EPR Harmonization: Simplifying EPR for Multi-State Producers
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations have surged across the United States in recent years. State governments are recognizing the damage that comes with excessive packaging as municipalities struggle to keep up with the volume of packaging clogging local landfills and overwhelming recycling infrastructure. The answer? EPR laws specifically targeted at packaging.
Seven states have enacted EPR laws and more are taking steps to build EPR programs. The problem is that these laws don’t necessarily align with each other, making the 2025 reporting year particularly challenging for in-scope companies and prompting Circular Action Alliance and state officials to consider measures that harmonize programs across the country.
The EPR Patchwork Problem
The journey to EPR adoption hasn’t been linear. It took years of study, deliberation, and refinement for Maine and Oregon to become the first two states to enact EPR laws. But after that, five more states followed in quick succession.
Despite having blueprints in place, the next five states created their own frameworks with less overlap than you would expect. There are three main issues with this patchwork approach:
Differences in the definition of “producer” and the responsibility hierarchies for reporting.
Differences in covered materials and the granularity required.
State-specific fee structures.
This means producers that operate in more than one state have to put in a lot of extra legwork to determine obligations, or whether they’re even considered producers at all in each EPR state. Harmonization aims to fix the “patchwork problem” with EPR by creating more consistency in key policy elements so producers face less administrative burden and uncertainty.
Learn more about state-by-state EPR laws with our free EPR eBook.
Solutions for EPR Fragmentation
Nearly all parties, from individual producers to industry groups and politicians agree that aligning EPR programs across states is beneficial for everyone. The question is how to go about it. Government entities are invested in upholding their laws which have been carefully designed for their own unique waste systems and challenges, while industry groups and producers are looking for ways to reduce the complexity of compliance. What does a middle-of-the-road path look like? These are four of the harmonization goals being considered.
Definitions & Scope: Standardizing producer definitions and materials considered in scope.
Shared Reporting Systems: Allowing producers to use a single portal and data standard to submit reports across all required jurisdictions.
Aligned Performance Targets: Adopting a shared set of goals for EPR programs for things like material compostability, recyclability, and/or recycled content by year.
Standardized Fee Structures: Adopting a single fee structure to improve predictability for producers, including eco-modulation practices.
All of these potential solutions are aimed at avoiding duplicate compliance costs and reducing uncertainty.
Challenges to EPR Harmonization
While the goal of simplifying EPR compliance is appealing to all sides, there are a few challenges that stand in the way.
State Autonomy: Each state has designed its EPR program goals around needs assessments that evaluate things like waste disposal service access and recycling infrastructure. The reality is that each EPR law is built around challenges and realities that may vary significantly from state to state.
Policy Diversity: States face a wide degree of variance in economic conditions and waste management contexts that inform the legislative structure of EPR programs.
Implementation Timing: Because states are nearly all at different stages of implementation, achieving real-time alignment is difficult in practice.
CAA’s EPR Harmonization Suggestions
Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is currently the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) for six states, with Washington expected to choose CAA in the coming weeks. CAA has been addressing disparities in requirements and implementation between states by calling for EPR harmonization in recent messaging. They will soon release a policy playbook with an emphasis on harmonization, explaining that it will:
Facilitate successful implementation.
Reduce implementation time.
Increase impact of laws and regulations.
Reduce unnecessary producer burden.
Provide a clear template for states considering EPR laws.
The first and most achievable goal is a unified EPR reporting deadline on May 31 each year, but this has not yet been formally adopted.
CAA has also laid the foundation for an “ideal” EPR approach covering several problem areas.
Producer Definition: Should be crystal clear, harmonized across states, and enshrined early.
Covered Materials: Should be harmonized across states, established before needs assessments, and set prior to creating a program plan. The scope should begin with residential materials, then move to commercial materials.
Financing: Fees should be collected early, with start-up fees collected within 6 months of the state approving the PRO, and long-term collection should occur annually after launch—ideally with a standard May 31 deadline.
PRO Independence: The PRO should be able to establish reporting categories, the fee-setting approach, and the fee schedule.
As part of their recommendations, CAA has also published its perspective on the legislative process for states adopting EPR schemes.
Timing is key to EPR harmonization. According to CAA, states should move from initial needs assessments to full EPR program implementation within 4 to 5 years.
The PRO should be appointed within 3 months of the law passing, and producer registration should occur within 3 months of state PRO approval.
CAA also suggests that needs assessments should be conducted before a program plan is drafted so the assessment can inform the plan.
Eco-modulation should be implemented after the program is in operation so that producers are appropriately prepared for eco-modulated reporting and fees.
Current EPR Efforts
The move toward harmonization comes at a critical time. Producers are already struggling with multi-state obligations, and there are more states with EPR initiatives in motion.
Massachusetts: Is taking a groundwork approach by establishing an EPR Commission that will hold public meetings and deliver initial recommendations by January 15, 2026.
Illinois: Has taken steps toward a needs assessment, which is planned for submission on or before May 1, 2026.
Connecticut: Requires the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to study EPR feasibility with an initial report due January 15, 2027.
Hawaii: Passed a needs assessment law in 2025, requiring its Department of Health to determine what would be required to implement EPR. The assessment is due December 31, 2027.
Rhode Island: Established an implementation analysis on the feasibility of EPR and what EPR requirements would look like, prior to any full legislation.
These initiatives have very different timelines, which will inevitably lead to increased producer confusion if/when these EPR programs are implemented. By pushing for harmonization now, CAA hopes to provide a framework for simple alignment as these initiatives develop.
Snaplinc Consulting Services for EPR Simplification
EPR compliance is already complicated for multi-state producers, and it’s only going to get more complex in the coming years. Snaplinc’s EPR consultants are experienced in handling reporting obligations and the compounded burden that comes with reporting in multiple states.
If you’re obligated under one or more packaging EPR laws, we’re ready to clear the confusion and provide the guidance you need to compile and submit your reports on time and in compliance. Schedule a no-pressure call with us today and find out how we can alleviate the stress of EPR reporting.