While Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has existed in the U.S. for decades for products like paint, batteries, and mattresses, what’s new is EPR specifically for packaging and paper products.

Globally, packaging EPR is well established in Canada and the European Union, and it has more recently gained steam in the US.

What EPR Requires

At its core, packaging EPR laws require producers to:

• Join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO): Typically a nonprofit industry association that manages compliance on behalf of all obligated producers.

• Report packaging data: Type, weight, eco characteristics, and recyclability of all covered materials put into that state.

• Pay fees: Based on the volume and sustainability profile of packaging.

These fees are then used to fund recycling system upgrades, consumer education, and infrastructure improvements. Many laws also introduce source reduction goals and recycling performance targets, tying fees directly to circular outcomes.

Key Concepts

Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO)

A PRO manages data collection, calculates and collects fees, and distributes funds into system improvements. Thus far, all U.S. states actively implementing their EPR legislation have selected the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) as the designated PRO, creating a national through-line for compliance.

Producer

Definitions vary by state, but liability generally falls on:

• Brand owners selling packaged goods into a state.

• Importers/distributors if the brand owner does not have a US presence.

• Retailers in cases like shopping bags or food serviceware.

Exemptions typically apply to very small businesses (under $1–5 million in revenue, or under 1 ton of packaging annually).

Eco-Modulation

Eco-modulation adjusts producer fees to incentivise environmentally conscious packaging design. Brands using highly recyclable formats, higher post-consumer recycled content, or optimized packaging may pay lower fees.

Conversely, packaging that disrupts recycling streams, contains toxic substances, or lacks recyclability may carry higher fees.

Where EPR Exists in the US as of January 2026

Seven states have enacted packaging-specific EPR laws:

• Maine
• Oregon
• California
• Colorado
• Minnesota
• Maryland
• Washington

All require producers to join a PRO, report data, and begin paying fees on varying timelines. While details differ, the direction is clear: packaging EPR is here, expanding, and compliance will be mandatory.

Every state’s EPR program has its own timeline, scope, and quirks. Here are the most important details to know right now.

Click to enlarge. EPR Key Deadlines.

Maine

Maine was the first state to pass packaging EPR (2021); updated in 2025 with a “fix-it” bill to better align with other states.

The program centers on municipal reimbursement and will go live as the Stewardship Organization is selected.

2026 deadlines:

• Producers must register and report data by May 2026, with start-up fees due in September 2026.

Oregon

Oregon was the first state to collect EPR fees, making it the proving ground for U.S. packaging stewardship.

Producers had to report data in March of 2025, and the first round of fees was due in July 2025.

A uniform statewide recycling list launched on July 1, 2025, and eco-modulation is built into the fee structure.

2026 deadlines:

• Reporting of 2025 data due May 2026; fees due July 2026.

California

California's SB 54 is the most expansive packaging EPR law in the U.S., combining EPR with major requirements for recyclability, plastic reduction, eco-modulation, and chemical compliance.

In November 2025, producers had to submit their 2023 data to establish a baseline.

2026 deadlines:

• Reporting of 2025 data is likely to be due on May 31, 2026
• Fees are likely due in early 2027

Colorado

Colorado’s 2022 law creates a producer-funded statewide recycling system covering packaging, paper, and food serviceware, with reimbursements to local governments and eco-modulation designed to encourage better packaging design.

2026 deadlines:

• 2025 fees are due in January 2026
• Reporting of 2025 data is due on May 31, 2026, fees are due in January 2027

Minnesota

Minnesota passed packaging EPR in 2025, including broad packaging requirements and unique provisions related to boat wrap.

2026 deadlines:

• No specific deadlines in 2026
• Key deadlines were producer registration in the fall of 2025, with future deadlines in 2028 and 2032

Maryland

Maryland became the sixth packaging EPR state in May 2025, establishing a reimbursement model for local recycling costs and requiring producers to participate through a PRO.

2026 deadlines:

• Producers must register with the MD Department of Environment by July 1st, 2026, suggesting that registration with CAA will likely be required before this date.

