Extended Producer Responsibility Laws to Reduce Waste and GHG Emissions

Description: Reducing waste is an essential component of strategies and policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy model, increasingly supported by state-level legislation, that shifts responsibility for waste from consumers and municipalities to the producers who create or distribute products. By requiring companies to take responsibility for the full lifecycle of their goods and packaging, EPR promotes waste reduction, sustainable design, and circular economic practices. Across the United States, state legislatures are increasingly adopting or considering EPR frameworks to tackle growing waste management challenges and associated GHG emissions.

Key Elements of EPR
EPR policies are based on several core principles. These principles are designed to shift market incentives toward waste reduction and resource efficiency.

  • Eco-Friendly Design: Producers are encouraged to develop products and packaging that are easier to recycle, reuse, or compost.
  • Funding Waste Management: Companies fund or directly manage the collection, recycling, or safe disposal or reuse of their goods.
  • Performance Targets: EPR policies often set specific recycling or recovery targets that producers must achieve.
  • Consumer Education: Producers are required to inform consumers about proper disposal and recycling options for products and packaging.

Local Government EPR Initiatives
Many elements of EPR have often been initiated by local governments to address specific types of waste handling and disposal challenges. Example waste streams addressed by local governments include consumer electronics, computers, appliances, cardboard and paper, glass and aluminum containers, paint, and toxic wastes. Cities, through organizations such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, have been strong proponents of EPR.

As but one example of county-level initiatives, California’s Alameda County and its 14 cities formed a county-wide Waste Management Authority in 1976 to provide waste management planning and programming. In 1989, county voters passed Measure D, which took a unique and comprehensive approach to waste reduction by addressing a wide range of topics with multiple benefits. One result was a surcharge on solid waste disposal used to create a Recycling Fund enabling promotion of waste reduction and recycling as well as education and technical assistance programs. In 2012, in furtherance of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP), the County adopted Alameda County Ordinance 2012-1, a mandatory recycling ordinance (see link below) to reduce the amount of easily recyclable and compostable materials deposited in landfills. The ordinance requirements:

  • Businesses that generate waste are required to dispose of material covered by the ordinance in a manner that ensures those materials will not end up in landfills.
  • Waste generators must either separate applicable materials for collection in separate recycling containers or provide for all waste to be taken to a High Diversion Waste Processing Facility to be separated by a third party (as defined in the ordinance).

The latest update of the CoIWMP’s Countywide Element (linked below) emphasizes programs that are countywide in scope and complement individual programs of the County’s 14 cities and two solid waste service providers. Section 6 of the Countywide Element, aligned with EPR priorities, focuses on shifting to a circular economy and identifies responsible goals for recycling infrastructure and materials management.

As noted in this Toolbox summary, the Alameda Ordinance 2012-1 predated state-level legislation and was later superseded by California Senate Bill 1383 – a statewide organics and recycling law.

Active EPR Initiatives at the State Level :
According to the Product Stewardship Institute, 33 states have enacted 141 EPR laws across 20 different product categories. The following are representative examples:

1. California’s Plastic Pollution Reduction Act (SB 54)
California’s SB 54, enacted in 2022, is a comprehensive EPR policy targeting single-use plastics. Key features include:

  • A requirement for plastic packaging producers to make 65% of their products recyclable or compostable by 2032.
  • Creation of a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to manage recycling programs funded by manufacturers.
  • Phasing out non-recyclable materials like polystyrene foam food containers unless they meet strict recycling benchmarks.

2. California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act (SB 707)
In 2024, California enacted SB 707, the nation’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) law specifically targeted at textiles and apparel. The Act includes the following key elements:

  • Mandates that textile producers must join a PRO.
  • The PRO must submit a recycling plan to the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery by July 1, 2026.
  • The PRO must submit an annual report to the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery and pay fees to the department to help enforce SB 707’s mandates.
  • SB 707 will be implemented in part by July 1, 2028, with the law coming into full force by July 1, 2030.

3. Maine’s Packaging EPR Law (LD 1541 A)
In 2021, Maine became the first state to adopt an EPR law for consumer packaging through LD 1541. The legislation:

  • Requires producers to pay fees based on the type and quantity of packaging they create.
  • Uses collected fees to support municipal recycling programs, easing the burden on local taxpayers.
  • Rewards companies for using recyclable or environmentally friendly materials through reduced fees.
  • Promotes a circular economy that prioritizes extending the lifecycle of products, materials, and resources through sustainable practices that reuse, repair, and remanufacture products and packaging.

4. Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act (SB 582)
Passed in 2021, Oregon’s SB 582 aims to overhaul the state’s recycling system. Highlights include:

  • Requiring producers of packaging, paper products, and food service ware to join a PRO.
  • Establishing a statewide recycling program funded and managed by producers.
  • Setting clear performance and reporting standards for producers.
  • The act sets goals for plastic packaging and food service ware aiming for statewide recycling rates of at least 24% by 2028, 50% by 2040, and 70% by 2050.

5. Colorado House Bill 22-1355
Colorado passed House Bill 22-1355 in 2022 to create a statewide Producer Responsibility Agreement, which includes key elements such as:

  • Improved statewide access to recycling, ensuring that all residents have access to recycling services even in rural and underserved communities.
  • Requires producers of packaging materials to fund a PRO that oversees the state’s recycling program.
  • The PRO is required to annually report to an advisory board documenting the progress of the program and contract an independent third party audit of the organization.
  • Establishes material-specific goals for different types of packaging, with periodic reviews to adjust and update goals.
  • The bill calls for the development of a clear formula to fully reimburse public and private recycling providers for the net costs associated with providing recycling services under the bill.

