Lawmakers in a dozen states have introduced bills concerning extended producer responsibility for packaging, ranging from studies and tweaks of current programs to full EPR programs.
Three states – New York, Tennessee and Washington – saw several separate packaging EPR bills introduced this year.
New York
New York has the most packaging EPR currently in play, though most appear to have stalled in committee.
A pair of bills that are still moving are S 1464 and A 1749. Introduced by Sen. Pete Harckham and Assemblymember Deborah Glick, the bills are the latest in a years-long effort by the legislators to pass EPR for packaging in the state.
They would require producers to eliminate certain chemicals from packaging materials and would task the producer responsibility organization with giving producers the option to purchase recycled materials from processors.
They also set targets. For reduction, the bills call for at least 10% from baseline three years after implementation, ramping up to 30% after 12 years. On recycled content, the targets are 35% for glass, 40% for paper bags and 20% for plastic trash bags, starting two years after implementation.
Finally, on recycling rates, the targets are at least 35% by 2030 for non-plastic packaging, increasing to 75% by 2052, with packaging reuse making up at least 20% of that target. For plastic packaging, the goals are 25% by 2030 and 75% by 2052.
Both bills recently passed out of their respective Environmental Conservation Committees, and the sponsors held a press conference advocating for further support.
Looking at other bills, S 1460 is a very broad EPR bill that would cover anything the state determined to be a designated product. It was introduced in early January and has not moved out of committee since.
S 2350 focuses specifically on foodservice packaging recycling and aims to “provide sustainable funding to increase the state’s infrastructure investment for the diversion of food service packaging materials.”
It would set a point-of-sale fee of three-tenths of 1 cent per container. If the recycling rate for the covered materials hasn’t hit 25% by 2029, then that fee would increase to five-tenths of 1 cent per container. It has not moved out of committee in its chamber of origin.
S 5062 and its companion bill A 6191 would enact the “Affordable Waste Reduction Act.” As is typical of EPR programs, the bills include an 18-person advisory board, require a needs assessment and direct the future PRO to propose targets for reduction, reuse, recycling, composting and post-consumer recycled content. Neither of the bills have moved out of committee in their chamber of origin.
A 1924 focuses on packaging and sets specific standards for what is considered recyclable: Either 75% of the state population must have access to municipal recycling for the material, or the material must have a statewide recycling rate of 50%.
“Packaging composed of more than one type of material shall not be considered recyclable unless each material in the packaging that represents more than an insubstantial part of the packaging meets one of these standards,” the bill text states. It was introduced in early January and has not moved out of committee.
Tennessee
In Tennessee, three bills were introduced and then withdrawn this year. Companion bills SB 269 and HB 600, also known as the Waste to Jobs Act, focused more on the economic benefits of EPR and gave producers more control than in other EPR programs.
In late February, sponsor Sen. Heidi Campbell requested to defer the Senate bill until the 2026 legislative session, giving stakeholders more time to work on it.
In January, Campbell also introduced and then withdrew SB 38, the Tennessee Waste Reduction and Recycling Act, which contained only a title when it was filed.
Washington
There are three different packaging EPR bills in play in Washington state. HB 1071 was introduced Jan. 13 and had a public hearing in the House Committee on Appropriations on Feb. 22.
The bill calls for a statewide list of materials suitable for curbside and drop-off collection to be developed by Oct. 1, 2026, and a needs assessment completed by Oct. 1, 2027, as well as the formation of a producer responsibility organization and a 65% recycling rate goal established for covered products.
The list for curbside collection must include at minimum newspaper, paperboard, chipboard, loose paper, OCC, magazines, envelopes, aluminum cans, tin or steel cans, HDPE containers and PET containers. For drop-off, the minimum list includes glass and flexible plastics.
HB 1071 would also change the current post-consumer recycled content laws by adding PP tubs, single-use plastic cups made of PET, PP or PS, PET thermoforms, packaging for consumable goods and packaging used for durable goods.
A set of companion bills were reintroduced by Rep. Liz Berry in the House (HB 1150) and Sen. Liz Lovelett in the Senate (SB 5284).
On Feb. 28, HB 1150 was referred to the Rules Committee after passing out of the House Committee on Appropriations. Companion bill SB 5284 was voted out of the Senate and into the House 27-22 on March 7, then passed out of the House Committee on Environment and Energy March 31 with a vote of 11-10.
The bills call for a PRO plan by Oct. 1, 2028, as well as a 19-person advisory council, an initial statewide collection list by Oct. 1, 2026, and a preliminary needs assessment by Dec. 31, 2026.
They also contain convenience standards, would require an equity study and a litter tax study, and would mandate that PROs fund and implement a reuse financial assistance program, putting in at least $5 million beginning in 2029 to bolster reuse projects.
Single-bill states
The following states saw a single bill concerning packaging EPR introduced in the 2025 legislative session:
Connecticut: HB 6917 calls for a study on “the need and viability” of packaging EPR by Jan. 15, 2027. It also continues funding and enforcement for existing food diversion requirements. The bill is in committee in its chamber of origin.
Hawaii: HB 1264 would set up an EPR program for “primary, secondary and tertiary packaging intended for the consumer market,” including beverage containers and bags. Producers would pay an annual fee based on the amount of packaging volume they sell into the state. The funds would then be used to create and implement a plan to reduce the volume of packaging sent to landfills or waste-to-energy plants by at least 50% by an as-yet-unspecified date. The bill is in committee in its chamber of origin.
Illinois: Companion bills SB 1817 and HB 3161 so far just contain the title: “The Extended Producer Responsibility and Recycling Refund Act.” Both bills are in committee in their chamber of origin.
Maryland: SB 901 would require producers to submit a five-year producer responsibility plan by July 1, 2028, and carry out a statewide needs assessment once every decade. It covers packaging, beverage containers and organics and calls for reimbursement of at least 50% of the cost per ton by July 1, 2028, rising to 75% in 2029 and 90% in 2030. The bill passed out of the Senate on March 17 with a vote of 35-12 and out of the House on April 7 with a vote of 101-35, heading to the governor.
Massachusetts: SB 571, “an Act to reduce waste and recycling costs in the commonwealth,” would set up EPR for packaging. The bill calls for a combined reduction and recycling rate of at least 65% by weight by July 1, 2030, rising to 80% in 2035 and 90% by 2040. The bill is in committee in its chamber of origin.
Minnesota: HF 1371 would alter the existing packaging EPR law to exempt paper products. It’s in committee in its chamber of origin.
Nebraska: LB 607 covers several different topics: the Environmental Stewardship of Batteries Act, the Extended Producer Responsibility Data Collection Act and the Minimum Recycled Content Act. The EPR Data Collection Act would require producers to pay an annual fee of $1,000 starting in April 2026 and submit data on their volumes of covered products by material starting in April 2027. It is in committee in its chamber of origin.
New Jersey: A5009 and S 3398 would cover primary, secondary and tertiary packaging, as well as service packaging. The targets are for at least 25% reduction in single-use packaging by 2032, 100% compostable or recyclable packaging by 2034, and a recycling rate of at least 65% by 2036. It is in committee in its chamber of origin.
Oregon: HB 3780 would exempt newsprint from the state’s existing packaging EPR law. It is in committee in its chamber of origin.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the passage of Maryland’s SB 901.