Washington

Washington adopted packaging and paper EPR through the WRAP Act in May 2025, establishing a uniform recycling list and eco-modulated fees.

CAA will register with the Washington Department of Ecology by March 1, 2026, on behalf of producers that register with CAA by Dec. 15, 2025.

2026 deadlines:

• Producers must join a PRO by July 1, 2026. The official PRO has not yet been selected, but CAA is expected to be chosen.

Other States to Watch

Several states are laying the groundwork for packaging EPR through formal needs assessments and feasibility studies—an early signal that legislation may follow.

Hawaii and Rhode Island have passed assessment-focused bills, with reports due Dec. 31, 2028, and Dec. 1, 2026, respectively.

Illinois also requires a feasibility report by Dec. 1, 2026, and is simultaneously considering a bag ban, suggesting broader momentum.

Massachusetts has an advancing bill with a report due Jan. 15, 2026, and is widely viewed as a strong candidate for future EPR adoption.

Connecticut is considering a feasibility study with a projected report due Jan. 15, 2027, if passed.

Beyond formal assessments, advocacy efforts are active in Iowa, New York, and New Jersey, making these states key to watch for emerging EPR proposals.

A Deep Dive into Covered Materials, Producer Exemptions, Reporting Templates, and Fee Structures

Covered Materials

Covered materials refer to the packaging and paper product materials which an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law applies to in each state. Covered materials vary a bit by state.

• Oregon: Consumer-facing packaging (including all consumer-facing shipping packaging), printing & writing paper, wraps sold directly to customers, food serviceware, and tertiary packaging used for bulk packaging and wholesale shipping (including B2B transportation)

• Colorado: Consumer-facing packaging (including all consumer-facing shipping packaging), printing & writing paper, food serviceware

• California: Consumer-facing packaging (including all consumer-facing shipping packaging), plastic food service ware that contains any amount of plastic, and tertiary packaging used for bulk packaging and wholesale shipping (including B2B transportation) 

Certain materials or packaging use-cases are exempt across different states. Typical exemptions include:

• Packaging for medical, pharmaceutical, and special dietary health products (e.g., prescription drugs, medical devices, infant formula, medical food, medically necessary nutrition)

• Packaging for regulated hazardous products (e.g., pesticides, hazardous/flammable products, DOT dangerous goods containers)

• In California, beverage containers are already covered under the state's bottle bill/deposit return program

• Long-term durable protective packaging (e.g., packaging used for storage/protection of long-life products, often ≥ 5 years)

• Producer-demonstrated “already recycled” streams (materials recycled through controlled non-residential systems with verified responsible end markets and high recycling rates) 

While this summary suffices for most brands, we also encourage you to review the detailed Covered Materials resources from CAA and CalRecycle. You can find them here:

• CAA: Covered Materials & Producer Definitions - Colorado & Oregon
• CAA: Covered Materials & Producer Definitions - California
• CalRecycle: SB 54 Covered Material Categories List - California

Producer Exemptions

Producers who meet specific criteria based on either their industry, entity type, or size are exempt. The following table summarizes the main exemption criteria across each state.

Click to enlarge. Producer exemption types.

If you are a mid-sized or enterprise brand, you should assume you are liable unless you can explicitly demonstrate otherwise.

Additionally, we strongly encourage any brand that believes it is exempt to check with legal counsel and verify compliance with the latest state guidance.

Click to enlarge. Are you liable for EPR?

Obligated Producer Scenarios

When multiple stakeholders touch a product before it reaches a customer, the biggest EPR question becomes: who is the “obligated producer” responsible for reporting and paying EPR fees for the packaging?

This is one of the most confusing parts of EPR, and it varies by state.

Click to enlarge. Who is an obligated producer?

Dive Into the Details

To help clarify who is an obligated producer, Circular Action Alliance (CAA) has published guidance outlining how producer responsibility is assigned under each state’s EPR program (see page 36 of CO and OR covered material guidance).

General rules of thumb based on CAA guidance is that in most cases, responsibility is tied to two things:

1. Whose brand is on the product, and

2. Who chooses or supplies the packaging used to deliver it to the consumer

As a starting point:

• Brand owners are usually responsible for product packaging (the packaging that stays with the product like the bottle, tube, jar, retail box, etc.).

• Retailers, marketplaces, or fulfillment providers may be responsible for consumer shipping packaging (such as mailers, overboxes, dunnage, and shipping labels) if they are the decision-makers who choose the packaging solution.

• Importers are typically responsible when no U.S.-based brand owner is directing the manufacturing.

For ecommerce brands, EPR liability often splits into two buckets:

• Product / branded packaging is almost always the brand’s responsibility. This includes: primary packaging (bottle, tube, tray, pouch), secondary packaging (retail box, inner wrap, multipack carton), branded inserts or printed materials included with the product. Even if Amazon or a 3PL fulfills the order, the brand usually remains responsible for this packaging because it’s tied to the brand’s product and manufacturing decisions.

• Consumer shipping packaging is often the shipper’s responsibility, especially when (in situations where the shipper is different from the brand), the shipper is the buyer and decision maker of the shipping packaging. This includes Amazon overboxes, poly mailers, packing paper / air pillows, void fill and tape, and shipping labels.

Concrete Examples

Example 1: Paper grocery bags in Oregon vs. Colorado.

This illustrates how states can treat the same packaging differently:

• Oregon: the packaging supplier/manufacturer is typically the obligated producer for paper grocery bags.

• Colorado: the retailer using the bags is typically the obligated producer.

Example 2: Brand sells via Amazon FBA or any marketplace fulfillment center.

If you send inventory to Amazon and Amazon ships to the customer:

• Your brand is typically responsible for the product packaging

• Amazon or the fulfillment center is typically responsible for the shipping materials used to deliver to the consumer (the Amazon box, mailer, dunnage, etc.).

Example 3: Ecommerce brand leverages a 3PL such as ShipBob or Flexport to fulfill orders.

However, they purchase branded shipping packaging for the 3PL to use when shipping their orders.

• Your brand is responsible for both the product packaging and the shipping materials you choose (mailers, boxes, void fill).

Example 4: Food service distributors - service packaging vs. branded retail packaging.

Often:

• Distributors are obligated for service packaging (cups, lids, utensils) because they introduce it into the state. But if a restaurant chain ships branded retail packaging (like sauces, kits, branded wrappers) under its own brand:

• The brand owner / restaurant chain may become responsible for that branded retail packaging.

When in doubt, liability often defaults back to the brand owner, especially if responsibility isn’t clearly assigned in contracts or reporting systems.

Gray areas do exist, so many companies use a legal review or tools like a liability assessment framework (e.g., rePurpose Global) to validate their interpretation.

Reporting Strategy, Approach, and Tools, and How to Calculate Your Data

Each state structures reporting differently.

Oregon and Colorado are fairly aligned, while California introduces a much more detailed reporting system and additional data requirements that many brands are not currently tracking.

At the heart of all three programs, brands need to build a consistent packaging dataset that can be translated into each state’s reporting format. That means doing the following:

• Reviewing every packaging SKU (primary, secondary, tertiary)
• Identifying the packaging components that make up that SKU
• Coding each component into the correct material class and reporting category
• Capturing a reliable weight per unit

For California, brands must go one step further and track the number and isolated weight of unique plastic components within each packaging unit. 

The Core Dataset Every Brand Needs

Regardless of state, reporting starts with the same foundational dataset. Brands should track a complete list of packaging SKUs and the packaging components within each SKU. For each component, document:

• Packaging specifications (material, resin if applicable, thickness/gauge, coating/lining/lamination, color/opacity, etc.)

• The material classification and reporting category for that component (each state has its own category list)

• Weight per unit per component (use consistent units and keep it audit-ready)

• Units sold or distributed into each state, or a defensible proxy if state-specific data is not available

• Recycled content, when available (even when not fully required today, it is clearly where EPR programs are heading)

How Oregon and Colorado Reporting Works

Oregon and Colorado reporting is primarily designed around one central question: how much material, by type, did you supply into the state?

