Policy

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the seventh in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on the implementation timeline. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. To read about design for environment and performance standards, please read part five.  For information on outreach and education requirements, and equity and environmental justice, take a look at part six.

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:  

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.  

MAINE 

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

• July 2022: Administration funds available to ME DEP 
• December 2023: Rulemaking process initiated. Rules adopted by Spring/Summer 2025. 
• Anticipated by Fall 2025: RFP issued for SO by ME DEP.
• Anticipated by 2026: SO selected; implementation begins.  
• Plan & Contract with DEP renewed every 10 years.

OREGON

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

• 2022: Advisory Council appointed by OR DEQ – began meeting May 2022.  
• July 1, 2023: OR DEQ completes first needs assessment. 
• Stewardship plan(s) due by March 31, 2024. 
• Implementation begins July 1, 2025. 
• Initial stewardship plan(s) cover 3 years. After 2027, plan(s) cover 5 years. 

COLORADO

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

• December 31, 2022: Advisory Board appointed by CDPHE.  
• June 1, 2023: PRO formed. 
• September 1, 2023: Needs assessment work must begin.  
• March 2024: Needs assessment must be sent to legislature for approval. 
• Stewardship plan due by February 1, 2025 (to Advisory Board);  
• Producers must join PRO by July 1, 2025 and pay fees after plan is approved by state.  
• Stewardship plans cover 5 years. 

CALIFORNIA

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

• July 1, 2023: Advisory Board appointed by CalRecycle. 
• January 1, 2024: PRO formed; CalRecycle to publish a list of recyclable & compostable materials and covered material categories. 
• January 1, 2025: Regulations adopted. 
• Implementation begins January 1, 2027. 
• Stewardship plan renewed every 5 years.

by the team at Covanta, a PSI Partner

In the United States, we still bury more than half of our waste in landfills, losing valuable resources and harming the environment in the process as those materials release exorbitant amounts of methane into the atmosphere and contaminants into our soil and waterways.

On the surface, sending waste to landfills may seem to be the easiest and most economical route to waste disposal. But aside from the hidden liabilities and harmful effects, the upfront cost of landfill disposal is steadily rising as landfill space becomes ever more scarce. According to the Environmental Research & Education Foundation, landfill tipping fees increased annually on average between 5% and 7% — measurements taken before the sharp rise in supply chain issues and inflation.

By adopting zero waste-to-landfill processes and policies in order to divert waste away from landfills, companies can do more to preserve the environment and bolster their bottom lines: They can reduce logistics expenses and landfill fees, improve environmental compliance and reap positive public relations benefits.

This can all be accomplished by reducing the amount of waste your business generates, amplifying your recycling efforts, and finding sustainable solutions that extract value from the materials that remain.

Visit Covanta’s blog to learn the four steps that can help companies create an effective zero waste-to-landfill plan.

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the sixth in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on outreach and education requirements, and equity and environmental justice. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. To read about design for environment and performance standards, please read part five. 

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:  

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.  

MAINE 

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

• SO may fund outreach and education campaigns as needed after municipal reimbursements and administrative costs are covered. 

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• No additional equity components are included.

OREGON

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

• PRO(s) fund and coordinate outreach and education. Municipalities continue local education programs. 
• Outreach materials must be culturally responsive to non-English speakers and disabled residents. 

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• Processors must provide living wages and benefits to workers and ensure worker health, safety, and wellbeing to receive a permit or certification from the state
• Local governments must ensure access to collection for non-English speakers and disabled residents. 
• State must conduct studies on equity within the recycling system and access to collection for multifamily housing and recommend improvements to the program. The equity study repeats periodically.  
• PRO(s), in conjunction with processors, must ensure products go to responsible end markets. 

COLORADO

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

• PRO funds and implements statewide outreach program to increase recycling and reuse of covered materials. May contract with service providers, NGOs, or local government to conduct local outreach.
• Required to work with existing education and outreach programs in the state. 

