Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has moved from a niche policy concept to a practical business issue in the United States. For companies that sell packaged goods, consumer products, or products already covered by stewardship laws, EPR is now a complex regulatory reality. Spanning issues of compliance, data, procurement, packaging design, and budgeting, packaging EPR laws increasingly touch legal, operations, finance, and marketing teams alike.
At its core, EPR shifts responsibility for managing products at end-of-life from municipalities and taxpayers to producers. In practice, that usually means certain companies must register with a producer responsibility organization (PRO), report what they place on the market, and help fund collection, recycling, or other end-of-life management systems. In the United States, EPR is not governed by a single federal framework. Instead, it’s developing through a patchwork of state laws, each with its own definitions, timelines, and compliance expectations.
This legislative patchwork can begin to look unmanageable very quickly. For example, a company could be regulated in one state, exempt in another, and subject to a different set of definitions and deadlines in a third — all while facing fairly significant fines for non-compliance. In this article, we offer an overview of the current EPR landscape in the U.S., focusing on the seven states that have enacted packaging EPR laws, including where each law stands now, which deadlines matter most, and where to find official legislative information.
What EPR Means for Business
For companies new to EPR, one of the biggest sources of confusion is the word “producer.” In most state packaging laws, the producer is not necessarily the company that physically manufactures the packaging. The producer can be a brand owner, brand licensee, importer, or another party identified through a hierarchy written into state law, which means a company can be responsible for compliance even if a third party designed or supplied the package. This distinction is important because EPR obligations are tied to the legal definition of producer in each jurisdiction.
For an in-depth discussion about various producer definitions, roles, and responsibilities (among other topics related to packaging EPR), be sure to read our recent interview: Unpacking Extended Producer Responsibility.
The Seven U.S. States with Packaging EPR Laws
As of May 2026, seven states have enacted packaging EPR laws: Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. These laws are in different stages of implementation, and the pace of rulemaking remains uneven. For businesses, the key takeaway is simple: Enactment does not mean all EPR programs work the same way, and deadlines are already active or approaching in several states.
Maine: Stewardship Program for Packaging
Maine was the first U.S. state to enact a packaging EPR law. Passed in 2021, Maine’s LD 1541 established a Stewardship Program for Packaging intended to reimburse municipalities for recycling and waste management costs and improve the state’s recycling system over time. Maine’s law has been especially influential because it helped set the policy direction later adapted by other states.
Unlike some newer programs, Maine’s implementation has been phased and shaped through additional rulemaking and legislative refinements. The program is expected to be fully operational in 2027 and managed by a stewardship organization (SO) selected by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. As the law moves into operational compliance, producers will be expected to register and report with a stewardship organization immediately after Maine has designated one — likely early summer 2026.
Important deadlines and milestones include a 2026 registration and reporting cycle tied to producer obligations, with reporting for covered producers expected by June 2026. Start-up fee obligations are expected in September 2026 once the stewardship organization process advances.
Businesses selling into Maine should not assume this program’s earlier enactment date equates to less significant operational requirements. In fact, Maine is one of the clearest examples of how EPR laws mature over multiple years before becoming fully actionable for producers. Now is the time to understand the law and prepare operations for compliance.
Official legislation: Maine LD 1541, An Act to Support and Improve Municipal Recycling Programs and Save Taxpayer Money
Maine’s LD 1541 is the only one of the seven EPR laws not currently operating under the banner of the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which is the leading PRO for EPR in the United States. CAA intends to be the stewardship organization for Maine, but as of this writing (May 2026), no stewardship organization has been selected.
PRO (SO): Not determined.
Oregon: Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act
Oregon’s SB 582 is widely viewed as the first packaging EPR program in the United States to become fully operational at scale. Reflecting Oregon’s commitment to prioritizing practices that prevent and reduce the negative environmental, social, economic, and health impacts of production, consumption, and end-of-life management of products and packaging across their life cycle, SB 582 establishes that producers have responsibility for managing covered products, packaging, and the waste associated with them.
The law covers packaging, paper, and food serviceware, making it broader than some packaging-only frameworks. It has become an important real-world test case for how producer registration, data reporting, fee collection, and oversight work in practice.
The most significant operational milestone was July 1, 2025, when Oregon’s program became active, and producers were required to register with the approved PRO (Circular Action Alliance) and begin complying with reporting and fee obligations. The first reporting cycle for 2024 supply data was due in spring 2025. For 2026, the key business deadline is the annual reporting cycle May 31, 2026 (for 2025 supply data), alongside ongoing fee and participation obligations.
Oregon’s law also demonstrates how quickly EPR can move from policy to enforcement. SB 582 has already required thousands of companies to assess whether they are obligated producers, to register, and to build reporting processes. Businesses that have not yet evaluated their Oregon exposure may already be behind.
Official legislation: Oregon Senate Bill 582, the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act
PRO: Circular Action Alliance (CAA) | Oregon
Colorado: Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act
Colorado’s HB 22-1355 created another major packaging EPR framework, with a strong emphasis on statewide recycling access and producer funding through an approved PRO. Colorado has moved steadily through implementation and is now one of the most important compliance states for businesses that sell packaging into the western United States.
Colorado’s producer registration deadline passed earlier in implementation, and the state has now entered its active reporting and program administration phase. For 2026, one of the most important deadlines is May 31, 2026, when annual supply reporting for 2025 data is due for covered producers. As with other states, producers must first determine if they fall within the state’s producer hierarchy and whether their packaging qualifies as covered material.
Colorado matters strategically because it reinforces a broader trend: Even where overall program design is similar from state to state, implementation details differ. Reporting methodologies, fee approaches, exemptions, and guidance all need to be reviewed on a state-by-state basis.
