Which States Have EPR Laws for Packaging?

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws for packaging are the most significant regulatory shift in US packaging in decades. EPR laws make the producers of packaging — the brand owners and packaging manufacturers, not just the consumers and municipalities — financially responsible for the end-of-life management of packaging waste. The financial responsibility funds recycling and composting infrastructure, creates incentives for sustainable packaging design, and shifts the burden of packaging waste from municipal taxpayers to packaging producers.

As of early 2026, seven US states have passed EPR laws for packaging (California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington), and several others have legislation pending. The state-by-state patchwork is complex — different states cover different packaging types, use different fee structures, have different compliance timelines, and define producers differently. For brand owners, packaging manufacturers, and compostable industry professionals, navigating this landscape requires understanding what’s required where.

This article is a state-by-state guide to current US EPR laws for packaging. The guide covers the seven states with active laws, the states with pending legislation, what each law covers, what the producer obligations are, and what the timelines look like. The information is current as of early 2026 but EPR is evolving rapidly — verify specific requirements before making compliance decisions.

I’ve followed EPR legislation closely through compostable foodware industry work, where EPR has significant implications for what counts as compliant packaging and how compostable items integrate with EPR programs.

What EPR laws actually do

Before the state-by-state walk-through, the basic structure of EPR laws.

EPR laws typically:

1. Define “producer” of packaging — usually the brand owner, sometimes the packaging manufacturer
2. Require producers to register with a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) or directly with the state
3. Require producers to pay fees based on the type and weight of packaging they put into the market
4. Use fees to fund recycling and composting infrastructure at the state or regional level
5. Often include “eco-modulation” — different fee rates for different packaging types, with sustainable packaging paying less than non-sustainable
6. Require reporting on packaging volumes, recyclability, and end-of-life pathways

The variations between states are in how each of these elements is implemented. The core structure is similar; the specifics vary.

State 1: Maine (LD 1541, passed 2021)

Maine was the first US state to pass EPR for packaging, in 2021. The law went into formal effect in 2024 after rulemaking.

What it covers: All consumer packaging, including paper, plastic, glass, metal, and composite materials. Includes food and beverage packaging, shipping packaging, and product packaging. Excludes some categories like industrial packaging and packaging for hazardous materials.

Producer definition: Brand owners selling consumer products in Maine. Some flexibility for small producers (under $5M in Maine revenue often exempt or reduced).

Fee structure: Annual fees based on packaging weight and material type. Eco-modulation incentivizes recyclable and compostable packaging through reduced fees.

Timeline: Reporting began 2024; full fee collection in 2025-2026.

Compostable packaging treatment: Generally favorable. BPI-certified compostable packaging receives lower fee rates than equivalent conventional packaging.

Implementation organization: Maine DEP oversees the program; a PRO is being established.

State 2: Oregon (SB 582, passed 2021)

Oregon passed its EPR law alongside Maine in 2021. Oregon’s law is broader in scope and has a more detailed eco-modulation system.

What it covers: All consumer packaging. Includes single-use packaging and shipping packaging.

Producer definition: Producers as defined in the legislation; includes brand owners and some other producers.

Fee structure: Detailed eco-modulation with different rates for different packaging categories. Recyclable packaging pays less than non-recyclable; compostable packaging pays less than non-compostable; reusable packaging may receive credits.

Timeline: Fee collection began in 2025; full implementation by 2027.

Compostable packaging treatment: Very favorable. Compostable packaging that’s accepted by Oregon’s industrial composting facilities receives the lowest fee rates.

Implementation organization: Circular Action Alliance is the PRO for Oregon’s program.

State 3: Colorado (HB 22-1355, passed 2022)

Colorado passed EPR for packaging in 2022 with a relatively quick implementation timeline.

What it covers: Consumer packaging including all material types. Some exclusions for specific industrial categories.

Producer definition: Brand owners selling into Colorado retail.

Fee structure: Fees based on weight and material category, with eco-modulation. Colorado’s fee structure is somewhat less detailed than Oregon’s but uses similar principles.

Timeline: Reporting started 2024; fee collection 2025; full implementation 2026.

Compostable packaging treatment: Favorable. Composting infrastructure in Colorado (especially the Front Range Boulder-Denver corridor) supports compostable packaging adoption.

