Blueprints For Change: How Oregon And Colorado Are Reinventing Recycling With EPR
Understanding Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program plans is crucial for the future of recycling, and states like Oregon and Colorado are leading the way. In this insightful episode, host Christine Yeager unpacks the complex details of these blueprints, revealing how they're set to revolutionize waste management. We delve into the specific program plans of Oregon and Colorado, exploring how their funding models differ, how oversight agencies are involved, and what concrete changes are on the horizon for recycling systems. You’ll learn how these plans will impact recyclers, brands, and communities through increased access, stronger markets, and better accountability. Discover why the unique strategies of Oregon and Colorado, from infrastructure investments to equity initiatives, could serve as a model for nationwide recycling reform.
---
Watch the episode here
Listen to the podcast here
Blueprints For Change: How Oregon And Colorado Are Reinventing Recycling With EPR
Let's Go Deep Into The Oregon & Colorado Program Plans For EPR Implementation
We're going to go deep again on a topic called program plans, which, if you've worked in business at all, could mean loads of things. If you go back a couple of episodes, you'll see that we're following a path of EPR and how it comes to be. I talked a little bit about what EPR is and then we talked to Geoff Inch, who is the head of producer services at Circular Action Alliance, which is the approved producer responsibility organization in Colorado, California, Oregon and Minnesota. His role is really about helping producers comply with extended producer responsibility legislation. The first step, if you will, in EPR compliance is determining whether or not you are a producer. That's why we had that conversation right at the beginning.
The first step, if you will, in EPR compliance is determining whether or not you are a producer.
If you may have seen, we went deep on the needs assessments because what happens is the states need to start to understand where do they need to invest. They need to understand how much it's going to cost to change the recycling rates across the states where there's extended producer responsibility. For the context of everybody and since you may not live in an EPR state, we talked about the needs across the nation.
We then talked to somebody who you might consider a service provider. After a producer is engaged, they determine that they are obligated and then they report and then they pay fees. Those fees are allocated based on the needs of the system and then those fees are reimbursed or now reinvested back into the state to address those needs. They do that through service providers.
Osprey Initiatives, who we interviewed, isn't a service provider in all of the EPR states and they're a little unconventional, but nonetheless, they are actively improving recycling infrastructure. They're an example of a service provider. In this episode, we're going to talk about the program plans. After understanding what the needs are in a particular state, CAA or Circular Action Alliance, one of their roles is to develop a program plan. This program plan is meant to determine how the Circular Action Alliance or the PRO is going to invest in improving infrastructure.
These plans, they're more than just compliance. The idea is that they're blueprints that will determine how recycling systems are designed and funded and held accountable in the years ahead. What are we going to cover? We're going to cover what is a program plan under extended producer responsibility or EPR, how the Oregon and Colorado plans, which are the only two current plans available to review, compare and differ. We're talking about funding models and oversight and things like that. What specific improvements can we expect according to the program plans? What is that going to look like? We're going to end with why do these plans matter for brands, governments and recyclers alike.
On Change Cycle, we recognize that not everybody knows everything about circularity or sustainability. In this episode, the program plan is the vocabulary topic as a headline, but there's a couple of vocabulary items that you need to understand in order to go deep with me here on these program plans. EPR, Extended Producer Responsibility, again, this is a policy that shifts the funding mechanism of recycling the cost to recycle or manage the material at the end of use away from municipalities and governments and onto the brands that make and sell that paper or packaging.
What Is A Program Plan?
Program plans are a detailed roadmap submitted by a Producer Responsibility Organization or a PRO that outlines how the EPR system will function in accordance to the legislation, if there are any guiding principles in the legislation. Producer Responsibility Organization or PRO is the nonprofit, in most cases, that runs the EPR system on behalf of the obligated producers. In the case of paper and packaging, this is Circular Action Alliance in the states that has made a selection. Maine has not yet made a selection, but they don't anticipate making their selection until 2026.
