EPR Laws Beyond California: A 2026 State-by-State Tracker for Packaging Producers and B2B Buyers

California SB 54 gets the headlines, but it’s only one of seven major US state Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws now reshaping packaging procurement for B2B operators. Oregon, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Maryland — and most recently New Jersey — each operate their own producer responsibility framework, with distinct PROs, distinct fee structures, distinct effective dates, and distinct material scope. National brands, regional distributors, and any B2B operator selling packaged products into multiple states now navigate a patchwork that demands serious procurement attention.

This article is the working 2026 reference for that patchwork. It walks through each state EPR law beyond California — what it covers, when it takes effect, who counts as a producer, what the fee posture looks like, and what it means operationally for procurement teams sourcing compliant packaging. The directional read: by 2028, packaging EPR is the operating reality across roughly 35% of the US population, and the cost of running multiple SKU configurations per state is fast exceeding the cost of standardizing on EPR-compliant supply chain nationwide.

For the California baseline that anchors this whole discussion, our California SB 54 compliance guide is the prerequisite read. This article picks up where SB 54 leaves off.

Why Packaging EPR Is Spreading

The mechanism behind US packaging EPR adoption is straightforward. State recycling and waste systems have been losing money for years as China stopped accepting US recyclable exports (the 2018 “National Sword” policy) and as recovery rates for most plastics stagnated below 30%. Municipal budgets bear the cost; producers pay nothing. EPR shifts that cost onto producers — the entities who put the packaging into commerce in the first place — through fees collected by a state-approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO).

Once one large state passed an EPR law (Maine, then Oregon), the policy template became standardized enough that other states could adopt it with relatively low political friction. By 2026, seven states have active EPR frameworks, and at least eight more have legislation in active consideration. The political question has shifted from “should we do EPR” to “how strict should our EPR be.”

For B2B buyers, the directional read: assume packaging EPR will be active in your distribution footprint within 24–48 months, regardless of which states you currently operate in. Planning around that assumption is materially cheaper than scrambling to comply when your specific state’s law passes.

The Common Structure of US Packaging EPR Laws

Before the state-by-state breakdown, the shared architecture. Despite individual state variations, packaging EPR laws share a common structure that B2B buyers can use as a planning framework:

1. Producer registration. Brand owners and importers selling covered packaging into the state must register with the state-approved PRO.
2. Volume reporting. Producers report covered material volumes by category (paper, glass, metal, rigid plastic, flexible plastic, compostable, etc.).
3. Eco-modulated fees. Per-pound fees by material category, modulated up or down based on recyclability, recycled content, and end-of-life behavior.
4. Performance targets. Recycling rate targets, recyclable/compostable thresholds, source reduction targets — typically with phased compliance dates over 5–10 years.
5. PRO operations. The PRO uses fees to fund recovery infrastructure, public education, recycling collection, and sometimes direct municipal reimbursement.
6. Enforcement. State environmental agency authority for non-compliance, with civil penalties typically in the $5,000–$50,000 per violation per day range.

Where states diverge: which materials are covered, how aggressively fees are eco-modulated, what the performance timelines look like, and how strictly the rules apply to small producers. The state-by-state breakdown below is organized around those variations.

Oregon: Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act

Statute: Senate Bill 582 (2021), with subsequent implementing regulations
PRO: Circular Action Alliance (the same PRO selected for California — operational efficiency for multi-state producers)
Effective dates: Producer registration began 2024; fee collection effective 2025; performance targets phasing in 2025–2032
Scope: Single-use packaging and printed paper distributed to households

Oregon’s EPR law was the second comprehensive packaging EPR in the US after Maine, and the first to take a “modernization” framing — explicitly positioning EPR as funding for upgraded recycling infrastructure rather than just fee collection. The Oregon framework includes provisions for direct PRO investment in materials recovery facilities (MRFs), plastics recycling capacity, and consumer education programs.

The fee structure is meaningfully eco-modulated. Materials with high recovery rates (aluminum, PET, HDPE, glass, paper) carry lower fees. Materials with low recovery rates or high contamination potential (multilayer flexible films, polystyrene where not banned) carry higher fees. Compostable packaging satisfies the law as an alternative compliance pathway when properly certified — the same general approach as California SB 54.

