Pack It Up: Checking on State-Level EPR Programs

Extended producer responsibility laws for packaging, paper products, and food serviceware are the latest in a long line of inconsistent state regulatory regimes causing compliance concerns for Connecticut manufacturers that sell nationally. 

Seven states have EPR programs—California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—and many more are considering their own programs. 

Packaging EPR programs aim to shift the financial responsibility for managing the end-of-life of single-use packaging from municipalities and taxpayers to the producers, distributors, or in some cases, importers, who introduce that packaging into the marketplace. 

This means that although packaging EPR has yet to come to Connecticut, many Connecticut manufacturers will absorb some of the costs of recycling and/or waste management of packaging that goes to a regulated state.

EPR Primer

Covered Materials. Each state’s program covers “covered materials” which vary slightly in definition.

Typically included are: (i) single-use paper, plastic, glass, metal, cartons, flexible foam, and rigid packaging used to contain, protect, handle, or deliver products to consumers; (ii) food service ware (e.g., wraps, cups, bowls, cutlery, straws, lids, foil, clamshells), and (iii) many commercial paper products (e.g., brochures, catalogs, manuals). 

Some states (California, Oregon) include the primary, secondary, and tertiary (i.e., transportation) packaging, while others (Colorado, Maine) carve out the B2B packaging not distributed to end consumers (e.g., bulk shipments to restaurants). 

Producers. Each state defines “producer” differently but the obligation generally falls upon: (i) an in-state manufacturer selling its own brand; (ii) the brand owner or trademark licensee of the packaged product typically made by a co-manufacturer or other third-party; (iii) the domestic importer of a foreign-made product; or (iv) the distributor that first introduces the product into the regulated state. The idea is that each package becomes the responsibility of exactly one entity.

Exemptions. Most states offer an exemption for small producers if less than one ton of covered material was sold into the state in the prior year or if sales were under the applicable revenue threshold (e.g., $1 million in-state gross sales in California; $5 million global revenue in Colorado and Oregon; $2 million global revenue in Minnesota).

Requirements. EPR programs require producers to join a state-designated producer responsibility organization by executing a form Producer Participation Agreement plus any state-specific addendum. 

At the moment, Circular Action Alliance is the primary PRO for most EPR states. 

Producers are required to: (i) report packaging data such as material types, weights, uses, recycling rates, and post-consumer recycled content on a rolling or annual basis; (ii) pay fees calibrated to each producer’s weight, materials, and recycling performance, and (iii) meet recyclability, recycled-content, and source-reduction targets over time. 

The State-by-State Race

California: And They’re Off (Finally). After a turbulent rulemaking that included a missed statutory deadline and a directive by the California governor to redraft its regulations, CalRecycle has finally reached its major milestone with the May 1, 2026 approval of final EPR regulations. 

The most pressing consequence was the June 1, 2026 registration deadline, by which thousands of covered producers must register with CAA, the state-designated PRO, or apply for a small-producer exemption. 

CAA expects to publish its California program plan later this year, ahead of the launch of the program in January 2027.

Oregon: Stuck at the Gate. Oregon’s EPR program had its substantive launch in July 2025. Most producers are on the clock to comply with all requirements. 

However, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors sued on constitutional grounds and obtained a preliminary injunction in a federal court, which ordered Oregon not to enforce the program against NAW members pending a trial scheduled to begin in July 2026. 

NAW members should not interpret the injunction as a reprieve from compliance as Oregon’s penalties remain steep and the outcome could simply delay, rather than eliminate, enforcement. 

Maine: Slow and Steady. Maine was the first state to enact a packaging EPR in 2021, but progress has been slow. Maine DEP is expected to engage its version of a PRO soon with producer registration and reporting to follow later this year with the goal of having an operational EPR program in 2027.

Maryland and Washington: The Newest Entrants. With EPR laws passed just last year, these states have ambitious goals of requiring producers to register and submit a simplified report of 2025 materials by July 1, 2026, and having operational programs by 2028 and 2030, respectively. 

It may still be too early to forecast whether they will end up similar to the states above or more like…

Colorado and Minnesota: In Cruise Control. Both of these states had early registration deadlines with Colorado back in 2024 and Minnesota in 2025. 

Colorado has taken a slight lead with fees being collected as of 2026. 

Minnesota is finalizing its “needs assessment” this year and looking toward a program launch in 2029.

Practical Takeaways for Manufacturers

Because each state’s definitions, thresholds, scope, and timing differ, Connecticut manufacturers should coordinate with knowledgeable legal counsel and technical consultants to undertake a state-by-state operational analysis to:

• Confirm whether they or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates meet the relevant producer definition, including evaluating licensing or import arrangements;
• Register in the necessary states, noting the near-term deadlines in California (June 1, 2026) and Maryland (July 1, 2026);
• Collect baseline volume data now, including from co-manufacturers, co-packers, and white-label suppliers; and
• Start evaluating new packaging types that may qualify for lower fee structures based on its “eco-modulation” (i.e., ease of recyclability), which incentivize transitions away from flexible plastics toward more recyclable or compostable formats.

---

Fernández also chairs the firm’s Manufacturing Industry Team and Archer is vice chair of the firm’s Food and Beverage Industry Team. 

For more information, please contact Fernández (860.251.5353; [email protected]) or Archer (860.251.5234; [email protected]).