Also, something that's a little nuanced and very unique to EPR and these program plans is this idea of a minimum recyclables list or an MRL. Nobody knows that acronym, so I wouldn't use it, but this is a statewide baseline for what materials must be accepted across the state for recycling. The goal is to get your material onto that minimum recyclables list and the exciting thing about this is in the state of Colorado, the whole state will accept this minimum recyclables list, which means you as a consumer don't have to guess at the bend.
You'll know these are the things that are accepted in my state. Doesn't that sound great for a waste nerd? It does. Finally, I think another important key vocabulary item is eco modulation. This is a fee structure that rewards producers for going above and beyond, or the use of recyclable materials or other things that you may do, like putting more recycled material into your packaging, so going above and beyond the industry is there's an opportunity to receive fee benefit.
In the case of Oregon, a certain number of producers have to be evaluated to see if they are below or behind the industry and then in those cases, they might receive a penalty. Eco modulation is something that a lot of people talk about as an opportunity area from a packaging standpoint, but I do want to be clear that there are base fees and those base fees are the real driver of the business shifts that might happen from a material standpoint. If you're not on a minimum re recyclable list and your material's not going to be on that minimum recyclables list, in the state of California, you, your material may be banned at some point. There's a lot of power in what materials end up.
If there's an end market or commodity value to the material that's coming through the recycling system, so it's on the minimum recyclables list and there's a commodity value with it, then the base fee is much lower than something that is not on the minimum recyclable list and does not have a commodity value with it. For fees, fees can come through in this idea of a base fee or an eco-modulated fee. An eco-modulated fee is something where you are receiving a benefit for going above and beyond the industry.
Alright, bear with me. Thank you for already reading all of that. I think somebody said, “Let's nerd out about the program plan.” That's what we're going to do here. We're going deep, we're going to talk about what the implications are of these program plans, what they are saying at a high level, so here we go.
First of all, what is a program plan? We've already talked about this a little bit, but I just want to break down the components. The program plan spells out who runs the recycling system. In this case, the PRO would be Circular Action Alliance, as well as there's a regulator for each state that has to approve the program plan. Which materials are covered?
In the case of certain states, you may have a high-level understanding of what materials are covered, like we know it's glass and paper and or fiber and plastics. However, the program plan goes into detail which materials and which ways in which you might classify those materials. Is it a rigid PET? Is it a flexible PET? It's very nuanced and detailed and those materials that are covered are also the reporting categories for a producer.
That means a producer has to now convert their SKU data into how much flexible PET are they selling into the marketplace, for example. In the program plan is also, based on those covered materials or reporting material categories, how much producers will have to pay, or in the case of Oregon, this is fees. In the case of Colorado, this is dues. Also in the program plan is how service providers and I mentioned Osprey as an example of a service provider, but a more typical example of a service provider would be a material recovery facility or a MRF, a hauler like the garbage trucks that drive around. Local governments, in many cases, may manage and operate the MRF.
Those people who are doing the recycling and are part of the infrastructure, how will they be reimbursed to improve the infrastructure? How will performance be measured? What is the yardstick that they're going to be measured against? In the case of Colorado, there are actually milestones that have to be achieved along the way. These plans are the first real test of whether EPR can drive scalable, measurable improvement. They're the first of their kind in the US and they're the first blueprints out there. If they're executed against, it'll be a huge win in the EPR space.
Addressing Market Needs
We talked a little bit about the market needs a couple of episodes ago, but I just want to refresh. In Oregon, Oregon's plan is responding to inconsistent access to recycling, especially in rural areas, a lack of a unified definition of what is recyclable systemwide or a unified system, systemwide and statewide. Poor data tracking and market accountability, language and equity barriers and outreach and education.
