Proven Progress: EPR Success Across the U.S.

August 20, 2025

The Environmental Research & Education Foundation’s recent report raised an important point: there’s no single national platform tracking the performance of extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs across the United States. But the report draws a flawed conclusion—equating data fragmentation with policy uncertainty. 

The reality? While reporting systems vary from state to state, the results are in. And they’re compelling. 

It’s true that EPR reporting lacks national uniformity. But that doesn’t mean EPR isn’t working. In fact, when we look at what’s happening on the ground—state by state, product by product—the evidence shows growing impact, cost savings, and clear environmental benefits. 

More Than Just Paint: EPR in Connecticut 

PSI’s 2017 study on Connecticut’s four EPR laws—covering paint, electronics, thermostats, and mattresses—showed: 

  • 26 million pounds of material diverted from disposal 
  • $2.6 million in annual savings to municipalities 
  • Over 100 local jobs created 
  • A reduction of 13 million kg CO₂e, equivalent to removing 2,300 cars from the road 

While this study was conducted years ago, it reflects EPR at a certain point in time, many at the beginning of their programs. But these numbers haven’t stopped since then—they’ve only matured and expanded. 

Packaging and Pharmaceuticals: Momentum Is Building 

In 2024, Oregon became the first U.S. state to approve a full packaging EPR program implementation plan. Nearly 2,000 producers submitted reports in the first month, and millions in fees began flowing to support education, infrastructure, and expanded access. Other states—California, Colorado, Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine—are not far behind. 

Meanwhile, Washington State’s pharmaceutical take-back program collected nearly 875,000 pounds of unused medications in 2023 from more than 650 collection sites. Programs in New York, California, Oregon and more are ramping up, , proving that EPR is delivering solutions for both packaging and pharmaceuticals.

From Policy to Performance 

At PSI’s 2025 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum, the numbers told a clear story: 

  • 146 EPR laws are now enacted across 21 product categories. 
  • The national conversation has moved beyond legislation to implementation—emphasizing compliance, reporting, and continuous improvement. 

Across states, producers, regulators, and PROs are collaborating with PSI to develop operational systems and standardized performance metrics. 

These Are Just a Handful of Success Stories 

Paint. Mattresses. Electronics. Thermostats. Batteries. Pharmaceuticals. Packaging. The list goes on and on. 

These programs represent only a sample of what’s working across the country today. Dozens of other programs—some mature, others newly launched—are delivering measurable environmental and economic benefits. The real limitation isn’t the performance of EPR laws—it’s the fragmentation of data reporting and the uneven pace of public communication. 

What the EREF Report Overlooks

EREF’s concern about a lack of centralized reporting deserves nuance. The suggestion that we “can’t be sure” EPR is working ignores the documented success of active programs. There is abundant proof that EPR is both effective and measurable.  Nearly every EPR program has a producer responsibility organization (PRO) that manages reporting:

  • PaintCare for paint
  • ISPA for mattresses
  • Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) for thermostats
  • Electronics Recycling Coordination Clearinghouse (ERCC) as a repository for electronics data

These PROs already provide centralized annual reporting—most of which is public. PSI’s studies, state agency reports, and program filings demonstrate measurable success.

The challenge is not whether the data exists, but how to align, standardize, and elevate it nationally. And that work is already underway.

The Cost of Ambiguity 

Delays in implementing California’s SB 54 have created a policy vacuum—one that EPR critics are eager to fill. This pause has emboldened misinformation and threatens to undermine public confidence. 

But make no mistake: EPR isn’t a theory waiting to be tested. In sectors like paint, mattresses, electronics, batteries, and other products, it’s already working—and the data is there to prove it. 

The Path Forward 

To ensure continued progress and credibility, we must: 

  1. Require annual public reporting from all PROs, including key indicators like amounts collected, recycled, reused, and composted;  cost;, convenience;, and postconsumer recycled content used; 
  1. Implement third-party audits to ensure accuracy and foster trust; 
  1. Standardize reporting across states to enable clear, comparable performance metrics; 
  1. Include qualitative indicators—such as program accessibility, local savings, and public engagement—to capture the full picture of success. 

EREF is right: transparency is essential. But saying “we can’t be sure” does a disservice to the work already being done and the results already in hand. EPR in the U.S. is not a hypothetical. It’s a growing network of proven, producer-funded solutions that reduce waste, lower public costs, and build a more sustainable future. 

Let’s move the conversation forward—from questioning whether EPR works to expanding the systems we already know do. 

Sources  

BLOG CATEGORIES
Batteries
Carpet
Chemical Recycling
Circular Economy
Consensus Building
Electronics
EPR
EPR by Product
Extended Producer Responsibility
Gas Cylinders
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Junk Mail
Legislation
Lighting
Mattresses
Medical Sharps
Membership
Mercury Thermostats
News & Events
Packaging
Paint
Partnership
Pharmaceuticals
Phone Books
Policy
Recycling
Refrigerant-Containing Appliances
Solar Panels
Textiles
Tires
Uncategorized