Tracking EPR’s progress

Seven states have passed extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation in recent years, with Oregon becoming the first to launch its program in July 2025.

With Oregon’s recent implementation as an example, a panel of packaging and recycling industry stakeholders gathered at the 2025 Paper and Plastics Recycling Conference (PPRC) in Chicago this past October to discuss EPR developments and opportunities ahead. The session, titled EPR in Action: State Updates, was moderated by Shannon Crawford Gay, director of recycling and environmental policy at Houston-based WM.

Seeking harmonization

With each state—California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington—passing legislation that will result in differing programs, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which has been selected as the producer responsibility organization (PRO) in four of the states, has looked for ways to harmonize rules where possible.

Jeff Fielkow, the CEO of CAA, said harmonization is a topic “we constantly pound our fist on,” with the alliance working to form harmonization principles throughout the industry.

“When a state passes an EPR law, producers have three obligations: register, report their data and pay,” Fielkow said. “We harmonize what that experience is from state to state. We’ve established one place to go to ask a question with our streamlined portal.”

Using Oregon as an example, Fielkow said CAA’s producer portal has provided stakeholders with a streamlined experience that will allow effective participation. Along with Oregon, CAA serves as the PRO in California, Colorado and Minnesota and also has a presence on Maryland’s advisory council.

“Now that we’re live in Oregon, we have a harmonized experience for suppliers,” Fielkow continued. “All the suppliers and MRF [material recovery facility] operators needed to report in their data so we could pay them. It takes a little time to get that right, but now we have the model, so we can move that to the next state.

“We’re harmonizing the timeline. When a state passes a law, how many years should go by before it goes into effect? We’re harmonizing who should run the program, harmonizing the definition of what is a producer. Getting all those mechanisms right is the key.”

He added that eco-modulation, an element of an EPR program that rewards producer behaviors that make packaging easier and more cost-effective to recycle while penalizing those that make recycling more difficult, also requires a level of harmonization across states.

“If you don’t have harmonization of those, you have producers putting their hands in the air,” he said.

The importance of REMs

Where recovered materials ultimately end up presents an important challenge for each EPR state, and identifying responsible end markets (REMs) is a priority stakeholders want addressed sooner than later, according to Scott Byrne, vice president of global sustainability at Hartsville, South Carolina-based packaging producer Sonoco.

Byrne serves on Oregon’s Recycling System Advisory Council and described REMs as the most contentious issue he has been a part of in that group.

“Within that group there’s a lot of tension, but it’s good tension,” he said, adding that opinions have differed among the board when it comes to topics like ecomodulation, as well. “But there’s a sense of, ‘Let’s get the program rolling, and then we can look at maybe the next program plan amendment.

“[However,] if you get [REMs] wrong, it could almost be existential to the program. If the end markets haven’t signed up and MRFs can’t move that material, the whole system becomes very fragile. Some of the stakeholders are saying responsible end markets are almost a cornerstone of the program, [while others say] we need to make sure the program works first.”

Crawford Gay noted that sorting out domestic end markets could be helpful given market volatility for different commodities and asked the panelists what is being done to bolster them in the U.S. to prevent having too much material with nowhere to go.

Fielkow said markets currently are “extraordinarily weak,” not just in the U.S. but globally.

“The best feature of a well-structured EPR program is to help the industry sort out those markets,” he said. “The high volatility is always what’s created problems for long-term investments, and EPR can help smooth that out and actually promote the industry.

“If markets go weak, [EPR] creates a way for the industry—the haulers and the MRF operators—to remain profitable. It helps to manage the volume of material and the quality of that material.”

If stakeholders can get it right, Fielkow said, each ecosystem for recycling can improve.

“We can make sure we’re presenting high-quality materials for sale,” he continued. “There are huge needs in terms of what must be collected for recycling. It’s not a wish; it’s in the targets. And we know those [end] markets aren’t there yet, but we’re making sure we get there in the right order.”