Official legislation: Colorado House Bill 22-1355, the Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act
PRO: Circular Action Alliance (CAA) | Colorado
California: Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act
California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) is one of the highest-profile packaging EPR laws in the country, largely because of the size and influence of the California market and the broader policy ambitions embedded in the statute. The law goes beyond producer responsibility to include source reduction, recyclability, and plastic pollution prevention goals, making it especially consequential for businesses with large packaging footprints. California’s implementation has been closely watched because rulemaking has taken time, and the program includes more detailed reporting concepts than some other states.
For businesses, the most important near-term deadlines in 2026 include the baseline producer report due May 31, 2026, along with an annual supply report and a source reduction baseline report (2023 data). Individual source reduction plans are expected no later than August 1, 2026.
California’s program deserves special attention because many companies that already track packaging for Oregon or Colorado will still need additional data and planning for California. Source reduction plans and the extensive list of the different packaging classifications for California can raise the bar for internal data readiness.
Official legislation: California Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act
PRO: Circular Action Alliance (CAA) | California
Minnesota: Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act
Minnesota’s 2024 packaging EPR law (HF 3911 / SF 2744) added another major state to the growing national patchwork. Known as the Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act, the law created a framework ensuring producer responsibility for packaging, paper products, and food packaging. The law also signaled continued momentum for Midwestern states to join the packaging EPR trend.
Because Minnesota enacted its law later than Oregon, Maine, Colorado, and California, the state is still in earlier implementation stages, but important obligations are already taking shape. Key 2026 milestones include the simplified supply reporting deadline of May 31; the July 1 deadline for the first annual PRO registration; and the December 31 deadline for full needs assessment reporting. Producers selling into Minnesota should use this period to validate applicability, improve packaging data, and monitor guidance as the program matures.
Official legislation: Minnesota HF 3911 / SF 2744, commonly referred to as the Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act
PRO: Circular Action Alliance (CAA) | Minnesota
Maryland: Packaging and Paper Products Producer Responsibility Plans Act
Maryland became one of the newest states to enact packaging EPR when it adopted SB 901. The law addresses packaging and paper products and adds another East Coast jurisdiction to the list of states businesses must track closely. For national brands, Maryland reinforces that packaging EPR is no longer confined to a handful of early-adopter states.
Implementation in Maryland is still in development, but 2026 is already a critical year. A simplified supply reporting deadline is expected on May 31, 2026, making this a live compliance year rather than a distant planning exercise. July 1, 2026, also brings a requirement from the PRO (Circular Action Alliance) to provide the Maryland Department of the Environment with a list of producers, brands, and material type information. Companies should also pay attention to how Maryland finalizes producer registration and PRO-related requirements.
From a business perspective, Maryland highlights a recurring lesson: Newly enacted laws can produce obligations quickly, and companies that wait for “full implementation” before preparing may find themselves scrambling to gather historical packaging data.
Official legislation: Maryland Senate Bill 901, the Packaging and Paper Products Producer Responsibility Plans Act.
PRO: Circular Action Alliance (CAA) | Maryland
Washington: Recycling Reform Act
Washington joined the packaging EPR landscape with SB 5284, the Recycling Reform Act. As another newly enacted law, it expands the number of jurisdictions where producers must be prepared for reporting, registration, and fee obligations tied to covered packaging and paper products.
Washington’s program is still moving through early implementation steps, but 2026 again marks an important planning and compliance year. A simplified supply reporting deadline is expected on May 31, 2026, and July 1, 2026, is the date by which producers must be registered with a PRO in Washington.
For businesses already dealing with California, Oregon, and Colorado, Washington adds to the operational pressure to standardize packaging data and develop repeatable state-by-state compliance processes.
Official legislation: Washington Senate Bill 5284, the Recycling Reform Act.
PRO: Circular Action Alliance (CAA) | Washington
How Producers Can Help Reduce EPR Fees
Because EPR fees are generally tied to the amount and type of packaging placed on the market — and many programs are increasingly using eco-modulation to reward better environmental performance — producers can often reduce costs by focusing on a few practical strategies: lightweighting packaging where possible, simplifying formats to improve recyclability (for example, moving away from hard-to-recycle multi-material combinations when feasible), increasing post-consumer recycled content where program rules recognize it, and eliminating unnecessary packaging components.
Producers should also strengthen packaging data management and work closely with suppliers early, since accurate material data is essential for correct reporting and for identifying lower-fee design options. In short, the companies most likely to control EPR costs are those that treat packaging design, data quality, and compliance planning as part of one coordinated strategy.
For a deeper discussion of ways to reduce EPR fees, including the eco-modulation approach, be sure to read our interview with the SCS Consulting EPR team.
The Bottom Line
EPR in the United States has entered a new phase. What began as a policy discussion has become an operational reality for producers in multiple states, especially in packaging. For businesses, the challenge is not only to understand the theory of producer responsibility, but to manage a fast-changing patchwork of state rules, deadlines, and reporting expectations in a way that is practical and repeatable.
The companies that will be best positioned are those that move early: validating producer status, improving packaging data, planning for fees, and integrating EPR into packaging and compliance strategy. That said, some companies may be just finding out about these regulations now and that they need to register and report by May 31st — just days away.
For these companies, it's most important to determine quickly if you’re an obligated “Producer” and to register with CAA as the PRO for all six states with upcoming reporting deadlines. Even if you can’t get your report filed by the deadline, you should get it in as soon as possible to reduce the risk of paying late fees and fines.
Do you have EPR questions, concerns, or emerging issues? Our EPR team at SCS Consulting Services is here to help. Learn more and feel free to get in touch today.