Colorado's plan is responding to the needs that they have one of the lowest recycling rates in the country at 22%. They have infrastructure gaps in both organics and curbside collection. Calls out that there's no consistent access for many households and multifamily units also, especially in the rural communities. There's weak and underfunded in markets and widespread contamination. Both states used needs assessment of some kind to inform their program plans and both aim to close systemic gaps in funding equity access and performance.
Colorado's plan is responding to the needs that they have one of the lowest recycling rates in the country at 22%.
Where They're Aligned—Top 3 Similarities
Where are they aligned? What are the top three similarities. PRO or producer responsibility organization management and producer funding, they're both aligned on how it's going to be funded and how it's going to be governed. Circular Action Alliance is that PRO and producers are fully funding the programs. They both have core goals in expanding access, improving recycling rates, building responsible in markets and investing in education. They both talk about stakeholder engagement, strong emphasis on partnerships with service providers, also tribal nations, local governments and advisory boards.
Key Differences In Priorities Between Colorado & Oregon
This is a mini stakeholder problem that the program plan recognizes and addresses but there are some key differences in priorities between Colorado and Oregon because they have their different states and they have different needs. One, infrastructure investment focus. In Colorado, they're prioritizing the build out of organics and composting infrastructure with $49 million in estimated upgrades. This aligns with the state's broader diversion strategy and growing interest in compostable packaging.
Oregon, on the other hand, is focused on expanding and modernizing curbside and depot collection. Its plan includes funding for a new statewide depot network targeting 65% coverage by the end of 2026 and 100% by 2027. Another area of different focus would be in equity and access strategy. In Oregon, they incorporate bilingual education, time-based reimbursement models to better support rural communities and tailored outreach to historically underserved populations.
Colorado is prioritizing universal access, mandating recycling for all households with trash service and expanding collection to include schools, hospitality and small businesses. The statement in Colorado is your recycling should be as easy as your trash. Who has trash service should have the availability of recycling service, however that happens. Market development approach. Oregon is focusing more heavily on eco-modulated fees to influence producer behavior and ties funding directly to packaging recyclability and environmental impact. They are requiring an LCA to achieve the eco-modulated benefits. Colorado is establishing a minimum recycling and collection rate target by material type. This provides clear accountability over time.
What Improvements Can We Expect?
What improvements can we expect in each of these states based on the program plans? Oregon, as mentioned, you should see curbside and depot services expand, especially in rural areas, a standardized statewide recyclable list, an eco-modulated fee that rewards better packaging choices. One of the beauties of EPR is this continued connection between economic incentive for a better, more recyclable packaging choice.
They have a goal of 100% producer responsibility depot coverage by 2027. By 2027, the depot should service the entire community of Oregon. Targeted education including bilingual campaigns. Colorado, we should see guaranteed recycling access for every household with trash service. What was the feedback? The Producer Responsibility Advisory Board submitted nine formal amendment requests and dozens of recommendations to improve the plan's rigor, transparency and environmental outcomes.
Some of the most notable amendment requests include requiring more clarity around how costs for plan updates and needs assessments will be allocated in producer dues or fees. In the state of Colorado, they call them dues. They also gave feedback on strengthening the reimbursement methodology, including defining when and how formulas can be revised.
They recommended that they address infrastructure gaps, especially in composting and rural services and that those things be prioritized with specific funding commitments. A little more clarity around how those things are going to be funded. General call for greater transparency on what those eco modulation fees look like and a clear strategy to encourage Post-Consumer Recycled Content or PCR. They also pushed for a roadmap to transition some hard to recycle materials into the recyclable stream by 2030.
One note on post-consumer recycled content or PCR, CDPHE recommended restricting mass balance claims. What is mass balance? Mass balance is this idea of that you can say, “On average, we have this amount of post-consumer recycled material in our packaging, but due to market volatility, it may not be 100% of the time.”
Let's say it says 30% recycled material on your package. Over the lifetime of making that package or over a certain period of time and making that package, it might be 30%. However, if you use a mass balance approach, it might go up and it might go down depending on the market volatility of recycled PET or the availability at all or when the trucks are coming in and depending on your supplier.