Example categories include:

• Paper / Fiber: Kraft Paper

• Paper / Fiber: Corrugated Cardboard

• Plastic - Flexible: HDPE (#2)/LDPE (#4) Flexible and Film Items

• Plastic - Flexible: Plastic Laminates and Other Flexible Plastic Packaging

For example:

• A glass jar with a metal lid: The glass jar weight should be reported under the glass category, and the metal lid weight should be reported under the metal category. Internally, you might track them as one packaging unit, but in the report the weights roll up into separate material categories.

• A corrugated box with labels, ink, or adhesive is typically reported under the fiber category as a single unit, since these elements are generally treated as part of the dominant material in practical reporting.

• A corrugated box with a meaningful plastic coating or laminate is typically treated as one packaging unit, but the presence of coating or laminate may shift how it is categorized.

Because Oregon and Colorado are similar, brands can often build one core dataset and generate both reports with minimal translation. 

How California Reporting Differs

California SB 54 is more complex because it requires both more granular categorization and additional data about plastic components. 

California uses a significantly more detailed covered material categorization system, with roughly 95 categories compared to closer to 60 in Oregon and Colorado.

Categories reflect:

• Dominant material class (plastic, paper/fiber, metal, glass, etc.)

• Material type (PET, HDPE, OCC, paperboard, etc.)

• Form (rigid vs film, bottles/jars vs trays, coatings, laminates, etc.)

• Whether a non-plastic item includes a plastic component, which can change the reported category 

Example categories in California include:

• Paper/Fiber: 25_PF1N - Paper/Fiber - Kraft Paper - All Forms w/o plastic component

• Paper/Fiber: 25_PF1P - Paper/Fiber - Kraft Paper - All Forms w/ plastic component

• Paper/Fiber: 25_PF9P - Paper/Fiber - Cardboard w/ plastic component

• Plastic-Flexible: 25_P10P - HDPE (#2) - Flexible and Film Items

• Plastic-Flexible: 25_P15P - LDPE (#4) - Clear Non-Bag Film

• Plastic-Flexible: 25_P16P - LDPE (#4) - Other Flexible and Film Items

California also requires brands to report:

• The number of unique plastic components within packaging

• The isolated weight of those plastic components

• In some cases, whether plastic elements are detachable or non-detachable (and how they are treated in categorization)

What this means in practice:

• Detachable components are reported separately. A jar and its detachable lid are two separate items and should be categorized and reported separately.

• Non-detachable elements stay with the base item. Labels, inks, adhesives, coatings, and laminations that are not designed to be detached are reported as part of the primary item. The item is categorized based on the dominant material and typically selected as “with a plastic component” or mapped into a laminate category when applicable.

• Laminations and coatings are generally not reported as their own items unless they are detachable under the definition. Instead, they influence which category the primary item belongs in.

When California asks for the number of plastic components in a unit, the intended approach is to count all distinct plastic components, including detachable and non-detachable elements, unless they are treated as de minimis.

A practical way to apply this:

• Count it if it is a distinct plastic piece or subpart of the packaging, whether detachable or not (caps, lids, labels, coatings, inks, adhesives, linings, barriers, layers, film wraps, zippers, valves, etc.)

• Do not count it if CalRecycle or Circular Action Alliance treats it as de minimis

Note: California signals that de minimis exclusions exist, but guidance does not yet clearly define which components qualify. Producers should consult Circular Action Alliance for evolving guidance. Some small plastic elements such as inks or adhesives may ultimately be deemed de minimis and may not need to be counted. 

Two examples to illustrate California logic

• Glass jar with plastic lid and plastic label: Report two items (glass jar with label as one item, plastic lid as a second item). Count plastic components such as the lid and label, plus potentially adhesive or ink depending on de minimis treatment.

• Paper pouch with laminated plastic barrier layer (not separable): Report one item. Count the plastic barrier layer as a plastic component unless deemed de minimis, plus any additional plastic elements such as zippers, spouts, or valves.

Beyond state-specific categories, brands must decide how to calculate packaging weight and state-level quantities. There are two approaches for each. 

