This year, extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs for packaging were expected to begin to mature, with Oregon’s program set to become the first to launch on July 1 and four other states working on implementation.
And EPR legislation in other states is being adapted based on lessons learned in those states, including California, Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon.
However, a regulatory policy earthquake in California has threatened to upend the state’s development of Senate Bill 54 and may have aftershocks nationwide.
At the one-year deadline for CalRecycle to complete its rulemaking on March 7, 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the department to restart the regulatory process. In an article posted online by Grist, he cited a need to minimize “costs for small businesses and working families.”
The state’s analysis of the initial draft of the rules estimated average annual costs of $309 for small businesses and $329 for households. However, the analysis also pointed to indirect cost savings that might offset the impacts.
As of early April 2025, it is unclear when the new rulemaking will begin and whether it will be abbreviated despite being allowed one year to conclude. At the very least, new rulemaking documents will be released, and an initial 45-day comment period will be offered.
Stakeholders in other EPR states have also taken notice of the delay, which is prompting questions about how to adjust their programs to address unforeseen or underestimated expenses.
If CalRecycle revises the draft based on comments, additional and shorter comment periods are possible.
In practical terms, this surprising development does not derail EPR in California.
The statutory requirements for recyclability, recycling rates, and source reduction remain unchanged, and a program is expected to be launched by January 1, 2027.
But the restart does delay the Circular Action Alliance, the producer responsibility organization, from beginning finalizing details and preparing a program plan. That delay will impact producers and create a shared sense of urgency to adopt agreeable rules, which could garner broader support and address some of the major sticking points.
Nonetheless, this new wrinkle in the EPR world is attracting attention in other states’ legislative and regulatory arenas.
A large coalition of industry leaders recently submitted a letter in opposition to pending EPR legislation in New York that cited the cost challenges in California.
Stakeholders in other EPR states have also taken notice of the delay, which is prompting questions about how to adjust their programs to address unforeseen or underestimated expenses.
However, in the long term, this could just be a pause in the momentum for EPR, and it remains to be seen to what extent there is a lasting impact.
The ongoing episode in California demonstrates the importance of getting the details of EPR right at the outset.
The alternative prompts costly and contentious delays and reopens debates.
Packaging producers should engage in the legislative and regulatory processes early and often to ensure they voice concerns consistently and offer solutions for agencies.
Gregory Melkonian is a regulatory and government affairs analyst for Serlin Haley, based in Washington, D.C.