- California market payments progress
- State-level PCR mandates too new to evaluate
- India may provide look at future
The past few years haven’t been easy for any recycled plastic, but PET has experienced the most visible struggles, with multiple US processing capacity closures in the past 18 months.
For years increasing collection and developing processing infrastructure were the primary focus, ahead of the promise of demand stemming from consumer brands’ 2025 recycled-content targets. “Build it and they will come,” or so the saying goes. And build it they did… but purchasing to meet those targets mostly didn’t come, as brands delayed or lowered their voluntary goals.
Brands backed away from voluntary recycled-content goals for reasons both stated and unstated – but in the end, it came down to money. It’s well established that RPET struggles to compete with virgin PET due to higher fixed costs and relatively expensive feedstock. And when imported resin floods in and selling prices sink while costs stay elevated, it’s nearly impossible for domestic reclaimers to compete.
According to a 2024 study from the University of California-Berkeley, recycled-content mandates are the most effective policy actions. And some states are trying to drive PCR demand by assessing penalties for failure to meet mandatory minimums. Others are encouraging its use by way of eco-modulation – discounting EPR fees for highly recyclable, high-PCR packaging designs.
In another approach, California stakeholders have made progress in shoring up support for the state’s plastic recyclers. In early July, California increased its Plastic Market Development Payments to $250/ton, a 67% increase from the previous $150/ton. These subsidies help level the playing field for the state’s plastic reclaimers.
In mid-August a similar bill, AB 1149 (Jackson), passed unanimously out of committee and now is up for a Senate vote. The initiative also aims to increase payments to in-state PET reclaimers, and remains “an active vehicle,” according to Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste (CAW), which is supporting the bill.
Amid several high-profile PET processor closures, California stakeholders said recyclers need support from the PMDP and other incentive programs to withstand market volatility.
New laws create emerging landscape
California also is among five states that have enacted laws requiring minimum recycled content for plastic beverage containers:
| State | Law | Current threshold | Next step-up |
| California | AB 793 | 25% (as of 1/1/2025) | 50% in 2030 |
| Washington | SB 5022 | 25% (as of 1/1/2026) | 50% |
| New Jersey | Recycled Content Law | 15% (as of 1/18/2024) | +5% every 3 yrs → 50% by 2045 |
| Maine | L.D. 1467 | 25% (as of 1/1/2026) | 30% in 2031 |
| Connecticut | HB 6664 | None yet — registration/reporting only | 25% takes effect Jan 1, 2027 |
In addition to dedicated minimum recycled content laws, several states must include PCR requirements in their broader EPR laws for packaging.
According to the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR, owner of Resource Recycling, Inc., which publishes Plastics Recycling Update), EPR laws can include requirements or incentives for companies to use more recycled content in two ways:
- Establish PCR rates: Either the legislation itself sets PCR rates or the legislation requires the state or the producer responsibility organization (PRO) to propose PCR goals as part of the EPR program plan.
- Provide eco-modulation incentives: The PRO administering the plan can lower fees for products with higher PCR content.
The draft plan for California’s SB 54 packaging EPR law proposes levers including bonuses based on eco-modulation.
Colorado’s packaging EPR plan starts with a 2030 goal of 20% PCR in rigid packaging, and a proposed 2035 target of 25%, which will be evaluated after three years of data have been collected. Among the potential mechanisms for encouraging PCR adoption are incentives for MRFs to increase post-consumer bale supply and for recyclers to encourage adoption.
Oregon’s plan uses a model based on life cycle analysis (LCA) to provide financial incentives for using PCR.
APR points out: “However, EPR laws by themselves are unlikely to stimulate the needed market demand to effectively scale plastics recycling.”
In addition, issues remain, such as whether and how to move away from self-certification. APR recently added PCR content certification to its third-party verification offerings.
Data trickles in
With the laws being relatively new – some not yet even implemented – a meaningful analysis of effectiveness is difficult amid limited amounts of reporting data.
However, Washington state implemented a 15% PCR requirement on Jan. 1, 2023, and increased the minimum to 25% at the beginning of 2026. The state published its first enforcement data for 2023, assessing fines to 35 non-compliant companies. For 2024, Washington fined 23 companies.
The two reported years resulted in a combined $693,000, and in each year the highest fine was under $70,000, and some were well under $200. For example, Amazon was fined $3,430 for its 2024 PCR use of 7.03%, and yogurt maker Chobani was fined $39 for 2023.
Compliance data for 2025 had not yet been published at press time.
Under its recycled content mandate, California assesses a 20 cent/lb penalty for volume shortfalls. CalRecycle has published compliance data for 2022-2025, showing several companies that Washington also reported as being low compliance or non-compliant, including Arizona Beverages, Ocean Spray, Tree Top, Del Monte, Langer Juice and CAB Enterprises (maker of Electrolit hydration drink).
These limited datasets could be interpreted as showing the penalties are insufficient to drive PCR adoption, a criticism market participants have warned against since such mandates were introduced.
India provides real-time model
But will all this be enough to move the needle in the US? Across the globe, India seems to provide a parallel – and perhaps a glimpse of what could lie ahead as the US works to increase adoption of RPET.
In April, India increased its minimum PCR content for rigid plastic packaging to 40%, from the 30% implemented a year previously. The mandate rises to 50% in 2027 and to 60% from 2028 onward.
Despite rapid expansion in RPET processing capacity, the country’s Association of PET Recyclers Bharat (APR Bharat) said in a mid-August statement, “India has every piece of the recycling puzzle. So why isn’t the loop closing?” The group cited a 90% PET collection rate, an informal PET recovery workforce (waste pickers) numbering around 5 million, “recycling capacity that’s ready to scale” and the 40% mandate.
APR Bharat said what’s missing is RPET adoption “at the pace the mandate demands.” The association added, “But a mandate on paper is only half the equation.”
Among other factors, the group pointed to lack of brand-owner adoption for low RPET plant utilization.
Critics of the mandate say it contains numerous loopholes, weak auditing mechanisms and incentives that allow companies to meet requirements via trading certificates that resemble carbon credits.
In the US, the policy architecture is taking shape — mandates, subsidies, eco-modulation and early enforcement data all pointing in the same direction. But as India’s experience makes clear, architecture alone doesn’t close the loop.