Weight of packaging per unit

• SMRM (Specific Material Reporting Method), recommended: Uses the exact bill of materials for each packaging component. This is the most accurate, audit-ready, and future-proof approach. If you have packaging specs or Specright data, this is the recommended method.

• ABOM (Average Bill of Materials): Uses representative averages across similar packaging. Easier to implement, but less accurate and riskier as programs tighten requirements. Often best as a temporary approach.

Volume of packaging in each state

• SSRM (State-Specific Reporting Method), recommended: Uses actual ship-to or point-of-sale data. Most accurate and defensible, but requires stronger systems and integration.

• Apportionment: Uses estimates and proxies such as population share, sales share, or shipment share. Acceptable as a starting point but less precise.

Best practice combination: SMRM plus SSRM if possible. ABOM plus apportionment can work temporarily while improving internal systems. 

Our reporting template and tool: Because each state asks for data in a different format and California adds complexity, we created a packaging reporting tool designed to make compliance reporting faster, clearer, and less error-prone. The tool includes:

• Tab 1: A packaging component tracker that reflects how brands actually track packaging data and can pull cleanly from systems. It draws from guidance provided by the Sustainable Packaging Data Council.

• Tabs 2 to 4: Sample reporting outputs for Colorado, California, and Oregon that automatically summarize the dataset from Tab 1 into each state’s reporting structure

If you build a clean packaging dataset once, you should be able to generate consistent reporting outputs across states without rebuilding spreadsheets each time.

Fee Structure and Budgeting for Fees

Producers pay fees to a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), which uses that revenue to fund collection, sorting, processing, education, and other elements required by the EPR legislation.

Across states, producer fees generally work the same way at a high level:

1. Brands report the weight of covered packaging they sell into a state
2. Those weights are categorized by material type
3. Fees are assessed using a per pound rate that varies by category

Materials that cost more to manage, are harder to recycle, or lack responsible end markets typically carry higher fees, while widely recycled materials with strong markets typically carry lower fees. 

Oregon

CAA has published illustrative “low and high” budgeting scenarios in Oregon planning documents. These are not permanent rates, but they provide useful ranges for budgeting and help explain how widely fees can vary depending on recyclability and cost to manage.

Using Oregon’s latest planning documents, here are draft base-fee ranges for a few common packaging categories:

• Kraft paper and corrugate/OCC: about $0.03/lb

• Flexible film (HDPE #2 and LDPE #4): about $0.54 to $0.72/lb

• Multi-layer flexible film: about $1.07 to $1.43/lb

• PLA, PHA, PHB flexible film: about $1.07 to $1.43/lb

These numbers illustrate the central dynamic of EPR fees: fiber-based materials tend to fall in lower fee bands, while flexible and multilayer plastics can be dramatically higher due to limited recyclability and higher net system cost.

These draft rates are intended for budgeting and are subject to refinement as Oregon finalizes fee schedules using actual supply data and updated program costs.

Colorado

Colorado’s fee rate schedule is being developed using producer-reported supply data.

CAA has stated that supply data submissions were essential to set the 2026 Colorado Producer Fee Rate Schedule, meaning the rates are directly informed by the weights and categories reported by producers.

California

California’s implementation has been shaped by delayed rulemaking and shifting deadlines.

Industry and legal updates describe how California’s rulemaking timeline has been reset or revised, and CAA has asked for deadline changes to address regulatory delays and operational feasibility.

Fee schedules are not yet finalized because the detailed program rules and implementation plan are still being completed.

The above chart is an illustrative example to showcase the importance of factoring EPR fees into the full-loaded cost of packaging going forward. As EPR programs take effect, producer fees are becoming a real, measurable part of the total packaging cost.

While EPR fees are often modest per unit, they are now another line item brands need to include when calculating the fully loaded cost of ownership of packaging. That calculation already includes unit price, freight, storage, fulfillment, operational impacts, tariffs, and risk or compliance costs.

