What’s changing in US packaging EPR
New York’s Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (S1464) remains the most consequential proposal in the mix, going beyond producer financing into packaging reduction and recyclability targets most closely akin to California’s EPR law with ambitious circularity goals. Given the size of New York’s economy and the expansive nature of the bill, it’s important for companies selling goods into the state to understand and communicate the full reach of this EPR proposal on their business.
Although recently sidelined in the current session, Tennessee’s Waste to Jobs Act (SB269) is also notable for its business-forward framing and growing bipartisan traction in 2026.[1] This need to balance policy intention with political reality can also result in the passage of a study bill — a needs assessment-first approach to EPR packaging as seen in Hawaii (HB103) and Rhode Island (H6207). Both laws require a report on recycling infrastructure needs and funding recommendations, leaving a stronger path to full EPR laws in future years.
Other states like Georgia, Nebraska and Missouri could appear to be political longshots but demonstrate sustained interest in producer-focused packaging policy. There are lessons to be learned from all these bills, from design elements to the data granularity required to the viability of public and political positioning. Companies tracking the quantitative and qualitative elements throughout the legislative process are better positioned to build robust and sustainable governance. The key elements will be addressed next.
Program design and scope: aligned in direction, different in detail
Most proposals would create a now familiar producer-funded recycling architecture: a producer responsibility organization (PRO), producer dues, state oversight and recycling system investment. New York, Wisconsin, Missouri and Georgia largely fit that pattern, while New Jersey and Nebraska currently only go as far as data collection and packaging stewardship requirements. A report-first bill may stop short of immediate operational EPR but can still require producers to build new reporting processes, assign internal accountability and prepare for future fee exposure.
The real nuance is found in the scope, material classification definitions and timelines. Although all state proposals broadly include packaging as the primary reportable category, each bill should be read carefully for what levels of packaging (primary, secondary, tertiary), types of materials and exemptions are defined, or — just as importantly — not defined. Similarly, producer definitions can be written as intentionally broad or unintentionally vague, capturing manufacturers, trademark owners, licensees, sellers and/or importers. Some have listed penalties, ranging from $5,000 per day per violation (Missouri) to $100,000 per day, per noncompliant product line (Wisconsin).
Although only a few bills remain live in the current legislative sessions, each bill introduced or reintroduced adds to the increasingly crowded menu of policy levers to regulate packaging from producers. As states quantify the investment needed to process these waste materials — Georgia’s bill lists $5 million needed in the first year of implementation — momentum is likely to grow.
Funding mechanism or eco-design regulation? Why it matters
This leads us to another policy consideration: whether a bill is primarily about shifting recycling costs to producers or whether it also uses EPR as a vehicle to regulate packaging design.
New York’s S1464 is the clearest example of the second approach. It combines producer responsibility with explicit packaging reduction standards, recycled-content rules, recyclability criteria and restrictions on certain materials in packaging. That broader design is a major reason the bill has drawn both strong advocacy support and sustained business opposition.
Tennessee’s sidelined SB269, by contrast, is clearly targeted at cost transference, but has been presented by its sponsors as a more business-centric model, one that emphasizes job creation along with investment in recycling infrastructure. SB269 included features designed to improve viability, including an exemption for small businesses and counties. This positioning has gained attention in states where business and local control considerations are likely to shape whether the bill advances further.[2]
Where 2026 state packaging EPR bills stand
New York gives us the clearest example of both policy maturity and political uncertainty. Despite Senate passage in 2024 and 2025, S1464 did not advance before adjournment of the 2026 session. [3] That history shows both real momentum and a persistent political ceiling, with the proposal repeatedly running into Assembly resistance and heavy business opposition.
New Jersey and Rhode Island’s continued reintroductions and the broader regional policy interest in packaging EPR keep both on the medium-term watchlist. Nebraska and Missouri, by comparison, appeared to be more exploratory than imminent.
Federal harmonization: why a national packaging EPR law remains unlikely
At the federal level, there is likely no path to a national packaging EPR law currently. History has shown that policies tied to local matters like waste infrastructure and recycling programs are most successful when implemented at the subnational level. For example, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulating hazardous waste programs includes a process to delegate primary implementation responsibility to the states, allowing flexibility while confirming national minimum standards are met. As demonstrated by the diversity of enacted and proposed EPR programs to date, each state has its own demographics, infrastructure investment needs, environmental goals and fiscal outlook. Currently, the leading PRO of packaging EPR in six of seven active states, Circular Action Alliance, is working within the constraints of enacted laws to harmonize things like material classification mapping, compliance due dates and reporting templates. And we could see further alignment around material types, reporting categories and fee structures as new states take what they like from the first “pilot” state programs. But federal legislation mandating this type of harmonization seems unlikely at this juncture.
Litigation is another factor to watch. Ongoing legal challenges to Oregon and Colorado’s programs, including a preliminary injunction against Oregon’s law, have sharpened focus on the constitutional boundaries of state-level EPR enforcement against out-of-state producers and delegated authority to private nonprofit entities (i.e., PROs).
Strategic importance of looking ahead
For business leaders, enacted EPR packaging programs represent approximately 20% of US population. Adding in states with 2026 bills increases that number to roughly 40%. For companies that sell products across the US, this potentially represents a significant portion of US sales that would have associated packaging subject to EPR fees. While each state will be different in its focus, goals and implementation, the cost, compliance and operating questions it presents are real.
More prescriptive bills legislating eco-design as well as funding recycling infrastructure can accelerate packaging redesign decisions, along with costs and importance of supplier-level data on recycled content, material composition and end-of-life performance. More flexible bills may leave room for political expediency and phased adaptation but can also increase both cost and complexity in compliance.
With many states struggling to fund increasing recycling and waste management costs and constituents pushing back on other revenue streams like income and property taxes, EPR is becoming an increasingly attractive policy lever. Companies need to be prepared to rethink their packaging design lifecycle to better position themselves to effectively manage the changing cost profile of packaging.