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• “Responsible End Market”: a materials market in which recycling, or disposal of contaminants benefits the environment and minimizes risks to public health and worker health and safety. 
• PRO must give preference to service providers with strong labor standards and worker safety practices.  
• Any chemical recycling process must be used for food-grade applications and meet environmental standards. 
• One seat on AB designated for representative of a group focused on Environmental Justice. AB members compensated for travel and time to ensure they are not precluded from participation by lack of funds. 

CALIFORNIA

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

• PRO funds and implements outreach and education campaigns in coordination with existing outreach campaigns. Municipalities continue to implement local education programs and receive reimbursements for these expenses. 

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• All regulations established by the state must consider environmental justice impacts. 
• 60% of the overall funds from the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund go to environmental justice initiatives (see Element #13: Extra Initiatives). 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

PSI CEO and Founder Scott Cassel recently joined two expert panelists for a webinar discussion of EPR that was hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Trash Free Waters program.

PSI and US EPA have a long history. Beginning in 2003, we worked together to facilitate a multi-stakeholder dialogue — which included industry, government, and recycled paint manufacturers — and to develop a legislative model for paint EPR.

The mission of the Trash Free Waters program is to protect human health, aquatic ecosystems, and the economy by partnering on collaborative solutions to reduce the volume of trash — especially plastic materials — polluting our rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans. Because of this, the focus of the discussion was packaging EPR. Scott was joined by Kelly McBee, Circular Economy Senior Coordinator at As You Sow, and Maine State Senator Nicole Grohoski, in a discussion moderated by Kathleen Brady, Vice President of ERG.

Romell Nandi, an Environmental Protection Specialist at US EPA, introduced the discussion of EPR, which was positioned in the webinar description as a powerful tool to realize the mission of Trash Free Waters: “Positively changing consumer behavior, expanding recycling infrastructure, installing trash capture devices in waterways or as part of stormwater conveyance systems and more constitute parts of the solution space – but in and of themselves, these solutions may not be adequate to keep waterways clean. A potentially impactful step that is now being considered and increasingly implemented throughout the United States is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).”

The power of packaging EPR was echoed by all three speakers including McBee, who recommended pursuit of a national packaging EPR system — a call to action that Cassel has proposed to US EPA, most recently at a 2022 stakeholder consultation meeting organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 

Panelists were also in agreement on the need for eco-modulated fees to level the playing field. “Those that choose to use better products are ahead of the game,” Cassel said. “Those they are dragging are going to find themselves at a disadvantage.” And Cassel and Grohoski warned that the cost increase argument is a red herring — there is no evidence from Europe or Canada that consumer prices go up under packaging EPR.

Similarly, the three panelists all cited the need for agreed-upon term definitions, which are currently fragmented both within the U.S. and globally: “Definitions will be crucial,” McBee said, ” as companies set goals and achieve them.” This is an area where the agency may be able to help: As Cassel shared at the OECD meeting, US EPA can provide guidance and technical support on issues such as packaging labeling; a standard definition of recycling; and goals for source reduction, reuse, recycling, and post-consumer recycled content. 

The webinar will be archived in the Trash Free Waters Webinar Library. 

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the fifth in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on design for environment and performance standards. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent.

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:  

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.  

MAINE 

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

• None beyond eco-modulated fee criteria. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

• Program targets for reuse, recycling, and collection rates to be set through rulemaking.

OREGON

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

• Large producers must perform a life cycle evaluation on 1% of their in-state covered materials and publish results. 
• State conducts studies on contamination, composting, and litter/marine debris. Must recommend changes to the program based on results of composting and litter/marine debris studies. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

• Statute includes plastics recycling goals:  
  • 25% by 2028; 
  • 50% by 2040;  
  • 70% by 2050.  
• In 2038, OR DEQ may adjust plastics recycling rates by rule (no less than 35% and no more than 70%). 
• Program targets for contamination to be set through rulemaking.  
• Convenience standards, collection targets and performance standards for PRO-collected materials to be set through rulemaking. 