That's an example related to PET. This concept can be applied to all sorts of things but CDPHE is recommending that they restrict mass balance claims stating that the use of mass balance accounting should not be allowed for PCR content claims made to the public. Meaning you shouldn't be allowed to claim an average. You should be clear that if you're going to say a percentage, that you're using that percentage all of the time.
You shouldn't be allowed to claim an average. You should be clear that if you're going to say a percentage, that you're using that percentage all of the time.
This is a strong stance aimed at ensuring that any claims made about recycled content are credible, traceable and physically linked to actual material covering. This is also a very controversial stance because some companies might find that it's very difficult to have a consistent availability of that recycled content. Therefore, they are using the recycled content as they can, but if they can't claim it, then they're not getting the consumer benefit from it, but it's not all the time and it has nothing to do with their willingness. It may just have to do with the availability. It depends on the scenario.
The advisory board also encourage additional steps such as prioritizing small and local service providers in contracts, establishing clear metrics for reuse and refill systems because that doesn't exist, really, and requiring third party audits to verify environmental performance. This review is a natural course and pathway through the EPR process. These refinements will help shape the success of this EPR system in the state of Colorado and potentially other places.
Key Milestones And Deadlines
Finally, what's many producers I think are probably looking for, what are some key milestones and deadlines that are coming through in these program plans? In Oregon, July 1st, 2025, the program officially launches, which means the bill also goes out, the invoice is also going out to producers, but that means that the PRO depots can start operating and they can also start the reimbursement process with service providers.
Producer payments begin, so the money starts to come in and community outreach and education must be live. Amendments to the statewide material list are due later in 2025. There will be a process to adjust and hopefully add more things to that material list. The first round of that is due later in the year. In Colorado, the first reporting deadline, to everybody's excitement, I'm sure, is July 31st, 2025.
What that means is if you are an obligated producer in the state of Colorado, you must submit your material supply data for the year of 2024 against every covered material outlined in the program plan by July 31st, 2025. At the end of 2025, the program plan is expected to be approved. January 1st, 2026 is when the full program implementation begins. The invoices go out, the re reimbursements begin.
Why This Matters (And What To Expect)
Why does this matter? What should you expect? If Oregon and Colorado get this right, the conversation shifts. It's no longer can EPR work in the US. It becomes how fast can other states follow or it becomes look at the success and look at the changes that are being made as a beacon for hope of driving a circular economy.
These program plans represent the most ambitious attempt yet to increase statewide recycling rates. Oregon expects to boost paper and packaging recycling from 34% to 50% with improvements across the multifamily and commercial sectors. Colorado aims to raise its overall recycling rate from 22% to 55%, as mentioned, by 2035. This also shifts costs from the taxpayers to producers as EPR naturally does. It builds the financial incentive to invest in modern infrastructure in a very antiquated system. It elevates recycling from a broken patchwork to a functioning system.
Embracing program plans could renew belief and inspire a new generation to see recycling as a positive solution to our waste problem.
It will no longer be, “Does my neighbor recycle the same thing as me or not?” It will be everybody recycles the same things, at least in those states and the system begins to function. There's hopefully a renewed belief in that recycling can work for paper and packaging. If we get succeed, we get more than better bends, we get more reuse, less landfill, stronger end markets and immeasurable climate impact. Thank you for going deep with me on the Colorado program plan. I know it's a lot and thank you for being here and I appreciate your time and I hope you enjoyed it.
---
Why embrace the program plans? Besides the fact that their core component of compliance as far as the EPR regulation is concerned, but if they succeed, we get more than better bends, we get more reuse, less landfill, stronger in markets and a measurable climate impact. I think we might even get a renewed belief and a new generation that believes that recycling can be a positive impact on our waste problem. Thank you for being here and we'll see you next time.
Important Links