Implementation organization: Circular Action Alliance also operates Colorado’s PRO.

State 4: California (SB 54, passed 2022)

California’s SB 54 is the most ambitious EPR-style law in the US, though it’s technically broader than just EPR. It also includes recyclability standards, source reduction targets, and refillable packaging requirements.

What it covers: All consumer packaging plus single-use plastic food service items. Includes detailed material-by-material requirements.

Producer definition: Comprehensive definition covering brand owners, packaging manufacturers, and importers.

Fee structure: Producers must fund recycling and composting infrastructure to meet specific targets (65% recycling/composting by 2032, etc.). Fees scale with these obligations.

Source reduction: Requires 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging by 2032; 100% recyclable or compostable packaging by 2032.

Timeline: Implementation phased through 2032. Initial requirements (registration, basic reporting) 2025-2026; substantive obligations 2027-2032.

Compostable packaging treatment: Very favorable for genuinely compostable packaging; less favorable for “compostable” claims that don’t actually compost in California facilities. CMA certification (in addition to BPI) increasingly important.

Implementation organization: CalRecycle oversees; Circular Action Alliance is the PRO.

State 5: Washington (SB 5022 and related, passed 2021/2022)

Washington has multiple packaging-related laws working together rather than a single comprehensive EPR law. SB 5022 (2021) addressed single-use food service ware; subsequent legislation extended to broader packaging EPR.

What it covers: Single-use food service ware (current); broader packaging EPR in development.

Producer definition: Producers of single-use food service items; broader brand owner definitions in development.

Fee structure: Current fees focus on food service items; broader fee structure being developed.

Compostable packaging treatment: Washington has strong infrastructure for compostable packaging (Seattle composting is mature; CMA-member facilities are common). Compostable packaging treated favorably under current and pending laws.

Timeline: Existing food service rules in effect; broader EPR likely effective 2025-2027.

State 6: Minnesota (HF 3577, passed 2024)

Minnesota passed its EPR law in 2024, with implementation beginning 2025.

What it covers: Consumer packaging across all material types. Detailed coverage with some category exemptions.

Producer definition: Brand owners and some other producers selling into Minnesota.

Fee structure: Eco-modulated fees based on packaging type. Similar structure to Oregon and Colorado.

Timeline: Registration and initial reporting 2025; fee collection beginning 2026; full implementation 2028.

Compostable packaging treatment: Favorable. Twin Cities composting infrastructure supports compostable packaging.

State 7: Maryland (HB 1086, passed 2024)

Maryland passed EPR in 2024, joining the growing list.

What it covers: Consumer packaging.

Producer definition: Brand owners and packaging manufacturers.

Fee structure: Being developed through rulemaking 2024-2026.

Timeline: Rulemaking 2024-2025; implementation 2025-2027.

Compostable packaging treatment: Expected to be favorable based on PRO frameworks similar to other states.

States with pending legislation

Several other states have EPR legislation that’s been proposed but not yet passed or has passed but is not yet active:

• New Jersey: Multiple bills introduced; advanced toward passage in 2024-2025 session
• New York: Comprehensive EPR proposed; ongoing legislative discussion
• Illinois: EPR being considered alongside existing recycling laws
• Hawaii: EPR proposal under consideration
• Massachusetts: Discussed as part of broader waste legislation
• Connecticut: EPR proposal in legislative pipeline
• Vermont: EPR being considered (Vermont already has organic waste collection requirements)
• North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas: Various stages of consideration

The trend is clear — by 2028-2030, EPR for packaging will likely be law in 10-20 US states. Most of the country’s population will be covered by EPR even if not every state passes its own law.

Federal action and harmonization concerns

Multiple states with different EPR laws creates significant compliance complexity for national brand owners. Federal EPR legislation has been proposed multiple times but hasn’t advanced significantly. Industry groups including the Sustainable Packaging Coalition have advocated for federal harmonization to reduce the patchwork.

In the absence of federal action:
– Brand owners selling nationally must comply with each state’s requirements separately
– Some convergence is happening through shared PROs (Circular Action Alliance operates in multiple states)
– Best practice for brand owners is designing packaging to meet the most stringent state requirement and using that design nationally

What this means for compostable packaging specifically

EPR laws are broadly favorable for compostable packaging in three ways:

1. Eco-modulated fees reward compostable design. Compostable packaging pays lower fees than non-compostable in most state EPR systems. This creates economic incentive for compostable adoption.

