Maine was the first U.S. state to pass Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation for packaging in July 2021, with Oregon following soon after. This marked a major shift in American recycling policy. Four years later, both states have hit important milestones that show both the potential and the challenges of moving packaging waste management costs from cities and residents to producers.
Oregon launched the country’s first working EPR program on July 1, 2025. Maine’s program is set to start fully in 2027. The experiences of these two states have influenced new laws in Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington.
Recycling advocates and policymakers are looking to these early programs for guidance on how to improve recycling systems across the country.
Oregon: First Across the Finish Line
Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act launched fee collection on July 1, 2025, making it the first state where producers are paying into an EPR system for packaging, food service ware, and paper.
The Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is a nonprofit started in 2022 by 17 large companies, such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, Walmart, and Keurig Dr Pepper. They formed CAA to help producers follow new recycling laws. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality approved CAA’s plan to run the state’s program on February 21, 2025.
Oregon faces a big challenge with its 4.2 million residents. More than 3,300 companies are registered as producers. CAA expects to spend $188 million before and during 2025, $254 million in 2026, and $289.5 million in 2027. The program handles about 415,000 tons of material each year, or roughly 197 pounds per person.
The program has already faced opposition. In July 2025, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the law gives too much power to a private group run by the same companies that pay into it. The group also said the fee system is not transparent and that wholesalers and distributors, who move products but do not design the packaging, are unfairly included in a system meant for brands that choose the packaging materials.
The lawsuit grew more serious in November 2025 when NAW asked for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement before the next round of producer invoicing. Oregon agencies have defended the program, and DEQ said it cannot comment on ongoing litigation. The result could affect similar laws in other states. NAW has said it is reviewing other states’ programs for possible legal challenges.
Oregon communities are already receiving early investments. In July 2025, sixteen priority communities got a total of $17.5 million for infrastructure. Counties like Deschutes, Jackson, Lane, and Marion are starting to collect and process materials on the new statewide recycling list. CAA is also setting up 144 PRO Recycling Centers for hard-to-recycle items such as expanded polystyrene, shredded paper, plastic buckets, and film plastics—materials that have been difficult for curbside programs to collect.
“We’re going to learn a lot, and we’re excited to see what we’re going to learn,” Kim Holmes, Executive Director of CAA Oregon, told Resource Recycling. “Colorado is right on our heels with implementation in 2026, so I think we’re going to really gain a lot of information and understanding that I hope future states are watching and paying attention to and will learn from.”
Maine: The Original Trailblazer Adapts
Maine’s path has been circuitous. As the first state to pass packaging EPR legislation, it established a different model than other states would follow. Maine called for a municipal cost-reimbursement approach rather than a producer-run PRO system, meaning municipal programs receive funding from producers without requiring standardized statewide recycling approaches. The Maine Board of Environmental Protection adopted final rules in December 2024, and the state is planning to contract with a stewardship organization by April 2026, with the first municipal reimbursements expected to be distributed by fall 2027.
Because Maine was first, its framework is different from the “shared responsibility” model that Oregon and other states later adopted with industry support. In June, Governor Janet Mills signed LD 1423, a law that updates Maine’s original law to better match rules in other states.
The amendments clarify definitions for producers and exemptions, exclude certain commercial, medical, and hazardous product packaging, and give the stewardship organization selected this April the authority to recommend adjustments to payment schedules that incentivize the use of recyclable packaging materials. In short, more changes are coming.
Industry groups welcomed the changes. The American Forest & Paper Association called LD 1423 “much needed improvements to the state’s EPR policy” that help focus efforts on “improving recycling for materials with low recycling rates without disrupting the effective systems that are already in place for highly recycled materials.”
Environmental advocates were not happy with Maine’s changes. The Natural Resources Council of Maine, which led the multi-year campaign for the original law, criticized LD 1423 for “weaken[ing] a strong law before it even has a chance to deliver the benefits it was designed to provide.” The National Stewardship Action Council similarly characterized the amendments as corporate overreach. Some waste service providers joined in opposition. Ecomaine, which operates the state’s largest materials recovery facility, and the city of Portland both testified against the bill, fearing it could delay municipal reimbursements.
The disagreement between industry and environmental groups will probably lead to more changes to early EPR laws. It is still unclear whether these changes will bring more consistency or weaken strong environmental policies.
Lessons for Other States
Maine and Oregon’s experiences provide important lessons for other states that are creating or running EPR programs.
Allow adequate implementation time. Oregon spent four years moving from legislation to program launch, with extensive rulemaking, needs assessments, and stakeholder engagement. Maine’s six-year runway from passage to full operation reflects the complexity of building a new regulatory framework. States that followed have generally built on Maine’s experience and may accelerate their timelines.
Build in flexibility for harmonization. Maine’s regulatory changes in 2025 demonstrate the value of having mechanisms for updating programs as the national landscape evolves. With seven states implementing packaging EPR laws, covered products must operate across multiple jurisdictions with different rules. The growing patchwork is driving calls for both state-level harmonization and, increasingly, discussion of a federal framework. “The ultimate path to harmonization in the U.S. is federal legislation,’ Oregon’s Nicole Portley told PackagingDive. “If producers are really wanting something fully harmonized, they may have to go that route, but it’s probably not a fast route.”
Make fee processes transparent. Criticism of CAA’s private fee method, which is a main issue in the Oregon lawsuit, shows the need for open processes that can stand up to legal and public review. States creating programs should consider requiring public disclosure of fee calculations and ways for producers to appeal.
Be clear about who is a “producer.” Both Oregon’s lawsuit and Maine’s changes involve debates about who counts as a producer. Oregon’s broad definition includes brand owners, importers, wholesalers, and first distributors, but some say they have little control over packaging choices. Clear definitions that match who actually makes packaging decisions could lower compliance problems and legal disputes.
Prepare for differences in infrastructure investment. Oregon’s needs assessment showed that communities start from very different places. For example, Portland already has full curbside collection, but Lonerock, with only 25 people, has no recycling service and does not want to make changes. Programs should have ways to meet different community needs while respecting local control.
Expect changes. The U.S. Plastics Pact’s recent policy position paper emphasizes that “flexibility is equally important to accommodate state-specific realities such as infrastructure, data availability, and market conditions.” Programs should be designed to adapt as recycling markets, technology, and policy understanding develop.
The Road Ahead
Oregon’s EPR program is an important test for making packaging companies responsible for their products. If it works, the producer-funded system could greatly improve recycling infrastructure and collection rates. But if legal challenges win or the program struggles, it could slow progress in other states.
For Maine, the next year will show whether its stewardship organization, possibly CAA, which has applied for the job, can run a program that is now more like those in other states while still providing the cost relief for cities and towns that was the goal of the original law.
Both states are watching each other, as are the five states with enacted laws behind them and the dozens more considering legislation. Hawaii and Rhode Island passed needs assessment bills in 2025, while New York’s Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act advanced through the Senate before stalling in the Assembly.
The country’s approach to packaging waste is changing, though not as quickly as the environment needs. Maine and Oregon have taken the first steps. The future will depend on what we learn from these early efforts and whether other states and the federal government are willing to use these lessons.