EPR GROUP CONSULTING INC.

U.S. EPR Programs – 2025 First Quarter: Oregon Moves Forward, Delays in California, New York Under Fire

​

The first quarter of 2025 is living up to expectations as being a crucial year for U.S. extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs for packaging (which in some programs also include paper and/or food service ware).  Some states are moving through implementation while others face regulatory or legislative hurdles.

​

Oregon is at the forefront. On March 31,  producer data reports were due to Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the producer responsibility organization (PRO).  CAA will likely offer a grace period before reporting non-compliant companies to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”); however, after the grace period is over, DEQ can be expected to take actions to ensure compliance -- which could include offers of technical assistance or threats to assess penalties.  Late-comers are likely also subject to fees from CAA.

​

Based on its analysis of the reporting data, CAA will establish fee schedules and expects to invoice producers by July 2025.  Colorado’s reporting deadline is not far behind with reporting data due by July 31, 2025 and fees expected to be invoiced in January 2026. Minnesota’s program, while still in early implementation stages, requires registration with the PRO by July 1, 2025.

​

In the last version of California’s proposed rules (after three iterations of proposed rules), producers would have been required to register with CAA by July 1, 2025.  On March 7 2025, however, Governor Newsom directed the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), to redraft California’s regulations, claiming the rules as proposed would have placed an unacceptable cost burden on companies and consumers.

​

California’s timeline is now more uncertain. CalRecycle has announced it will restart the regulatory rulemaking process but has not indicated when it will publish new proposed rules or what specific features will be changed to satisfy concerns about cost. The statutory prohibitions, however, remain in effect – meaning, among other things, businesses are prohibited from selling goods into California after January 1, 2027 unless they have joined the PRO (or satisfy stringent requirements for individual compliance).

​

Some areas that have triggered significant public comment in California by industry stakeholders include: standards for “reuse” and “refill,” need for a regulatory framework that accommodates flexible film (which presents challenges for recycling but which also offers unique and necessary benefits from a food safety perspective) and bio-based plastics – including allowances for chemical recycling.

​

Undaunted by developments in California, in mid-March, both Maryland and Washington passed bills by their state Senates which are now under consideration in their respective Houses of Representatives. Tennessee introduced a bill in January 2025 but it will not advance this year.

​

Meanwhile, New York’s proposed EPR bill (companion bills in the House and the Senate) faces significant opposition. in a recent letter opposing New York’s proposed legislation, the Business Council of New York State (BCNYS) cited Governor Newsom’s concern about costs of the EPR program, claiming that the NY EPR bills would impose even greater burdens than California’s law.  Among other things, the New York bills  would impose stringent source reduction requirements and impose a ban on fifteen chemicals in packaging. The BCYNS, however, has expressed support of an alternative EPR program proposal, patterned after Minnesota’s EPR packaging law.

​

In conclusion, the EPR programs within the U.S. are simultaneously unfolding, uncertain, and in full swing.