Law and landscape

Implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR)—and a legal challenge—in Oregon. Ongoing EPR rulemaking in California. A potential pathway to help fund technology upgrades at recycling facilities. A global plastics treaty that struggles for consensus.

On the legislative front, the recycling industry witnessed a flurry of activity this year, and that activity will continue to take shape over the next 12 months.

Regardless of the actions taken, one thing has remained remarkably clear throughout 2025: Frameworks supporting the collection and recovery of recyclables are as important as ever, and entities across the value chain have been working with lawmakers to advance those objectives, with varying degrees of success.

This article looks at some of the most important legislative happenings at the state and federal level from the past year, as well as the global plastics treaty and its potential future.

Oregon goes live

On July 1, Oregon became the first U.S. state to implement an EPR program for packaging, printing and writing paper and food serviceware as established under the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), which was passed in 2021.

Stakeholders including the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) developed a plan to provide statewide access to consistent, quality recycling; upgrade recycling facilities; and establish accountability mechanisms for packaging producers to ensure materials are properly recycled.

Improvements to the state’s recycling infrastructure are funded through fees paid by producers, and the overall program is being overseen by the producer responsibility organization (PRO), the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), headquartered in Washington.

When the program launched, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said it set “a national standard,” adding that implementation is just a starting point.

“The Recycling Modernization Act will make sure of a future with less waste and pollution, holding producers responsible for their part in waste prevention,” Kotek said.

Under the program, all obligated producers are required to register with CAA and submit brand and material data through the organization’s producer portal. Those producers also are required to contribute fees based on the type, weight and recyclability of materials they place on the market, with those fees structured to reward the use of recyclable, low-impact packaging.

Additionally, producer fees are designed to ensure compliance with the program by supporting the cost of processing the covered materials, local government reimbursements, transportation of recyclables from rural areas, statewide education and outreach and the expansion of a drop-off network of recycling centers for materials not accepted in residential or commercial recycling bins. CAA provides technical assistance to help companies with registration and reporting requirements, and producers will have access to performance data and cost breakdowns to inform packaging and compliance strategies.

According to CAA, by Dec. 31, 2027, the state’s EPR program is expected to expand curbside recycling access to more than 150,000 homes and businesses statewide; deploy nearly 100 new recycling collection trucks across the state; establish more than 140 new drop-off sites in communities statewide; deliver clear, consistent recycling education to residents; reduce contamination and improve recycling system performance; standardize recycling statewide through a Uniform Statewide Collection List, or USCL; make investments to on-ramp identified materials into the recycling program; and achieve statewide recycling goals as outlined in the program plan.

With Colorado scheduled to begin its EPR program in 2026, Maine and California scheduled to do the same in 2027 and Minnesota, Maryland and Washington state all developing programs, Oregon is setting a national tone.

During an EPR session at the Paper and Plastics Recycling Conference in Chicago this October, CAA CEO Jeff Fielkow said producers have “showed up in a big way” in Oregon thus far.

“I’m really impressed and proud of the producer community,” he said of CAA’s experience in Oregon. “They’ve registered and paid, registered and reported. I’m really proud of the haulers and collectors; they’ve been incredibly collaborative in the states we’re working in. We’ve seen better cooperation than I thought I’d see on my most optimistic day.”

At the same time, Fielkow also preached patience when it comes to developing and running a successful program in the long-term. In addition to overseeing Oregon’s program, CAA has been selected to serve as the PRO in California, Colorado and Minnesota, and has been selected to sit on an advisory council in Maryland as it works on a needs assessment.

“What does a program look like? I’d say, I have no idea,” Fielkow said. “Give it time. Give us time to get the program up and running and some time under our belts to see what it looks like. Allow the time to let these programs incubate, then we can start to build the next wave.”

This year, Maryland and Washington each signed EPR bills into law.

Headed to court

However, Oregon’s RMA faces a legal challenge that could have implications for all EPR states in the future.

The National Association of Wholesaler- Distributors (NAW), Washington, filed a lawsuit July 30 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon challenging the law’s constitutionality. The DEQ, Oregon Environmental Commission and Oregon Attorney General Daniel A. Rayfield were named as defendants.

The suit claims the RMA threatens the viability of the wholesale distribution industry nationwide by creating new mandates, inhibiting interstate commerce and failing to encourage circularity.

“Unfortunately, as enacted, the act threatens the viability of the wholesale distribution industry nationwide—the cornerstone of America’s supply chain,” the NAW says, adding that the EPR law, as enacted, creates new mandates, inhibits interstate commerce and fails to encourage circularity.

“Rather than encourage sustainability through a uniform and transparent system where compliance burdens are shared across industries, Oregon chose to shift the burden to the parts of the supply chain that have little to no control over decisions to design, reduce, reuse or recycle a product,” NAW President and CEO Eric Hoplin said in July.

The suit also claims Oregon’s program unfairly targets out-of-state producers and tries to control business outside of Oregon, violating the U.S. Constitution’s limits on state regulation of interstate commerce. Additionally, it claims the EPR system mandates that producers sign contracts with a single approved private organization in CAA, giving up their economic freedom and due process rights.

NAW calls the CAA a private, third-party group with a financial interest in the program it claims is operating without clear rules or oversight. The organization claims CAA policies subject producers and distributors to fees and rules set by CAA without a real chance to object or appeal or transparency in the process.

The suit calls for the court to declare the RMA’s rules invalid and unenforceable and issue a permanent injunction keeping the defendants from implementing or enforcing the act and its regulations. The NAW also has asked the court to award it such costs of suit and attorney’s fees to which plaintiff may be entitled to by law and to award such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

A rewrite in California

On March 7, ahead of a rulemaking deadline, California Gov. Gavin Newsom told the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to restart negotiations over The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, or Senate Bill 54 (S.B. 54), which establishes an EPR program.

According to a Los Angeles Times report, Newsom cited cost as a primary issue.

“The governor is directing CalRecycle to restart these regulations to ensure California’s bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution and is implemented fairly,” Daniel Villaseñor, Newsom’s deputy director of communications, told the L.A. Times in a statement.

The report references a state analysis showing S.B. 54 would cost the state $36 billion and each California household about $300 once enacted. The analysis also says those costs are likely to be mitigated by an estimated increase in personal income amounting to $19.2 billion coupled with additional health and environmental benefits totaling $40.3 billion.

In March, a CalRecycle representative told Recycling Today the department would continue to work with industry, advocates and other interested parties to develop rules that ensure California’s plastic pollution law balances the need to cut plastic pollution with the importance of minimizing costs to families and small businesses.

CAA has been selected to work with industry participants to ensure that by 2032, 100 percent of single-use packaging and plastic food serviceware sold in the state is recyclable or compostable; 65 percent of single-use plastic packaging and food serviceware is recycled; and 25 percent less single-use plastic packaging and food serviceware is sold.

The law also requires producers to pay $5 billion over 10 years—$500 million per year—beginning in 2027 to address the environmental impacts of plastic pollution and aid affected environmental justice communities most impacted by the damaging effects of single-use plastic waste.

Rulemaking has progressed in the months since Newsom’s decision, and two key deadlines have passed. Covered producers were required to register with CAA by Sept. 5 and report their 2023 data by Nov. 15. A needs assessment is scheduled to be published Jan. 1, 2026, and CAA will open its reimbursement application portal that same month.

CAA is required to submit its EPR program plan June 15, 2026, with program implementation set to begin Jan. 1, 2027.

In an updated costs and benefits analysis of S.B. 54’s implementation released by CalRecycle in July, it is estimated the program will produce more than seven times the benefits than previously reported.

The assessment estimates $53.3 billion in avoided costs for California consumers and businesses, compared with $21 billion in costs, and estimated implementation costs dropped nearly 50 percent thanks to upgraded data regarding the amount of single-use packaging and plastic foodware in the state. The assessment also points out $25 billion in avoided damage costs associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and an increase of more than $14 billion in personal income.

CIRCLE back

At the federal level, Congressmen Tom Suozzi of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania introduced the bipartisan Cultivating Investment in Recycling and Circular Local Economies (CIRCLE) Act on July 17, a bill that would establish a targeted investment tax credit to strengthen the country’s recycling infrastructure and bolster domestic manufacturing.

The CIRCLE Act establishes a 30 percent investment tax credit that would be phased out over the next 10 years. Local municipalities investing in the reduction of waste from their own communities would receive a direct rebate of the same amount. Upon the bill’s introduction, Suozzi pointed out its support of local governments, which often bear the financial burden of operating waste management programs and pass costs on to constituents.