EPR fees add a new lens: the end-of-life cost of the material itself. In some cases, especially for hard-to-recycle or multi-layer materials, EPR fees may be significant enough to make the packaging option that is truly the lowest cost once everything is accounted for. In other cases, brands may find they are already using the most cost-effective packaging solution, but with a slightly higher overall cost than before.

Either way, EPR fees reinforce the importance of evaluating packaging decisions holistically rather than solely on unit price.

Eco-Modulation

Eco-modulation is the part of an EPR fee system that adjusts a producer’s base fees up or down based on packaging design and performance.

The goal is to reward packaging choices that reduce environmental impacts and improve recycling outcomes (credits/bonuses) and to increase costs for packaging that creates higher system burdens (maluses/penalties).

Oregon

Eco-modulation is active and relatively well-defined.

Oregon DEQ has issued formal guidance directing PROs to build eco-modulation formulas that incorporate Oregon’s life cycle evaluation rules, and to tie incentives to verifiable environmental benefits using normalized/weighted life cycle results.

In addition, Circular Action Alliance has submitted program plan amendments that complete and refine the eco-modulation framework, including a bonus pathway for transitioning from single-use to reusable/refillable packaging.

In plain terms, Oregon is prioritizing life cycle impact reduction (not just “recyclable” claims) and creating a direct fee signal for reuse/refill transitions.

Colorado

Eco-modulation has moved from draft to adopted rules.

The state’s rulemaking materials describe an “eco-modulation bonus schedule” that is applied to reduce producer dues under the program.

Colorado’s public-facing documents emphasize credits tied to specific benchmarks, including: reuse/refill systems, post-consumer recycled content, packaging optimization, and clearer labeling, and the intent to discourage or penalize packaging that disrupts recycling.

California

Eco-modulation is not yet fully “released” as an operational fee schedule in the way Oregon and Colorado’s rules are, because SB 54 regulations and implementation details are still being finalized through CalRecycle’s rulemaking process.

That said, California’s direction is clear: eco-modulated fees are designed to apply credits for factors such as post-consumer recycled content, standardization, and labeling/instructions that improve consumer behavior, and maluses for materials containing Proposition 65 chemicals.

CalRecycle’s SB 54 program page is the best official hub to monitor for the evolving regulatory timeline and eventual fee mechanics.

Source Reduction and Plastic Reduction: What States Require and What It Means for Brands

Some EPR laws go beyond funding recycling and include explicit goals that push the system to use less packaging over time, especially plastic. These requirements are not just about reporting. They influence fee structures, eco-modulation, and what packaging formats become economically viable in each state.

California

Explicit plastic reduction targets that will shape packaging choices

California’s SB 54 includes clear statewide targets to reduce plastic packaging. The program is required to achieve a 25% reduction in plastic packaging by weight and a 25% reduction in plastic components by 2032. While this is a program-wide requirement (not a brand-specific quota), it will influence how the PRO structures fees, incentives, and compliance expectations.

What this means for brands:

California will increasingly reward simpler, lighter, more recyclable packaging and will put financial and operational pressure on packaging that relies on multiple plastic components, mixed materials, and hard-to-recycle formats.

Here is an example of what “source reduction” looks like in practice:

• A glass jar with a plastic lid, shrink band, and label: removing the shrink band, lightweighting the lid, or simplifying the label system reduces both plastic weight and plastic components.

• A paperboard box with a plastic window: shifting to a windowless design or switching to an alternative that eliminates the plastic component reduces plastic component count and may lower fees.

• A flexible pouch with a spout and multiple laminated layers: redesigning to a simpler structure, reducing layers, or shifting to a more recyclable format can reduce plastic complexity and future penalties.

Oregon

Not a single “source reduction” mandate, but clear direction toward prevention and higher plastic performance

Oregon’s EPR law is more focused on improving recycling outcomes and funding system improvements, rather than setting a single statewide source reduction percentage like California. Oregon does set statewide plastic packaging and food serviceware recycling rate goals over time, and it also funds work intended to reduce environmental impacts, which can include prevention and reuse strategies.