2. EPR funds composting infrastructure. A portion of EPR fees in most states goes to composting facility development. This addresses one of the biggest constraints on compostable packaging adoption.

3. Compostable packaging displaces packaging that has no good end-of-life. Some packaging (especially mixed-material packaging that isn’t recyclable) faces high EPR fees because there’s no good disposal pathway. Compostable alternatives become economically competitive.

The challenges for compostable packaging under EPR:

1. “Compostable” claims need actual compost end-of-life. EPR systems are increasingly requiring proof that compostable packaging actually gets composted, not just that it’s compostable in lab conditions. This means brands need to work with composting infrastructure.

2. CMA certification (vs just BPI) increasingly matters. EPR systems may require demonstrated facility acceptance, not just lab certification.

3. Multi-state compliance is complex. Different states define compostable differently and have different acceptance standards.

Practical compliance for brand owners

For brand owners navigating multi-state EPR:

1. Register with PROs in each relevant state. Circular Action Alliance covers multiple states; some states have separate PROs.

2. Track packaging volumes by state and material type. Detailed reporting is required.

3. Pay fees according to each state’s schedule. Costs typically run $0.01-0.10 per item of packaging depending on material and state.

4. Maintain documentation of recyclability and compostability claims. Subject to verification.

5. Update packaging design to optimize EPR fees. Eco-modulation creates real cost incentives to design for recyclability and compostability.

6. Engage with composting facilities for compostable packaging if applicable.

What this means for compostable foodware specifically

For compostable foodware brands and their customers:

Brand owners benefit from supplying compostable foodware to customers in EPR states. The customers’ EPR fee obligations are reduced when using compostable packaging.

Customers in EPR states have economic incentive to adopt compostable. The EPR fee for conventional plastic foodware vs compostable can be substantial; this changes the economic calculus.

Composting infrastructure investment funded by EPR helps everyone. More composting capacity means more customers can effectively use compostable products.

National rollout of compostable foodware is being driven significantly by EPR-state customers asking for it.

For procurement teams in EPR states buying compostable food container, compostable tableware, or other compostable foodware, the total cost calculation now needs to include reduced EPR fees vs conventional alternatives. The math frequently favors compostable.

A forecast: where this goes

The EPR landscape will continue evolving:

Short term (2026-2027): Maine, Oregon, Colorado fully implement; California and Minnesota ramp up. More states pass EPR legislation.

Medium term (2028-2030): 10-15 states have active EPR; significant infrastructure investment from collected fees; some federal harmonization discussion.

Long term (2030-2035): Most US states have EPR; significant composting and recycling infrastructure expansion; compostable packaging becomes cost-competitive with conventional in most categories due to fee differentials.

A summary table

For quick reference, the seven US states with active EPR laws as of early 2026:

A practical first action

If you’re a brand owner or sustainability professional needing to understand EPR for your business:

1. Identify which EPR states your products are sold in
2. Register with the appropriate PROs
3. Audit your packaging portfolio by state, material, and weight
4. Calculate EPR fees at current rates
5. Identify opportunities to switch to compostable or recyclable alternatives that reduce fees
6. Establish reporting infrastructure for ongoing compliance

The 2-3 months invested in EPR compliance pays off across years of operations.

The bigger context

EPR laws represent a major shift in packaging policy — from “consumer responsibility” (recycle the bottle) to “producer responsibility” (design and fund the system). The shift creates new compliance obligations but also significant opportunities for sustainable packaging.

For the compostable foodware industry, EPR is broadly positive. It funds composting infrastructure, creates economic incentives for compostable adoption, and validates the sustainability claims that compostable industry has been making. The compliance complexity is real but manageable; the long-term direction favors compostable packaging adoption.

The patchwork of state laws will probably persist for years before any federal harmonization. Brand owners and procurement teams should plan for continued state-by-state navigation rather than expecting federal consolidation.

EPR isn’t going away — it’s expanding. Understanding the current landscape and the direction of travel is essential for anyone involved in packaging decisions. The brands that build EPR compliance into their packaging strategy now will be well-positioned for the regulatory environment of the late 2020s and 2030s.

For B2B sourcing, see our compostable supplies catalog or compostable bags catalog.

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.