For B2B buyers operating in Oregon, the practical 2026 implication: PRO registration is required, fee assessment is active, and the same supplier verification protocols that apply to SB 54 (certification per SKU, PFAS-free attestation) apply here. The full PFAS framework is documented in our PFAS food packaging bans state tracker.

The materials that satisfy Oregon’s EPR through the compostability pathway include certified compostable food containers, bowls, cups and straws, and bags — substantially the same product universe that satisfies SB 54.

Maine: The Original

Statute: LD 1541 (2021), with subsequent implementing rules
PRO: Approved 2024 (selection process; Circular Action Alliance among contenders)
Effective dates: Producer registration 2025; fee assessment 2026; performance targets phasing in 2026–2031
Scope: Packaging materials distributed in Maine for residential consumer use

Maine was the first US state to pass comprehensive packaging EPR (LD 1541 in 2021). The law’s implementation has been slower than Oregon’s — the rule-making process and PRO selection took longer than expected — but enforcement is now active in 2026.

Maine’s framework is notable for its relatively aggressive recycling-rate targets and its tight integration with the state’s existing PFAS food packaging law (Maine was also first to ban PFAS in food packaging). The combined regulatory stack means a single SKU sold into Maine must meet both PFAS-free attestation requirements and EPR compliance — practically, the same supplier verification protocol covers both.

For B2B buyers, Maine compliance overlaps substantially with broader New England regulatory expectations. Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire all have related (if not identical) packaging restrictions in force or under consideration.

Colorado: Producer Responsibility for Statewide Recycling

Statute: HB 22-1355 (2022)
PRO: Circular Action Alliance (consistent with California, Oregon)
Effective dates: Producer registration 2024; performance targets phasing in 2025–2032
Scope: Packaging and printed paper distributed in Colorado

Colorado’s EPR law was the third comprehensive state framework to pass. Operational structure parallels Oregon and California closely — same PRO, similar phased compliance, similar fee modulation principles.

Colorado is notable for a relatively aggressive timeline: full performance targets by 2032 (matching California SB 54’s deadline) despite passing more recently. The rapid implementation reflects state policy preferences for harmonizing with the California/Oregon framework rather than developing separate Colorado-specific architecture.

For B2B operators, Colorado compliance is operationally similar to Oregon compliance — same PRO infrastructure, same supplier verification expectations, same product category landscape across compostable food containers, bowls, bags, and similar.

Minnesota: Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act

Statute: HF 3577 (2024)
PRO: Selection process active; expected to be Circular Action Alliance
Effective dates: Producer registration 2026; fee assessment 2027; performance targets 2027–2034
Scope: Packaging and printed paper materials distributed to Minnesota households

Minnesota’s EPR law was passed in 2024 and is in early-stage implementation as of 2026. The framework is structurally similar to the California/Oregon/Colorado template — same general approach, same PRO infrastructure expected, similar fee modulation.

Minnesota’s law also intersects with the state’s broader PFAS-in-products law (HF 2310), which separately bans intentionally added PFAS in food packaging. Combined regulatory stack mirrors Maine’s situation — a single SKU sold into Minnesota must navigate both EPR and PFAS frameworks.

Washington: Recycling Reform Act

Statute: HB 1131 (2024)
PRO: Selection process active
Effective dates: Phased through 2026–2032
Scope: Packaging materials distributed for residential use

Washington’s EPR framework was passed in 2024 after several years of legislative consideration. The law is structurally similar to other Western state EPRs (Oregon, California, Colorado), with implementation phasing through 2032.

Washington also operates an active PFAS food packaging law (RCW 70A.222) that pre-dates the EPR framework. Combined with Washington’s packaging law, the state requires both PFAS-free verification and EPR compliance for covered products.

