Extended Producer Responsibility: What Producers Need to Know in 2026

Over the past five years, extended producer responsibility (EPR) has moved from a sustainability talking point to a critical compliance issue for companies that sell packaged goods in the United States. Seven states have now enacted packaging EPR programs. For brand owners, manufacturers, importers, and distributors, EPR compliance is now a near-term business issue that impacts packaging design, supply chain data, accounting, and enforcement risk.

Background

EPR is a regulatory framework built on the premise that producers who put packaging into the marketplace should bear the cost of managing that packaging at the end of its life. In practice, EPR is effectively a fee-and-reporting regime. In most states with EPR laws, companies that meet a state's definition of "producer" of "covered material" generally must register with a state-approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). Then, they must report detailed packaging supply data to the PRO, paying to the PRO fees calibrated to the type and recyclability of their packaging and—in some states—meet rising targets for source reduction, recycling and post-consumer recycled content.

Although most EPR frameworks allow producers to file their own individual plans, it is incredibly burdensome, so the majority of producers join a PRO. In all but one of the states with EPR laws, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the only approved PRO and serves as the single point of registration, data collection and fee remittance.

Where do the states stand?

There is no federal EPR legislation, and none appears to be imminent, leaving a growing patchwork of state-level EPR regimes. Oregon, Colorado, Maine, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington have enacted packaging EPR laws. Although each enacted program took its own path, they generally share a similar design:

1. A "producer" definition tied to brand owners, manufacturers, or importers (with exceptions for companies with lower revenue or shipping volume).
2. A "covered material" scope that generally captures single-use primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging and, in several states, single-use plastic food service ware.
3. A requirement to join a PRO or submit an individual plan.
4. Annual supply-data reporting organized by covered material category.
5. Fees that change based on environmental impact, but also reward recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable design.

Several programs also require growing performance targets for source reduction, recycling, and post-consumer recycled content. Maine's first annual supply report deadline for its EPR program does not have a fixed calendar date yet. Oregon and Colorado required producers to provide their first annual supply reports for their 2024 packaging data by March 31, 2025 and July 31, 2025, respectively. California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington required producers to submit their first annual supply reports for 2025 packaging data by May 31, 2026. Producers that have missed these annual deadlines should investigate submitting these reports to avoid potential enforcement actions.

Additionally, California has mandated an August 1 deadline for producers to file an enforceable, individual source reduction plan. This forward-looking document must map out compliance with the state's strict plastic reduction trajectory, requiring cumulative reductions in weight and component count measured against the producer’s 2023 baseline, as follows:

• a 10% reduction by January 1, 2027,
• a 20% reduction by January 1, 2030, and
• a 25% reduction by January 1, 2032.

Notably, several other states have pending EPR legislation, including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire.

What does this mean for producers?

Producers that sell packaged goods into any of the seven states with EPR laws need to determine, state by state, whether they meet the definition of “producer,” because an exemption in one state does not mean an exemption in another. They must inventory primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging at a level of granularity well beyond what most companies previously tracked to identify plastic components, and confirm which items fall within each state's covered material definition. Producers also need to satisfy each state’s registration, reporting, and fee obligations.

One of the heaviest burdens is the requirement to provide the data that must be included in the required reports. Annual filings require both component-level data (the number of plastic components) and weight-based data (the weight of plastic covered material), which are tracked against state-specific baselines, and drive eco-modulated fees that can move up or down depending on recyclability and design choices. Producers that redesign their packaging now are likely to pay less than those that do not.

If you have questions about EPR compliance, please contact Blake Donewar, Alan Harrell, or any member of the Phelps Environmental team.