What We’ve Learned About EPR Producer Fees: 2025 Update

2025 has been a big year for packaging, paper, and food service ware extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) in the United States. Oregon and Colorado have now implemented their programs with regulated parties (“producers”) reporting data and paying fees, while several other states have made pre-implementation progress or enacted EPR legislation.

Along the way, we’ve gained new insights into how producers should plan for EPR fees and think strategically about the future as a growing number of states implement EPR programs.

We previously covered the basic structure of producer fees. Since then, compliant producers have paid Oregon fees based on their 2024 reported supply data, Colorado’s fee invoices will be issued by the end of 2025, and California’s regulatory delays have crunched Circular Action Alliance’s timeline to meet statutory requirements, producing a potentially tight first reporting-payment cycle for producers in California. Circular Action Alliance is the only Producer Responsibility Organization non-governmental implementation body in each EPR state so far. It assesses producer fees and complies on behalf of registered producers. For more information on California’s status, see our previous analysis.

In addition, Oregon implemented a categorical exclusion system for certain secondary and tertiary materials and its first phase of eco-modulated fee incentives, Colorado proposed a third draft of its eco-modulation regulations (see our previous summary), and California has taken initial steps for its unique plastic source reduction requirements.

This means currently compliant producers have seen the base fee variation per material category in Oregon and are beginning to understand the costliness of certain materials in their packaging portfolios. With Colorado’s invoice approaching, state-to-state variation will become more apparent. Given the different recycling infrastructures and statutory requirements among EPR states, base material fees can differ significantly. They will also evolve over program years, as infrastructure investment for particular material types will eventually reduce those materials’ fees.

Fee reduction strategies must take a multi-state approach. Producers contemplating packaging changes will need to understand each EPR state’s base fees weighted by their sales volume because a less costly material in one state may be assessed higher fees in a different state.

Eco-modulated fee incentive schemes then need to be overlaid. While there are some shared principles among states, many eco-modulation factors vary state-to-state and therefore need to be analyzed at a higher level to determine which packaging design changes make sense. EPR Group has developed a Fee Optimization Roadmap to help producers evaluate the many factors impacting strategic fee planning while also meeting the states’ impactful statutory requirements, such as California’s and Minnesota’s mandates that by 2032 all covered material be recyclable or compostable.

Eco-modulation is still in its early stages. Oregon has rolled out a life-cycle assessment approach and Colorado has proposed but not yet implemented eco-modulated factors crediting percentages of a producer’s fees. While it may be a year or two before multiple states have implemented full eco-modulation schemes of credits and maluses with specified numbers, the various statutes and regulations contain enough information on the required eco-modulated factors for producers to begin evaluating packaging modification approaches.

Seven states have enacted EPR legislation for packaging, paper, and/or food service ware and additional states will likely follow suit. With more programs emerging, producers must confront a growing task of data reporting and fee planning, making it essential to systematize those processes accurately. Given the complexity of commercial sales pathways, covered material definitions, and producer obligation chains, correct application of the EPR laws has a significant impact on whether a producer avoids overpaying for non-obligated materials.

The tapestry of fee factors (base fees, eco-modulated adjustments, non-compliance enforcement penalties) and compliance requirements (recyclable and compostable determinations, truth in labeling, plastic source reduction, life-cycle assessments)[1] makes expert guidance essential for producers to make net-benefit decisions across a regional or national portfolio.

EPR Group guides producers through this complexity to arrive at accurate obligation evaluations, actionable data reporting tools, and strategic compliance planning.

[1] Note that these examples of statutory requirements may apply differently to different producers. For example, Oregon’s requirement to perform a life-cycle assessment for at least 1% of products applies only to the top 25 producers by sales volume in Oregon. For other producers, the life-cycle assessment is a voluntary action for eco-modulated fee credits.