US systems mature and infrastructure investments amortize, fees are expected to converge toward European levels over 8-12 years.

Q: Can companies use a single registration to comply with all US state EPR laws? A: Not currently. Each state requires separate registration, and PRO structures differ across states. Industry groups are advocating for mutual recognition agreements between state PROs, and the Circular Action Alliance has expressed intent to offer multi-state compliance services, but no unified registration mechanism exists as of early 2026.

Q: What happens to companies that fail to register or pay EPR fees? A: Enforcement provisions vary by state. California can impose penalties of up to $50,000 per day for non-compliance. Oregon can prohibit sales of non-compliant products in the state. Maine's enforcement authority includes both civil penalties and sales prohibitions. Most states include grace periods and compliance assistance for first-time registrants, but repeat violations face escalating penalties.

Q: How should companies prioritize packaging changes across multiple state EPR systems? A: Focus first on changes that reduce fees across all jurisdictions: eliminating non-recyclable materials (polystyrene foam, PVC, multi-material flexibles) reduces obligations everywhere. Then target California-specific requirements, as that state combines the largest market with the most stringent mandates. Finally, address state-specific provisions such as Oregon's convenience standards that may affect distribution channel decisions.

Q: Will federal EPR legislation preempt state laws? A: Federal EPR legislation remains unlikely in the near term. The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act has been introduced in multiple Congressional sessions without advancing past committee. Even if enacted, federal legislation would likely establish minimum standards rather than preempting stronger state laws, following the model established by federal environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act. Companies should plan for continued state-level compliance indefinitely.

Sources

• Product Stewardship Institute. (2025). US Extended Producer Responsibility Laws: State-by-State Analysis and Implementation Tracker. Boston, MA: PSI.
• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2024). Packaging EPR Needs Assessment: Infrastructure Investment Requirements and Fee Modeling. Salem, OR: ODEQ.
• California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2025). SB 54 Implementation: Draft Regulations and Compliance Guidelines. Sacramento, CA: CalRecycle.
• US Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures Report. Washington, DC: EPA.
• Sustainable Packaging Coalition. (2025). EPR Compliance Cost Analysis: Impact on Small and Mid-Size Producers. Charlottesville, VA: SPC.
• National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. (2025). Model EPR Legislation: Toward Interstate Harmonization. Washington, DC: NCEL.
• Circular Action Alliance. (2025). Annual Report: Multi-State PRO Operations and Producer Registration Status. Washington, DC: CAA.