For most of the last decade, companies in the United States planned for extended producer responsibility (EPR) frameworks for packaging. In 2026, it became something they pay for. Invoices are landing, fee schedules are published, and courts are weighing whether the whole architecture survives constitutional scrutiny. While many in the nonwovens industry are not covered producers under state law definitions, these frameworks will matter as more products are pulled into scope in the coming years.
What Is EPR?
Packaging EPR shifts the cost of end-of-life management for packaging, paper and food service ware from municipalities and ratepayers to the companies that put those materials on the market. A covered “producer” of a good, usually the brand owner, but in several states the importer or distributor as well, must register with the state, report how much covered material it supplied by weight and material category, and pay a per-pound fee.
The fees are meant to be eco-modulated. Readily recycled formats sit at the bottom of the rate card, and hard-to-recycle formats sit at the top, so the design decision made years before a fee arrives determines the size of the payment due.
Seven States, Seven Programs
No national packaging EPR framework is on the horizon, and states are moving where the federal government has not. As of this summer, California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington have enacted comprehensive packaging EPR laws, covering roughly a fifth of the U.S. population — closer to 40 percent if pending bills advance. New York’s bill failed again before adjournment, and proposals in Tennessee, Missouri, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Illinois remain in play for 2027.
Timing varies widely. Oregon began charging fees July 1, 2025. Colorado followed in January 2026 and reached full statewide implementation in June. California published a 2026 early fee schedule in July and begins its ongoing program fee in 2027. Maryland is slated for 2028, Minnesota for February 2029, and Washington for 2029 to 2030. Maine is still selecting a stewardship organization.
De minimis thresholds under which producers do not need to register differ as well. Such thresholds are under one metric ton or under $5 million in global revenue in Oregon and Washington, under $2 million in Minnesota and Maryland, and under $1 million in California gross sales, with California requiring an affirmative annual application rather than an automatic exemption.
What A PRO Is, And Why CAA Matters
No state administers an EPR statute itself. Each one delegates the operational work to a producer responsibility organization — a private entity that stands between the regulator and the regulated. The PRO registers producers, collects supply data, writes a program plan describing how the state’s targets will be met, sets and publishes the fee schedule inside that plan, invoices producers, and passes the money through to haulers, materials recovery facilities and local jurisdictions. The state agency approves the plan and audits performance.
One organization occupies almost all of that space. The Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded in 2022 by roughly 20 companies from the food, beverage, consumer goods, restaurant and retail sectors, and it now serves as the single approved PRO in California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. Maine is the only enacted state that has not yet selected one. The hope is that the one large national PRO will allow for some harmonization of reporting and compliance across states.
Implementation And Fees
CAA’s clearest statement of what this costs came on June 15, when it submitted its draft California program plan to the SB 54 Packaging Producer Responsibility Advisory Board. The plan is the operating recipe for the largest packaging EPR program in the country, and its budget numbers reset expectations: total program costs of roughly $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion in 2027 alone, and $9.3 billion to $17.2 billion over the 2027-2031 period, funded entirely by producer fees. The plan itemizes 16 budget lines, including the statutory Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund, which requires producers to contribute $500 million per year from 2027 through 2031 on top of program costs.
Looking at the fees, Oregon offers an initial indication. Oregon’s schedule spans roughly 60 material categories. Aluminum cans run about $0.07 per pound and corrugated about $0.09, while clear polyethylene terephthalate is roughly $0.28, polypropylene $0.42, monomaterial polyethylene film $0.47, and multilayer laminate pouches about $1.12 — a 16-fold spread driven by perceived recyclability.
The Courts Weigh In
In July 2025, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) sued Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality, arguing the Recycling Modernization Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause and due process, and unconstitutionally delegates fee-setting authority to a private party. In February 2026, a federal district court judge granted a preliminary injunction, the first federal court intervention against a U.S. EPR program on constitutional grounds, though it shields only companies that were NAW members on the date of the order. Everyone else keeps registering, reporting and paying.
A five-day bench trial ran in July 2026 in the case. A ruling is likely in the late summer or early fall, and litigation and appeals can be expected on this case regardless of the ruling.
Legal challenges have continued. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association sued Colorado in March; NAW joined 17 state attorneys general in a June federal challenge to California’s SB 54; environmental groups sued CalRecycle from the opposite direction; and NAW filed against Colorado in July. Meanwhile, a separate California ruling has enjoined enforcement of the SB 343 recyclability labeling law on First Amendment grounds.
The European Parallel
Europe has been in the EPR space longer and is moving in the opposite direction on structure, namely with a far more harmonized structure. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation became applicable August 12, 2026, replacing a 1994 directive with a binding regulation that applies directly in all 27 member states. It mandates eco-modulated EPR fees, design-for-recycling by 2030, minimum recycled content and harmonized labeling, though rates may differ among EU member states.
The contrast is instructive. Europe built a harmonized framework and is filling it in. The United States is assembling a patchwork under litigation. For nonwovens producers selling into both, the compliance work is the same: know your material categories, know your weights and assume that rates will only continue to increase.