COLORADO

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

• None beyond eco-modulated fee criteria. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

• Needs assessment will create three scenarios with proposed goals; Advisory Board and state agency will make recommendations on preferred scenario and legislature will designate 2030 goals to move forward; PRO will then design plan to meet goals by 2030, and 2035 for collection, recycling, and PCR content rates (for certain covered materials). 

CALIFORNIA

DESIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT

• All covered materials must be recyclable or compostable by 2032. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

• Plastic covered material must be source reduced (reusable, refillable, or with virgin plastic components eliminated) by 25% by weight and number of plastic components:  
  • 10% by 2027;  
  • 20% by 2030;  
  • 25% by 2032. 
  • At least 10 percentage points must be achieved by elimination without substitution; at least 4 percentage points must be achieved by shifting to reuse or refill.
• Plastic covered material must meet increasing recycling rates:  
  • 30% by 2028 
  • 40% by 2030
  • 65% by 2032 
• Polystyrene food service ware banned unless it meets increasing recycling rates:
  • 25% by 2025  
  • 30% by 2028 
  • 50% by 2030 
• CalRecycle may adjust recycling rates (up or down) and source reduction targets (up) 

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the fourth in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on funding inputs and allocations, i.e. how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. 

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:  

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.  

MAINE: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS 

INPUTS 

• Eco-modulated fees set through rulemaking and based on the median per ton cost for municipalities to manage each material.  
• Weight or volume-based metrics 
• Incentivizes recyclability, post-consumer content, reuse, reduction of materials, reduced toxicity and litter, and clear labeling. 

ALLOCATIONS 

• Needs Assessment: SO conducts & funds. Results submitted to DEP.  
• Municipal reimbursement: all municipalities that recycle readily recyclable covered materials and meet reporting requirements receive reimbursement. 
• Reimbursement mechanism: to be determined through rulemaking. 
• Recycling funding covers: median net cost of municipal collection, transportation, sorting, and processing; program administration; and investments in education and infrastructure as funds allow (see Element #10 –Outreach & Education requirements).

OREGON: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS

INPUTS 

• Eco-modulated fees proposed by PRO/s and based on the PRO/s’ costs to manage covered materials.  
• Metrics/units not specified (“total amount”) 
• Incentivizes recyclability, post-consumer content, life cycle impact reduction, evaluation and disclosure, and product-to-package ratio. 

ALLOCATIONS 

• Needs Assessment: Limited to local governments expansion. State conducts, PRO/s fund.  
• Shared-Cost municipal reimbursement: PRO/s reimburse municipalities – or provide funding in advance – for most transportation costs to commingled processing facilities or end markets based on distance, provision of generator-facing contamination reduction programming (e.g., cart tagging), and expansion of collection and recycling infrastructure based on the needs assessment.  
• PRO/s pay processors directly to cover costs of removing contaminants in the waste stream (“contamination management fee”) and a separate “processor commodity risk fee” designed to protect ratepayers from volatility in commodity revenues, and to cover most processing costs, including increased costs from implementing the law. 
• Reimbursement mechanism: principles prescribed in statute, details to be determined through rulemaking. 
• Recycling funding covers: transportation, sorting, processing, public education. 
  • Funding does not include local government collection costs (roughly 70% of system costs). 

COLORADO: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS

INPUTS 

• Eco-modulated fees proposed by PRO and based on type of material, recyclability, and net recycling services costs.  
• Fees based on net costs for recycling; must be reported by weight 
• Incentivizes reduced packaging material, enhanced recyclability, PCR content, design for reuse/refill, high recycling and refill rates. 