Limiting confusion

According to Lynn Dyer, executive director of Springfield, Massachusetts-based American Institute for Packaging and the Environment (Ameripen), EPR laws should be designed to include existing collection programs for materials already in the marketplace while also preparing for future materials.

“How do we not disrupt what’s working today and prepare for tomorrow,” she said. “People are going to be fighting to get more materials [included in the legislation]. If you’re a producer and start to see those fees assessed on your products, how’s that going to affect materials entering the marketplace? We have to make sure any legislation that comes up is prepared for that.”

Dyer suggested that states conduct a needs assessment early in the legislative process to avoid throwing “the kitchen sink” into the law.

“Let’s build EPR laws that move things along,” she said. “There’s already a huge burden on companies learning how to do this. If you have states coming out with these very different rules, you create all this confusion in the industry.”

Fielkow pointed out that CAA works with different industry organizations, including Ameripen, as well as MRF operators, haulers and other industry stakeholders, to develop covered materials lists while also planning for future capital expenditures that will help improve collection outcomes.

“Our role is we’re a nonprofit and we only want to see great outcomes,” he said. “We want the industry to be healthier than it is today. There’s a role for all of the trade associations, the TRPs [The Recycling Partnership], the Closed Loop Partners’. We want to convene all these groups and try to coordinate a plan so we’re using resources efficiently and getting the most impact.

“If we don’t have the answers, the group will come up with the answers. It’s about getting higher impact for the products we know are there where maybe resources are limited in a particular area, then getting capital in to help solve these problems. That’s what we do.”

In Oregon, in particular, Fielkow said producers have showed up in a big way.

“I’m really impressed and proud of the producer community,” he continued. “They have 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 have seen better cooperation than I thought I would see on my most optimistic day.”

According to Fielkow, EPR programs will require a degree of patience if they are to be successful in the long run.

“What does a program look like? I’d say, I have no idea,” he 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.”

An alternative view

In the second session, EPR at a Crossroads: Protecting Recycling, Addressing Batteries, National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) President and CEO Michael E. Hoffman said the organization does not support EPR for packaging, though it does support collection programs for items such as batteries.

“We do want to recycle,” Hoffman said. “Our concern is that [EPR] is an extraordinarily expensive way to try and improve recovery rates.”

Hoffman cited data from a study NWRA conducted in 2021 with the aid of United Kingdom-based consultancy Eunomia Research & Consulting that looked at four different outcomes, though he said none was positive. The outcomes researched included:

• Does the EPR program lead to an increase in recycling rates? Hoffman said the study showed it is likely but not always certain.
• Does it lead to increased recycled content usage? The study claimed there was no evidence to support design-for-recycling improving usage.
• Does it lead to an increase in the use of design-for-recycling practices? The study said there was no evidence.
• Does it lead to an increase in the market value of collected packaging material? According to the study, evidence did not support a more favorable secondary market value of recycled packaging.

“If communities don’t have access because they don’t have the markets, there’s ways to work around this,” Hoffman said. “With rural recycling programs, we found some that are successful, with exceptional recovery rates at a fraction of what EPR would cost today.

“CAA, Ameripen [and others] are working at this in a sensible way, but his process is expensive. This is a grocery tax. Anyone that thinks producers aren’t going to increase prices to make this work is delusional. They’re going to pass these costs on. There are better ways to do this economically.”

Per the Eunomia study, an alternative approach to EPR would include nationally coordinated recycling standards, targeted infrastructure investment, a focus on efficiency and market incentives and proven recovery system upgrades.

Hoffman encouraged entities forming EPR programs in different states to include MRF operators in their discussions since those facilities will be tasked with processing higher volumes.

“[With] conversations about EPR and putting more volume through MRFs, you have to talk to us,” Hoffman said. “What can go through these plants and still allow us to run them at high efficiency to maintain economics?”

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