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.