ALLOCATIONS 

• Needs Assessment: PRO funds state-approved third-party to conduct. Results submitted to Advisory Board and agency.  
  • PRO must work with agency, Advisory Board, and legislative budget committee to agree on scenario for increasing collection & recycling.  
• Full EPR: PRO contracts with haulers, depots & MRFs, including local governments. 
• Reimbursement formula: Must cover 100% of net recycling services using objective cost formula/s proposed in stewardship plan; Advisory Board input required.  
• Recycling funding covers: capital improvements, collection, transportation, sorting, processing, public education, disposal of contamination (nonrecyclable collected covered materials). 
• Funding to compost facilities goes to reduce contamination and improve processing of compostable packaging.  
• Caps PRO expenditures on administration at 5% and prohibits spending producer fees on employee bonuses.  
• Reimburses state agency for program-related expense. 

CALIFORNIA: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS 

INPUTS 

• Eco-modulated fees proposed by PRO and based on the PROs costs to manage covered materials. 
• Weight and unit-based metrics  
• Incentivizes recyclability, post-consumer content, reuse, source reduction, reduced toxicity and litter, and clear labeling. 

ALLOCATIONS 

• Needs Assessment: State conducts, PRO funds.  
• Shared-Cost municipal reimbursement: all municipalities that recycle readily recyclable covered materials and meet reporting requirements receive reimbursement. 
• Reimbursement mechanism: proposed by PRO in program plan; state approval required.  
• Recycling funding covers: capital improvements, transportation from remote/rural areas to centralized sorting facilities or end markets, sorting, processing, public education, expanding curbside collection, drop-off & public space recycling access, improving end markets. 
  • Funding does not include ongoing operational costs for recycling programs in place before the Act took effect, but does include enhancements to existing infrastructure through quality incentive payments, grants, or other means to improve processing or reduce contamination 

ALL OR MOST: FUNDING INPUTS & ALLOCATIONS 

INPUTS 

• Eco-modulated fees  

ALLOCATIONS 

• Statewide Needs Assessment 
• Recycling funding always covers administrative costs 
• Shared-Cost reimbursement states (OR & CA): Include provisions to protect ratepayers from increased costs. 

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the third in a multi-part blog series, which analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.  

We used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:  

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.  

This blog is part three in our multi-part series. It focuses on whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement.  

For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two.

MAINE: ARE THERE UNIQUE PROVISIONS AND/OR EXEMPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS AND WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE? 

UNIQUE PROVISION 

An entity that re-packages a product for resale is the producer of the added packaging.  

PRODUCER EXEMPTIONS 

• Small businesses (<1 ton pkg or <$2m gross revenue) are exempt. 
• Mid-sized businesses (<$5 million gross revenue/year) are exempt for first three years. 
• Producers of perishable food with <15 tons of packaging are exempt.   

• Businesses with at least >50% revenue from salvage, closeouts, bankruptcies, and/or liquidations are exempt. 

GOVERNANCE CRITERIA 

• One Stewardship Org (SO): Potential SOs – can be for- or non-profit – submit bids to DEP that include program plans; DEP selects and contracts with one SO and approves its plan.  
• SO Board(s) not dictated in statute.  

• Advisory Council: Another shorter option – There is no Advisory Council. SO administers program, but rulemaking does call for various mechanisms to allow for ongoing stakeholder involvement.  
• Plan Oversight: SO is a contractor to Maine DEP, must get approval for all program expenditures. 

OREGON: ARE THERE UNIQUE PROVISIONS AND/OR EXEMPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS AND WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE? 

UNIQUE PROVISIONS 

• Un-branded packaging: The producer is the manufacturer of the packaged item (the product inside the packaging).  
• Shipping packaging: The producer is the person that packages or ships a product to a consumer. 
• “All other packaging”: The producer is the first distributor into the state.  
• Printed publications: The producer is the publisher; newspapers and magazines can provide in-kind advertising in lieu of some or all fees. 

• Food service ware: The producer is the person that first sells in or into the state. 

PRODUCER EXEMPTIONS 

• Small businesses (<1 ton covered materials or <$5m gross revenue) are exempt. 

• Restaurants, food carts, and similar food service businesses, if they do not produce branded food service ware, are exempt. 
• Producers whose products are covered under the bottle bill and distribute less than five tons of other packaging into the state are exempt. 

GOVERNANCE CRITERIA 

• One or more PRO(s), must be 501 (c)(3) nonprofit/s; each submits stewardship plan(s) to the state.  
• PRO Board(s) not dictated in statute.  
• Advisory Council: Seventeen voting members appointed by the Governor and two non-voting legislators.  
• Plan Oversight: Oregon DEQ may suspend plan approval if major violations occur. 

COLORADO: ARE THERE UNIQUE PROVISIONS AND/OR EXEMPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS AND WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE? 

UNIQUE PROVISIONS 

• Un-branded packaging: The producer is the manufacturer of the packaged item (the product inside the packaging).  

• Shipping packaging: The producer is the person that packages or ships a product to a consumer. 
• “All other packaging”: The producer is the first distributor into the state.  
• International Imports: The first company that imports into the U.S. is the producer. 
• Printed publications: The producer is the publisher; newspapers and magazines/periodicals can provide in-kind advertising in lieu of some or all fees. 

PRODUCER EXEMPTIONS 

• Small businesses (< 1 ton covered materials or <$5m gross revenue not including on-premises alcohol sales) are exempt; rulemaking to adjust dollar threshold in 2023 & annually thereafter. 
• State & local governments are exempt. 
• Nonprofits are exempt. 

• Agricultural employers with <$5m gross revenue from in-state consumer sales are exempt. 
• Individual businesses operating physical retail food establishment are exempt. 
• Builders, construction companies, and construction contractors are exempt.  

GOVERNANCE CRITERIA 

• One PRO to start – CDPHE may approve another in 2029; must be 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit. 
• PRO Board must include non-voting members from trade associations, membership must reflect diversity in size and type, and board meetings are subject to public notice. 
• The Advisory Board will be created by CDPHE and will be comprised of 13 voting members plus two nonvoting liaisons from CDPHE and the PRO.  
• Plan Oversight: State approves plan after input from advisory board; legislative budget committee must approve program goals recommended by needs assessment before initial plan is developed.  

CALIFORNIA: ARE THERE UNIQUE PROVISIONS AND/OR EXEMPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS AND WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE? 

There are no unique provisions in California’s law. 

PRODUCER EXEMPTIONS 

• Small businesses (<$1m gross revenue) are exempt. 
• Producers of agricultural commodities are exempt. 

GOVERNANCE CRITERIA 

• One PRO to start: Must be 501(c)(3) nonprofit; CalRecycle may approve additional PROs in 2031.  
• PRO Board must include non-voting members from material trade associations and companies. 
• Advisory Board is appointed by CalRecycle with 13 voting and three non-voting members.  

• Plan Oversight: State may withdraw PRO approval if requirements are not met. 

COMMONALITIES IN PRODUCER DEFINITIONS 

Producers are primarily the brand owners of products that use covered materials (i.e., the brand owner of the product inside the packaging). For products whose brand owner has no physical presence in the U.S., the producer is the importer, such as: 

• Manufacturers selling packaged products or covered paper products under their own brands, or unbranded. 
• Licensees of brands or trademarks if the product manufacturer is not the brand–owner (except Maine). 
• First importer of a packaged product or covered paper product using covered materials that sells or distributes it into the state . 

COMMON ELEMENTS OF GOVERNANCE ACROSS ALL LAWS 

• Except in Oregon, producers may comply individually if they choose, rather than joining a PRO/SO, although there are specific requirements related to this in Colorado and California laws. In Maine, producers may also comply individually subject to a state-approved alternative collection program. 
• Except in Maine, an Advisory Council or Board provides input to the state and PRO/s on stewardship plans, annual reports, covered materials lists, needs assessments, and other elements.  
• The SO/PRO submits stewardship plan to the state for review and approval.  
• The state conducts enforcement and may issue civil penalties for noncompliance. 