What this means for brands:

Oregon’s pressure tends to show up through fee design and eco-modulation over time, rather than a single headline reduction target. Packaging that performs well in real-world recycling systems and has strong end markets is likely to be advantaged, while formats that are costly to manage or have weak end markets are likely to face higher costs and fewer incentives.

Examples of what brands can do that align with Oregon’s direction:

• Lightweight a corrugated shipper while maintaining strength, reducing total fiber weight without changing the format.

• Replace a multilayer mailer with a mono-material film mailer where feasible, improving end market potential and reducing net cost over time.

• Reduce secondary packaging by eliminating unnecessary inserts, void fill, or overboxing where product protection allows.

Colorado

System access and recycling performance, with reduction pressure primarily through fees and incentives

Colorado’s EPR program is primarily designed to expand recycling access and improve recycling performance statewide. It does not have the same headline statewide plastic source reduction target that California has. Over time, Colorado’s program is still expected to create real packaging design pressure through the fee system and eco-modulation, especially as the program identifies which formats are driving higher system costs or disrupting recycling.

What this means for brands:

Colorado is likely to reward packaging that is easier to collect and process and penalize packaging that undermines recycling outcomes. Even without a formal “source reduction percentage,” brands should expect increasing cost differentiation between recyclable, low-disruption packaging and harder-to-manage formats.

Examples of “reduction” and “design-for-recycling” actions that will likely help in Colorado:

• Reduce unnecessary components like shrink bands, extra labels, and mixed-material attachments that add cost without adding value.

• Move toward clearer labeling and consistent formats that improve correct disposal and sorting.

• Optimize packaging weight and right-size shipping packaging to reduce total material placed on the market.

What happens if our business is growing?

A frequent concern, especially in California, is whether growing brands are effectively “penalized” because total packaging placed on the market increases as sales grow.

California’s program is currently being treated as: the reduction goals still need to be met, even if the market is growing. In practical terms, that means brands should plan to reduce packaging intensity per unit over time.

The most reliable strategy is to focus on reductions you control: lightweighting, removing redundant components, simplifying structures, and moving toward more standardized, recyclable formats. In some cases, brands may also explore reuse or refill models where product type and operations make that realistic.

The key takeaway: growth does not eliminate the need to redesign. The brands that plan ahead and reduce packaging per unit will be best positioned to manage fees, avoid penalties, and stay aligned with where EPR is heading.

Below are four practical steps brands can take to reduce their fees, in roughly increasing order of complexity.

1. Reduce weight wherever possible

The most direct way to lower EPR fees is to put less material on the market. Because fees are assessed by weight, even small reductions at the unit level can add up quickly at scale.

Common tactics include:

• Right-sizing packaging to better fit the product

• Downgauging film, paper, or corrugate while maintaining performance

• Eliminating unnecessary accessories like shrink bands, inserts, overwrapping, or excess void fill

2. Shift from higher-fee materials to lower-fee materials

Some materials are significantly more expensive to manage at end of life, and that shows up clearly in fee structures. Example: Switching from flexible plastic film to paper or fiber where functionally feasible.

Initial Oregon fee modeling suggests that, in some cases, moving from flexible plastic film to paper could reduce per-pound fees from ~$0.55+ to ~$0.03. These are illustrative ranges, but they highlight how strongly material choice can affect costs. 

Important caveat: this should be evaluated holistically. Paper is often lower-fee in EPR systems, but it can carry tradeoffs in weight, carbon, or performance that still need to be assessed. 

3. Simplify structures: move toward mono-materials and away from coatings and laminates

Beyond the base material, complexity matters. Multi-material, coated, and laminated packaging is often harder to recycle and more expensive to manage, which drives higher fees.

Examples:

• Transitioning from multi-material plastic laminates to mono-material plastic formats

• Moving from plastic-coated or laminated paper to uncoated or minimally coated paper

• Eliminating plastic windows, linings, or secondary coatings where possible

In Oregon’s draft modeling:

• Multi-layer plastic can exceed $1.00/lb, while simpler plastic formats may fall closer to $0.55/lb

• Coated or laminated paper may exceed $0.50/lb, while uncoated paper can fall closer to $0.07/lb

Again, these are planning ranges, not final rates, but they illustrate how simplification can materially change fee exposure. 