Maryland: Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment

Statute: SB 222 / HB 209 (2024)
PRO: Selection process active
Effective dates: Producer registration 2026; fee assessment 2027
Scope: Packaging and printed paper

Maryland’s EPR law was passed as a paired Senate/House bill in 2024. The Maryland framework includes a “needs assessment” component — a state-conducted analysis of current recycling infrastructure capacity that informs the PRO’s investment priorities. This is a slight variation from the standard state EPR template, designed to ensure PRO funding flows to actual infrastructure gaps rather than general operating costs.

Maryland is positioned as a representative mid-Atlantic adopter; the framework is being watched as a model for adjacent states (Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey) considering similar legislation.

New Jersey: Packaging Producer Responsibility (Newest)

Statute: Recent enactment, late 2024 / early 2025
PRO: Selection process imminent
Effective dates: Phased rollout 2026–2031
Scope: Packaging and printed paper

New Jersey is the newest entry to the US packaging EPR landscape, with legislation enacted in late 2024 / early 2025 and implementation rolling out through 2026 onward. The framework borrows heavily from the California / Oregon / Maryland template, with implementation timelines aligned to the broader Northeast regulatory cluster.

For B2B buyers with significant New Jersey distribution, the practical 2026 implication is that EPR compliance is becoming an operational reality on a comparable timeline to other Northeast states (Maine, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont). The supplier verification work that satisfies California also generally satisfies New Jersey.

States in Active Legislative Consideration (2026)

The following states have packaging EPR legislation in active consideration as of mid-2026 — operators should track these for likely 2027–2028 enactment:

• New York — multiple bills in legislative consideration; broad political support
• Massachusetts — packaging EPR framework actively discussed
• Illinois — early-stage legislative consideration
• Hawaii — packaging EPR provisions integrated with broader waste legislation
• Connecticut — building on existing PFAS framework
• Vermont — building on existing chemical management framework
• Rhode Island — early-stage consideration
• Pennsylvania — early-stage consideration

The directional pattern: blue-state and progressive-leaning states are converging on the California/Oregon EPR template. Conservative-leaning states are largely staying on the sidelines through 2026, though some (notably Texas and Florida) have voluntary industry-led recycling initiatives that may evolve toward EPR-adjacent frameworks.

What This Means for B2B Procurement

The cumulative effect of seven active state EPR laws plus another 8-10 in active legislative consideration is that packaging EPR is now the de facto national operating framework for B2B brands selling into multiple states. The procurement implications:

Implication 1: Standardize on EPR-Compliant Supply Chain Across All States

Operating different SKU configurations for different states (PFAS-free here, conventional there; certified compostable here, generic there) is operationally complex and error-prone. The cleaner approach is to standardize on a single EPR-compliant supply chain across the entire US distribution footprint. This is the same approach that worked for compliance with California’s PFAS food packaging law and that’s now extending to broader EPR compliance.

Implication 2: Build Supplier Verification Into Procurement Discipline

The same per-SKU verification protocol that satisfies California SB 54 generally satisfies the other state EPR frameworks. Specifically:

• BPI certification or TÜV OK Compost INDUSTRIAL for any compostable pathway claims
• PFAS-free attestation for fiber and coated paper SKUs
• Recyclability documentation for any rigid plastic SKUs claiming recyclability
• PCR content documentation for any post-consumer recycled content claims

These four documents per SKU form the working compliance file for nearly all current state EPR frameworks. The detailed protocol is documented in our PFAS compostable foodware guide and the certification framework in our BPI, TÜV, EN 13432 certifications guide.

Implication 3: Monitor PRO Fee Schedules Quarterly

The eco-modulation tables that determine actual fee impact change at least annually as PROs refine their analysis. A SKU that’s fee-favorable today may be fee-unfavorable next year if its recovery rate stagnates or its substrate is reclassified. Build quarterly PRO fee review into procurement planning.

Implication 4: Consider Compostable Pathway as Primary Compliance Strategy

For most foodservice and food packaging applications, the compostable pathway under state EPRs is the most operationally clean approach. The supply chain is mature across compostable food containers, bowls, cups and straws, paper hot cups and lids, clamshell packaging, and bags. Per-SKU certification is widely available. PFAS-free supply chain is established. And the compostability pathway satisfies essentially all current state EPR frameworks as a first-class compliance option.