6. Minnesota’s House File 3911

  • Requires producers to join or form a PRO to manage and fund recycling programs.
  • Increases producers’ responsibility for the costs of recycling, starting from 50% in 2029, to 75% in 2030, and finally to 90% in 2031 and beyond.
  • Establishes two material lists for waste that can be recycled through curbside pickup or at alternate collection sites. Materials not included on either list cannot be used in products sold in the state of Minnesota in either the products themselves or their packaging.

Benefits of EPR Policies and Challenges to Implementation:
The benefits of EPR policies include waste reduction, sustainable product and packaging design, and circular economic practices:

  • Environmental Gains: EPR reduces waste sent to landfills and incinerators, cutting pollution and GHG emissions in both the production and disposal of commercial materials.
  • Economic Efficiency: Shifting costs to producers eases financial strain on municipalities and taxpayers while fostering innovation in sustainable materials.
  • Innovation Incentives: Companies are financially motivated to develop and implement environmentally friendly products and processes.
  • Circular Economy Support: EPR promotes resource conservation through reuse and recycling, reducing dependence on virgin materials and consequently lessening the harmful effects of processes such as mining, fossil fuel extraction and refining for creation of plastic substrates, use of forest products, etc.

Despite its benefits, adoption and implementation of EPR legislation in the U.S faces major hurdles:

  • Industry Resistance: Inconsistent requirements from state to state add costs and complicate producer compliance, leading to industry resistance to EPR legislation. Additionally, taking responsibility for waste management and transitioning to more sustainable processes are likely to be more costly for producers than current models of operation, especially during the initial transition period before better practices are normalized.
  • Compliance Complexity: Varying requirements to register products, submit reports, and meet specific labeling requirements increase the administrative burden for producers.
  • Complex Coordination: Managing the involvement of producers, local governments, and waste management companies can be logistically difficult, making enforcement challenging.
  • Public Engagement: Consumer participation in recycling and proper disposal is critical to EPR success. Easily comprehensible education on proper disposal practices, as well as engaging reluctant or disinterested individuals in accessible and appealing ways, are important elements to ensure large-scale participation on a consumer level.

Looking Forward:
The adoption of EPR laws at local and state-levels demonstrates a growing commitment to sustainable waste management. As more governmental jurisdictions explore similar initiatives, EPR could become a central pillar of U.S. environmental policy by providing an alternative to the current linear economic model of take, make, and dispose when it comes to consumer products. However, EPR policy success hinges on effective regulation, enforcement, and collaboration among stakeholders. EPR shifts responsibility for waste creation and management to producers, aligning incentives to reduce waste and promote sustainability. By advancing these policies, local and state governments can address the waste crisis while fostering innovation and creating a more sustainable future.

Goal: Reduce waste and GHG emissions generated by product manufacturers and product packaging.

Measurement: Depends on the particular law. One common feature is requiring producers using plastic packaging to reach specific recycling rates. For example, California’s SB 54 requires all plastic packaging to reach a 30% recycling rate by 2028, 65% by 2032.

Time to Implement: Depends on the particular law.

Links:

Alameda County’s Measure D and the Recycling Fund:
https://www.stopwaste.org/sites/default/files/topic-brief-2024-11-Measure-D-Fund.pdf

Alameda County’s Mandatory Recycling Ordinance 2012-1:
http://www.recyclingrulesac.org/docs/ordinance_2012-1_mandatory_recycling-executed.pdf

Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan Countywide Element (2023 update):
https://www.stopwaste.org/sites/default/files/CoIWMP-Final-20231120.1.pdf

California SB 54:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB54

California SB 707
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB707

Maine LD 1541 A:
https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=1541&PID=1456&snum=130

Oregon SB 582:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Measures/Overview/SB582

Colorado House Bill 22-1355:
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1355

Minnesota House File 3911:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=house&f=HF3911&ssn=0&y=2024

Additional Information:

General EPR Information:
https://epr.sustainablepackaging.org/

EPR Laws in the United States
https://productstewardship.us/epr-laws-map/

EPR in the USA – A Major Challenge
https://deutsche-recycling.com/blog/epr-in-the-usa-a-major-challenge/#

Beyond Plastics:
https://www.beyondplastics.org/epr

National Conference of State Legislatures on EPR:
https://www.ncsl.org/environment-and-natural-resources/extended-producer-responsibility

The Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development on EPR:
https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/extended-producer-responsibility-and-economic-instruments.html

California Passes Producer Responsibility Law for Textiles: Three Takeaways
https://natlawreview.com/article/california-passes-producer-responsibility-law-textiles-three-takeaways

EPA calls for developing national EPR framework
hhttps://www.packagingdive.com/news/epa-finalizes-national-strategy-prevent-plastic-pollution/733667/

Contact Info:

California SB-54:
Capitol Office for State Senator Ben Allen- (916) 651 4024
Tina Andolina, Chief of Staff to Ben Allen
Tina.Andolina@sen.ca.gov

Maine LD 1541 A:
Maine State Senator Nicole Grohoski
(207) 287 1515
Nicole.Grohoski@legislature.maine.gov

Oregon SB 582:
Capital Office for Oregon State Senator Michael Dembrow- (503) 986 1723
Sen.MichaelDembrow@oregonlegislature.gov

Colorado House Bill 22-1355:
Capitol Office for Colorado State Senator Lisa Cutter- (303) 866 4859
lisa.cutter.senate@coleg.gov

Minnesota House File 3911:
Minnesota State Representative Rick Hansen
(651) 296 6828
rep.rick.hansen@house.mn.gov

Sectors(s) Industry, Materials, Waste
Region(s)
State(s) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location(s)
Status
Date First Adopted 2021
Last Updated January 29, 2025
Scroll to Top