“An investment in recycling is a dual investment in the environment and in American infrastructure,” Suozzi said. “Increasing recycling capacity reduces waste in our communities, returns materials to the economy and helps keep plastic, glass, aluminum and other materials off local streets and beaches.

“Millions of pounds of recyclable material are landfilled or incinerated every year just because of system inefficiencies and insufficient infrastructure—expanding the recycling system is a common-sense fix for both the recycling industry and the environment.”

Led by The Recycling Partnership (TRP), Washington, numerous companies and organizations have lent their support to the initiative. TRP has estimated that the bill, if enacted, could lead to 200,000 new jobs, $9.5 billion in taxpayer savings and 169 million tons of recyclables returned to domestic markets.

“Investing in American recycling infrastructure means investing in the American economy,” TRP CEO Keef Harrison says. “The CIRCLE Act offers an opportunity to galvanize investment from the private sector to help unlock more than $30 billion in economic benefits that can be derived from investments in recycling—including 200,000 new jobs, $9.5 billion taxpayer dollars saved and 169 million tons of recyclables returned to domestic markets. The Recycling Partnership is committed to building a better U.S. recycling system and is proud to support the CIRCLE Act.”

The troubled treaty

The sixth attempt by the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to form a legally binding global treaty to address plastic pollution ended Aug. 15 with no consensus among participants after 10 days of talks in Geneva.

Participants agreed to continue the process, though the date and location of the next meeting have not been announced. The United Nations Environment Programme reported that more than 2,600 participants gathered for the event, including more than 1,400 member delegates from 183 countries and about 1,000 observers representing more than 400 organizations.

A “Chair’s Text” from INC-5.1, held in late 2024 in Busan, South Korea, served as the starting point for negotiations at INC-5.2, with then-INC Chair Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador releasing a draft text proposal and a revised edition over the course of the session. Despite what UNEP called “intensive engagement,” committee members were unable to reach consensus on either text.

Issues from previous INC sessions resurfaced in Geneva, including the inability of negotiators to find common ground when it came to caps on plastic production, the creation of a list of harmful chemicals and products of concern to phase out and a financial mechanism to implement the program and aid developing countries. Also, negotiators could not agree whether participation in the global program would be voluntary or mandatory.

As in previous INC sessions, a majority of more than 100 “ambitious” nations, including Canada, Mexico, the U.K. and European Union member states, continued to push for a legally binding treaty that includes production caps, phaseouts and a financial instrument, as well as the ability to strengthen the text over time. However, a smaller group of oil and gas producing countries, including the U.S., China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, have pushed for a voluntary program with international guidelines for product design and waste management, including recycling and reuse.

A revised Chair’s Text was released Aug. 15 that observers said included more language covering waste management and chemicals of concern but lacked support for mandatory production caps, financial or design guidelines. Talks concluded soon after.

Afterward, Diane Crowe, group sustainability director at Reconomy UK Ltd., a U.K.-based specialty recycling and waste management services provider, released a statement calling INC-5.2 a missed opportunity to tackle “one of the greatest structural challenges of our time.”

“This dependence on virgin materials is placing unsustainable pressure on the earth’s ecosystems and is contributing significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions,” Crowe says. “A strong agreement could have accelerated the global shift to a circular economy with nations committing to make better use of existing materials which would lower carbon emissions and environmental harm and reduce costs for businesses.”

Chris Jahn, president and CEO of the Washington-based American Chemistry Council (ACC), applauded U.S. negotiators and their “unrelenting efforts” to bring governments together around a global agreement that would help unleash American innovation to solve the global plastic pollution challenge.

“America’s plastic makers remain committed to advancing a circular economy for plastics—designing products for reuse and recycling, collecting and sorting them at the end of life and remaking them into new products,” Jahn said. “A global agreement to end plastic pollution will help drive investment in innovation and infrastructure in the U.S. and worldwide, building on more than 160 projects that re already improving collection, sortation and recycling systems globally.”

In October, The Guardian reported that Vyas Valdivieso would be stepping down from his role for personal and professional reasons.

The author is associate editor at Recycling Today and can be reached at cvoloschuk@gie.net.