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is second in a multi-part blog series, which analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.  

We used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:  

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.  

This blog is part two in our multi-part series. It focuses on covered entities, and collection and convenience standards in each state. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one.

MAINE: WHAT ENTITIES ARE COVERED? WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF COLLECTION CONVENIENCE THAT A STEWARDSHIP PLAN MUST PROVIDE TO COVERED ENTITIES?

All entities served by local governments (residential and commercial), including schools and public places, are covered. 

EPR model: Municipal Reimbursement  

Infrastructure: Stewardship organization (SO) may expand collection infrastructure as needed using funds leftover after municipal reimbursements and administrative costs are covered.  

Convenience standards: N/A  

Statewide List: Develop statewide list. Municipalities will have to provide for collection of the full suite of materials identified as “readily recyclable” to participate in program. The process for creating the statewide list will be developed during rulemaking.  

Alternative Collection Programs: Allows for the establishment of “alternative collection program/s” for covered materials, as approved by DEP. Producers may establish their own collection and processing systems for covered materials and do not have to pay fees into the state program for any material collected through their own programs.

OREGON: WHAT ENTITIES ARE COVERED? WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF COLLECTION CONVENIENCE THAT A STEWARDSHIP PLAN MUST PROVIDE TO COVERED ENTITIES?

All entities served by local government provided or overseen (e.g., franchised) service (residential and commercial; on-route and drop-off) are covered, though most collection costs are not covered by the PRO. Producers provide collection for additional materials that are designated in the rule.  

EPR model: Shared responsibility with municipal reimbursement.  

Convenience standards: OR DEQ to establish through rulemaking for producer-collected materials.  

Statewide Lists: EQC to develop two lists in consultation with PROs and Advisory Council: a “uniform statewide collection list” of materials that local governments must collect and “specifically identified materials” that PROs must collect.  

Alternative Collection Programs: Not applicable, although PROs have some latitude in how they collect materials on their list.   

COLORADO: WHAT ENTITIES ARE COVERED? WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF COLLECTION CONVENIENCE THAT A STEWARDSHIP PLAN MUST PROVIDE TO COVERED ENTITIES?

For the first five years, only residential (single and multi-family) are covered; future plans expand to public places, small businesses, schools, hospitality locations, state and local government buildings. 

EPR model: Full EPR  

Convenience standards: Collection of recyclables must be as convenient as collection of trash.   

Statewide List: PRO and Advisory Board develop statewide list of readily recyclable covered materials based on needs assessment; CDPHE reviews & approves. Updated annually.  

Alternative Collection Programs: Producers may submit individual program plans beginning in 2025 and must notify CDPHE of intent one year in advance.   

CALIFORNIA: WHAT ENTITIES ARE COVERED? WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF COLLECTION CONVENIENCE THAT A STEWARDSHIP PLAN MUST PROVIDE TO COVERED ENTITIES? 

All entities served by local governments (residential and commercial are covered.   

EPR model: Shared responsibility with municipal reimbursement.  

Convenience standards: Not applicable.  

Statewide Lists: CalRecycle to publish lists of covered material categories that are recyclable and compostable as of Jan 1, 2024. Updated every two years.   

All municipalities must collect all recyclable covered materials (from statewide list).  

Alternative Collection Programs: For covered materials not collected through a curbside program, PRO shall collect and recycle these materials.   

COMMON EXEMPTIONS IN ALL OR MOST LEGISLATION  

PROs must expand collection infrastructure as needed based on results of the statewide needs assessment and any relevant rulemaking – see distinct language in Maine.    

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is first in a multi-part blog series, which will analyze the four packaging EPR laws.

