by Caroline DeLoach, Director of Sustainability at Atlantic Packaging
Since 2021 when the first packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws passed in Maine and Oregon, potentially affected companies have been trying to understand what the impacts will be to their packaging and their bottom lines. Now that implementation is picking up, especially with the first round of data having been due in Oregon in March, we’re beginning to gain a little more clarity. Although this policy area is changing quickly, here are five themes we’ve noticed in the last few months.
1) EPR is no longer a far-off worry; it’s here now, and deadlines are coming fast.
Packaging EPR is no longer a future concern — it’s happening now. Many are surprised to learn that Oregon’s first reporting deadline already passed on March 31, 2025. By then, obligated producers were required to register with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the state’s Producer Responsibility Organization, and report their 2024 packaging types and weights.
A grace period extended the deadline to April 30, yet many companies still missed it — or weren’t even aware of their obligations. When asked if it’s too late to report, my answer is no; reporting late is far better than not reporting at all. We expect Oregon to show leniency toward companies making a good-faith effort, especially given it was the first state to roll out EPR. While fines can reach $25,000 per day, enforcement will likely focus on willful non-compliance.
Next up is Colorado, with a reporting deadline of July 31, 2025. The CAA’s Producer Resource maintains a list of upcoming deadlines.
2) Estimated fee schedules heavily incentivize the most recyclable packaging formats.
We’re finally seeing estimated EPR fee schedules in Oregon and Colorado, which are outlined in their program plans (Oregon: p.199; Colorado: p.184). While the list of covered materials varies slightly between the two, fee trends are similar — though Colorado’s are generally higher.
At A New Earth Project, we’re especially focused on replacing hard-to-recycle plastic films with paper. Oregon’s estimates show a clear incentive for that shift: recyclable paper is projected at just $0.03/lb, while HDPE/LDPE films range from $0.54 to $0.72/lb, and multi-material films and laminates jump to $1.07 to $1.43/lb. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) sees some of the steepest costs, with fees from $1.08 to $1.71/lb in those states.
These fees are designed to encourage packaging reduction first, but they also reinforce that easily recyclable materials will be favored under U.S. EPR. We’re still waiting on more clarity around other fee modifiers — like bonuses for PCR content, or “eco-modulation” — but expect more insight over time.
3) We need more producers to register with CAA to avoid a free-rider problem.
While failing to register and report to CAA is a compliance issue for individual companies, it also affects every obligated producer. EPR is designed to spread the cost of state waste management improvements across all producers — so the fewer who participate, the higher the fees for those who do. That’s why Oregon and Colorado only have estimated fees for now; actual fees will depend on how many producers ultimately share the load.
This creates a risk of a “free rider” problem, where non-compliant companies avoid fees, leaving responsible producers to overpay. To bring more transparency, CAA has published Producer Registration Lists for Oregon and Colorado (scroll to “Producer Registration Lists”). While there’s no official way yet to report missing obligated producers, that may change.
At Atlantic Packaging and A New Earth Project, we’re reviewing these lists to identify customers who may not be aware of EPR. We’ve hosted webinars and collaborated with industry groups to spread awareness — and we encourage others in the know to do the same.
4) Reporting packaging data is, frankly, very difficult.
Reporting packaging data in Oregon exposed a common challenge: many brands simply don’t have their packaging specs centralized or easily exportable. We heard from companies scrambling across departments, chasing data for hundreds of SKUs — often ending up with rough estimates.
This isn’t unexpected. CAA and the EPR states acknowledge the current limitations and require producers to document their data collection and estimation methods. Still, over time, we anticipate tighter expectations around accuracy, pushing brands toward better data practices. Many are already moving from spreadsheets to specification management software to get ahead.
The upside? Better data bring better results. With high-fidelity packaging data, even small reductions per SKU can add up to major EPR fee savings at scale. More accurate data also let companies identify which SKUs carry the highest EPR costs and prioritize improvements. As always: we can only improve what we can measure.
5) The future of compostable packaging remains unclear.
Policy and infrastructure challenges are putting compostable packaging in a tough spot, especially in California. Starting January 1, 2026, California state law AB 1201 will effectively ban most compostable packaging — a move that conflicts with the state’s own EPR law SB 54, which mandates all packaging be reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2032.
The core tension lies between composters, who fear increased contamination from packaging, and brands who see compostable packaging as their only viable path for certain products. The outcome of this conflict could influence compostable packaging policy and innovation across the U.S.
Meanwhile, early EPR fee schedules in Oregon and Colorado don’t appear to support compostable product innovation. Categories are vague, and fees are often high. Our own EPS alternative, Cruz Cool, made from compostable polymers and upcycled food waste, doesn’t fit clearly into Oregon’s categories. It could be poorly classified under:
- “PLA, PHA, PHB – Rigid items” at $0.82–$1.09/lb
- “Wood and Other Organic Materials” at $1.57–$2.10/lb
- “Other/Mixed Rigid Plastic” at $0.67–$0.89/lb
Despite this, it may still compete economically against EPS cushioning (at $1.08–$1.44/lb), depending on which category it ultimate fits into.
We’re concerned that such misaligned policies could stifle emerging compostable solutions from innovators like Cruz Foam and Sway, who are tackling the hardest-to-replace plastic formats. Their success hinges on regulatory support and fair incentives. While we respect composters' concerns, we’re hopeful that expert groups like BPI can help navigate toward solutions that balance contamination risk with innovation. We remain committed to collaborating with startups, policymakers, and composting stakeholders to move forward.
EPR’s progression and implementation over the last several months have given us more clarity and have also brought to light the challenges that brands and packaging companies will face over the next few years. We’ll continue our engagement with these policies and issues, which we anticipate will only become more complex.
________
Caroline DeLoach is Atlantic Packaging and A New Earth Project’s Director of Sustainability. One of her focus areas is helping brands navigate the packaging EPR landscape in the U.S., along with providing insights into the sustainability trade-offs with different types of packaging. She can be reached at carolined@atlanticpkg.com.
Additional resources:
