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 Suna Bayrakal, PhD
Director, Policy and Programs 

After Governor Hochul signed the legislation last week, New York became the second state after California to enact a carpet EPR law – and the first in the nation to include artificial turf. PSI was cited by NRDC and others as playing a significant role in advancing the legislation. “The enactment of New York’s carpet EPR bill benefited from two decades of advocacy from experts across the country, including those from state and local governments, environmental groups, and carpet recyclers,” said Scott Cassel, PSI’s CEO and founder. “This next-generation carpet EPR law is yet another indication that the overwhelming public sentiment is for producers to take responsibility to prevent negative impacts from their products and packaging all through their lifecycle.”  

Spearheaded by Senator Brian Kavanagh and outgoing Assemblymember Steve Englebright, the bill passed both the Senate and Assembly in May and was expected to be signed quickly by Governor Kathy Hochul. Enactment was delayed in part by controversy over a proposed insertion of language that would have expanded the definition of “recycling” to include “chemical recycling” technologies such as pyrolysis, which many organizations, including PSI, consider energy recovery as it. The additional language was not included in the law. 

Although the national average for carpet recycling is 5%, the rate in New York is just 1% — each year, the state sends 515 million pounds of unused or discarded carpet to fill up New York landfills or be burned in waste-to-energy plants. Local governments and businesses spend more than $22 million annually to dispose of it. 

The New York carpet EPR law is a significant upgrade to the nation’s first carpet EPR law, enacted in 2010 in California, which was heavily promoted by the carpet industry. The New York law establishes mandatory goals for recycling and post-consumer content in new carpet, convenient collection statewide, education and awareness, and the phase out of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from new carpet production. It will also establish a multi-stakeholder advisory board to advise producers and the state, which oversees the program. Requiring carpet producers to finance and manage the collection and recycling of scrap carpet removes the financial burden of managing this bulky material from local governments and taxpayers and will reduce the energy needed to make new carpet, lowering greenhouse gas emissions and saving valuable natural resources. 

The bill will also help create permanent full-time recycling jobs. Since the enactment of California’s law and two subsequent amendments, the state has created 500 direct and indirect jobs and, in 2021, achieved an annual carpet recycling rate of 27%. Projections show that New York could achieve those same goals in fewer than five years, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by 165,000 tons per year, which is equivalent to taking 32,000 cars off the road. 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

In December, we celebrated our 22nd anniversary by representing the United States at conferences and events that furthered the international conversation about EPR. When this organization was founded by Scott Cassel in 2000, producer responsibility was in place in Europe and Canada, but had barely made a mark in the United States. Now, U.S. EPR is snowballing: In 2022 alone, legislators in 18 states considered 62 unique EPR bills covering 15 different product categories – and five became law. We welcomed the opportunities to celebrate with our national and international colleagues at these recent events: 

In October, we joined a virtual NGO stakeholder meeting on plastics hosted by Monica Medina, the Assistant Secretary at the Department of State’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Medina had called the meeting in preparation for the first session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC-1) on plastic pollution, which was to take place a month later in Punta del Este, Uruguay. The meeting kicked off with Medina announcing the “north star goal” of zero plastic pollution by 2040, and confirming that “EPR will one hundred percent be part of the solution.”  

The following month, we joined a panel that explored how Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and other key regulations impact recycling in North America at the Plastics Recycling World Expo in Cleveland and presented to legislators from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia at a Chesapeake Bay Commission meeting on how to address plastic pollution through EPR legislation.

Then in December, PSI presented on EPR at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Recycling Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. and the National Conference of State Legislatures Private-Public Partnership on Recycling as part of a roundtable discussion on “Unpacking the Elements of Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation.”

Later that month, our CEO and founder Scott Cassel traveled to Paris to present on U.S. pharmaceuticals and medical sharps EPR as part of the 10 year anniversary celebration for DASTRI, the PRO responsible for sharps EPR management in France. Amanda Nicholson, our COO, discussed EPR and product stewardship as the concepts relate to manufacturing at a webinar hosted by ASSEMBLY magazine.

All in all, it was a busy and impactful quarter and a wonderful way to celebrate our 22nd year. We look forward to good things to come in 2023! 

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.