We used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. They include: 

• covered materials/products 
• covered entities 
• collection and convenience  
• responsible party (i.e. “producer”) 
• governance, funding inputs 
• funding allocation 
• design for environment 
• performance standards 
• outreach and education requirements 
• equity and environmental justice 
• implementation timeline 
• key definitions 
• additional components 

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents. This is part one in a multi-part series, which focuses on covered materials and products in each state. 

WHAT’S COVERED IN MAINE? 

Packaging:  

• Primary/Secondary 
• Residential and some commercial (no distribution packaging) 
• Reusables: covered; only charged at initial distribution 
• No packaging-like products.  
• No paper products. 

Unique Exemptions:  

• Paint containers, if PaintCare demonstrates they are recycling at least 90% of collected containers (or 80% with Department approval)  

WHAT’S COVERED IN OREGON? 

Packaging:  

• Primary/Secondary  
• Residential and commercial 
• Reusables: exempt until ultimately disposed in state 

Packaging-like products:  

• Food service ware  

Paper products:  

• Printing and writing paper 

Unique exemptions:  

• Commercial pkg that does not undergo separation from other materials at a processing facility, is collected outside the local government/Opportunity to Recycle framework and recycled at a responsible end market.  

• Specialty industrial packaging 
• On-farm packaging 
  Pallets  

WHAT’S COVERED IN COLORADO? 

Packaging:  

• Primary/Secondary 
• Single- or short-term use residential & most commercial (no B2B transport/distribution packaging; no exclusively industrial/manufacturing pkg)  
• Reusables: exempt 

No packaging-like products 

Paper products:  

• Printing & writing paper (see exemptions) 

Unique exemptions: 

• Cannabis packaging – since it is regulated like federally regulated medications.  
• Printed financial/billing statements, medical docs & other vital docs required to be printed by law 
  Printed publications primarily covering news & current events  

WHAT’S COVERED IN CALIFORNIA? 

Packaging:  

• Primary/Secondary  
• Single-use residential & most commercial 

Reusables:  

• Exempt  

Packaging-like products:  

• Single-use food service ware and bags (no reusables/refillables) 

No paper products 

Unique exemptions:  

• Commercial pkg that does not undergo separation from other materials at a processing facility, is recycled at a responsible end market, and demonstrates high recycling rates (before 2027: >65% for 3 consecutive years; after 2027: > 70% annually)  

COMMON EXEMPTIONS IN ALL OR MOST LEGISLATION 

• Architectural paint containers covered under other legislation – (see specific language for ME)  
• Beverage containers covered under other legislation – (see specific language in CO) 
• Medical packaging – see each law for variations in language – (except ME) 
• Packaging required or regulated by federal regulations – (in Maine, DEP will review) 
• Long-term storage packaging (usable for > 5 years) – (except OR)  
• Where paper is covered (OR/CO): Paper products that become unsafe or unsanitary to handle 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

Have you checked our EPR Laws Map lately? California just changed color! This month, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law battery EPR legislation, championed by the California Product Stewardship Council and Californians Against Waste, that includes strong collection convenience standards and performance goals, comprehensive education and outreach requirements, and aspects that seek to advance equity. The state now has 11 EPR laws in place – a national record.   

Known as the Responsible Battery Recycling Act of 2022, AB 2440 requires producers to establish, fund, and operate a stewardship program to collect and recycle covered batteries and battery-containing products, including primary, rechargeable, and lithium-ion batteries, which can explode or cause fires. 

Over a decade ago, PSI began hosting meetings with state and local governments and other key stakeholders from across the United States to develop an evolved model for EPR batteries legislation based on global best practices. These ongoing discussions and the updated model helped shape legislation introduced in multiple states, which led to Vermont’s first-in-the-country single-use household battery EPR law (2014) and the District of Columbia’s first-in-the-nation single-use and rechargeable battery law that also covers battery-containing products (2021).  

Newsom also signed SB 1215, the AB 2240 companion bill, which was stripped of its EPR elements but still amends California’s existing electronics recycling law to include batteries that are “embedded” in products and not designed to be easily removed.