The full materials landscape that supports this approach is documented in our PLA vs PHA vs bagasse materials guide.

Implication 5: Plan Custom-Print Programs Around EPR Compliance

For brands investing in custom-printed packaging, the substrate choice and print chemistry should be EPR-compliant from day one. Re-spec’ing a custom-printed SKU after launch because of an EPR fee surprise is materially more expensive than spec’ing it correctly upfront. The full custom-print procurement framework is in our custom-printed compostable packaging guide.

A Multi-State EPR Compliance Playbook

For B2B operators standardizing EPR compliance across multi-state operations, the working playbook:

Step 1: Map your distribution footprint to the EPR tracker. Identify which states you currently distribute into and which have active EPR. Plan for the most stringent applicable framework.

Step 2: Register with applicable PROs. California, Oregon, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, New Jersey — each requires producer registration if you sell covered packaging into the state.

Step 3: Build per-SKU compliance documentation. BPI cert + PFAS attestation + recyclability/PCR documentation as standard procurement table stakes.

Step 4: Standardize on EPR-favorable materials across portfolio. Where possible, default to materials that score favorably across multiple state eco-modulation tables — typically certified compostable, PFAS-free, BPI-registered.

Step 5: Schedule quarterly fee review. PRO fee schedules update; your portfolio mix evolves; the optimal material mix shifts. Quarterly review keeps you on top of it.

Step 6: Build EPR cost into product pricing. The PRO fees are a real cost line that needs to flow into unit economics. Many brands absorbed early EPR fees as transition cost; by 2026, the operationally correct approach is to flow them through to pricing or absorb them as a deliberate cost-of-business choice.

Step 7: Monitor pending state legislation. New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and others are likely to pass packaging EPR within 24–36 months. Early planning is materially cheaper than reactive compliance.

The 2027 Outlook

Looking ahead, the packaging EPR landscape is on track to expand:

• More states. New York is widely expected to pass packaging EPR within 12–24 months, given political alignment and existing PFAS infrastructure.
• Federal action increasing. EPA is exploring frameworks for national packaging recovery; federal action is unlikely to preempt state laws but may create overlapping reporting obligations.
• Tighter performance targets. Initial state law targets (typically 25–30% source reduction, 65% recycling rate) are likely to be amended upward as compliance infrastructure matures.
• Expanded scope. Initial scope (residential household packaging) may expand to commercial and industrial packaging in some states.
• PRO consolidation. Multiple states selecting Circular Action Alliance as their PRO is creating de facto national EPR infrastructure operated by a single organization. This simplifies multi-state compliance for producers.

For B2B buyers, the directional planning assumption: by 2028, packaging EPR will be active across roughly 50% of the US population, and the supply chain to support compliant procurement will be mature across all major foodservice product categories.

Bottom Line

Packaging EPR is no longer a California-specific concern. The operating regulatory framework for packaging procurement in 2026 is multi-state, increasingly harmonized around the California/Oregon template, and growing quarter by quarter.

The B2B operators who treat EPR compliance as routine procurement discipline — per-SKU certification, PFAS-free attestation, EPR-favorable materials, quarterly fee review — are operating cleanly across the full state landscape. The operators still treating it as a California-only issue are exposed in roughly six other states already, with more coming.

The path from “exposed” to “compliant” runs through the same supplier verification work that satisfies California SB 54: certified compostable supply chain, documented PFAS-free attestation, and procurement discipline that treats compliance documentation as table stakes rather than an afterthought.

The full California baseline is in our California SB 54 compliance guide. The PFAS dimension that runs alongside EPR is in our PFAS state tracker. And the materials landscape that supports compliant procurement across both is in our PLA vs PHA vs bagasse materials guide.

EPR is the regulatory framework for the next decade of US packaging procurement. The operators who plan around that reality starting in 2026 will be ahead of the curve. The ones who don’t will be paying catch-up — and the catch-up costs are escalating.

Background on the underlying standards: ASTM D6400 defines the U.S. industrial-compost performance bar, EN 13432 harmonises the EU equivalent, and the FTC Green Guides govern how “compostable” can be marketed on packaging in the United States.