4. Design now for future eco-modulation credits

Eco-modulation is how EPR programs reward better packaging over time. While base fees apply to everyone, eco-modulation can reduce those fees for packaging that meets specific sustainability criteria. Actions that are likely to support eco-modulation across states include:

• Designing packaging that is widely recyclable in real-world systems

• Increasing post-consumer recycled (PCR) content

• Improving labeling and consumer instructions

• Exploring reuse, refill, or reduction-focused innovations where viable

In Colorado and California, early eco-modulation frameworks suggest that these attributes could reduce fees by 1% to 5% initially, with the potential for stronger signals as programs mature.

EPR is a meaningful step forward, but U.S. programs are still new, still evolving, and not always perfectly designed. Here are some of the big limitations and challenges we are seeing:

Compliance over progress

One of the biggest limitations of EPR right now is that many brands are becoming hyper-focused on reporting accuracy and fee payment, sometimes at the expense of meaningful packaging improvement. While compliance is essential, there is a real risk of optimizing spreadsheets instead of optimizing packaging.

The most resilient approach is to treat EPR not just as a compliance exercise, but as a long-term design signal that should inform and strengthen packaging strategy, not replace it.

Legal uncertainty and political volatility

EPR laws and rules can face lawsuits and political pushback.

Oregon’s program, for example, has faced legal challenge from industry groups. Even when challenges are underway, programs typically continue moving forward, and deadlines still apply.

The risk for brands is waiting for a court decision or legislative change that may not come in time. The safer strategy is to plan for compliance, then adapt if rules shift.

Fragmentation across states

Each state defines covered products, reporting categories, timelines, exemptions, and fee methodologies differently.

Even where Oregon and Colorado are relatively aligned, California adds more complexity and granularity.

This patchwork is a real burden for small and mid-sized brands without dedicated compliance teams. It also makes it harder to create a single national packaging strategy that “fits” everywhere.

Cost pass-through and transparency

Fees are assessed on producers, but costs often move through supply chains and ultimately show up in pricing.

For most brands, the per-unit impact may be small, but it raises questions about how costs are communicated and who bears them.

Brands should expect EPR fees to become part of the ongoing cost of serving a state, similar to freight, storage, tariffs, and regulatory compliance.

Narrow incentives that can distort design choices

Many EPR frameworks heavily reward “recyclability” as defined by today’s systems. That can unintentionally favor certain materials that are widely recyclable even if they have tradeoffs elsewhere (for example, higher carbon intensity or heavier transport weights).

The risk is a decision-making mindset that treats recycling compatibility as the only measure of sustainability.

Brands should continue evaluating packaging through multiple lenses: recyclability, carbon, material health, total weight, supply chain resilience, and consumer experience.

Programs built around today’s infrastructure can stifle innovation

EPR relies on what can be collected and processed now. That creates a structural tension: the system is meant to drive progress, but it can also reinforce incumbent materials and formats.

Novel materials and emerging technologies may not “score well” in early years simply because collection systems, sortation, and end markets are not ready.

Brands exploring innovation should be prepared for a gap between long-term potential and near-term compliance categories and fees.

• CAA Producer Registration Portal
• CAA Webinar: Budgeting for EPR Fees
• Covered Material and Producer Definitions in Colorado and Oregon
• Oregon Program Plan
• 2025 Oregon Producer Fee Schedule Explained

The U.S. packaging landscape is shifting at unprecedented speed. Compliance is no longer theoretical—it’s here. Oregon is already billing producers, Colorado and California deadlines have begun, and more states are lining up.

Brands that act early will not only avoid penalties but also lower costs, strengthen credibility, and lead the shift toward true circularity. Those who wait will be forced to scramble.

We are your partner in all of this. Work with us to:

• Clarify liability and exemptions.

• Build robust packaging data systems.

• Redesign packaging for recyclability, PCR, and right-sizing.

• Navigate PRO reporting, fee structures, and eco-modulation incentives.

Reach out to our team of packaging compliance experts today to see where you stand.