EPR Reporting Deadline May 31: Multi-State Compliance, Eco-Modulation & California's Dual Reports
With the May 31 deadline fast approaching, EPR Reporting is no longer something producers can afford to delay—or misunderstand. In a recent episode of Change Cycle, Christine Yeager breaks down the rapidly evolving world of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), where shifting regulations, state-by-state nuances, and incomplete guidance are creating a perfect storm of confusion.
From Oregon, California, and Colorado to newer programs in Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, reporting requirements are expanding—and getting more complex. Christine demystifies critical concepts like covered materials, eco-modulation, and source reduction targets, while highlighting what makes California’s dual reporting obligations especially challenging.
But here’s the key takeaway: waiting for clarity is a mistake. With bonus incentives on the table in some states—and mandatory participation in others—producers must act now. This teaser dives into what you need to know, what’s still uncertain, and how to start building a smarter, unified approach to EPR Reporting before time runs out.
---
Listen to the podcast here
EPR Reporting Deadline May 31: Multi-State Compliance, Eco-Modulation & California's Dual Reports
Extended Producer Responsibility Reporting Requirements
Welcome back to the show. We're going to dive into a topic that almost no one is excited to dive into. We're going to talk about Extended Producer Responsibility reporting requirements because they're not that far away. They're due March 31st for packaging. If you're reading this, you haven't started planning for your reporting. You make and sell packages that are covered, then you might be a little behind. You can probably catch up. You should probably go check it out.
Per usual, we're going to kick off with a bit of a vocabulary check. First of all, what is extended producer responsibility reporting? Why are we talking about it? The way that the law is structured is that producers have to pay per pound of covered material that they sell into a particular extended producer responsibility state.
Obligations Of Being A Producer/Registration
There's no way to know how much material a producer sells into the state without getting that data from the obligated producer. The obligations of being a producer means that you are required to do some level of reporting of how much material you're selling into that state. There's various methodologies for this. Basically, it's a requirement. If you register with Circular Action Alliance, it's part of the obligations that you've agreed to as a part of that arrangement.
Producers pay fees based on the weight of covered materials they sell into each EPR state. Since that data can only come from the producers themselves, reporting isn’t optional—it’s a core obligation of doing business in those states.
What does registration mean? Registration means that you have a signal to Circular Action Alliance or to the state. Depending on how you're deciding to comply that you are an obligated producer. The way that CAA has defined registration, it includes signing an agreement, which would be a Participant Producer Agreement. Per state, you're signing what's called a State Addendum, which is basically an addendum to the original agreement for your obligations within a particular state.
Not everybody's obligated in every state, so you don't have to sign all of them. Most people are obligated across all the states. That's registration. There are registration deadlines that the states have written into statute in many cases or into the law. Many of them have passed. Some of them are coming towards the middle of 2026.
They also write that you have to register and report your information. Sometimes, the obligation is on the pro itself to report, not necessarily the producer. The only way for the pro to get the data is to get it from the producer. The pro reports on behalf of the producer, or registers with the state on behalf of the producer.
What is covered material? Covered material is the packaging material that is obligated by the law. Generally, paper, plastic, all sorts. In California, there's upwards of 95 more categories. In Colorado, there's over 60 categories. Each state has their own definition of covered material and a covered material list.
Eco-Modulation And Related Data Requirements
Another piece of vocabulary that will be important for this discussion is eco-modulation. There's a lot more data requirement and request this year related to eco-modulation, potential bonuses or malice. Eco-modulation is effectively on top of the base fees. It's this opportunity to get a credit for maybe taking actions above and beyond the rest of the industry.
In some cases, in Oregon, there is potential for certain large-scale producers to receive a malice or a penalty for their packaging sold into the state. In Oregon, they have this Bonus A, Bonus B, Bonus C structure. In 2026, they've published guidance around Bonus B and Bonus C. In 2025, you would have tried to apply for Bonus A. If you missed that chance, there's still an opportunity.
In Colorado, eco-modulation is coming through in a couple of ways. One of those ways is you are going to be asked to report your post-consumer recycled material used in various types of covered material. Recycled plastic used back into your packaging, wallpaper or something else. Anyway, that's some vocabulary that will be helpful.
News Roundup
Before we dive into the super boring topic, thank you for being here. Our topic is EPR reporting. I'm going to do a bit of a news roundup. First, there was an article put out by a decent-sized law firm that is titled, “Are You Ready to Report Your Packaging Data Next Month?” Obviously, this is on many people's minds.
When big law firms are writing Are-You-Ready content for general distribution, it can be a signal that a meaningful number of producers are not ready. I just want to say this is not theoretical. EPR is here. May 31st is when you have to report your data. Your data may not be perfect. That's okay. It's important to plan to report. This article talks about those requirements.
May 31 is the reporting deadline. Your data may not be perfect—and that’s okay. What matters is having a plan to report.
We've talked about this a lot. The Oregon EPR continues to weather legal challenges. There is the active challenge brought by the National Association of Wholesalers, which is expected to be heard in July. We shared that AF&PA, which I don't remember the full acronym for. Nonetheless, they had tried to attach to this lawsuit. They wrote an article expressing their disappointment that the court ruling went against them.
They are not engaging in participating in the lawsuit that the National Association of Wholesalers has brought forth. There is also a federal court matter that we're beginning to monitor. An organization, Perkins Coie, published an analysis on an aspect of the litigation that created some potential timeline uncertainty. We'll keep watching that.
The key message is don't pause your reporting. Legal challenges continue to bubble up. Beyond EPR, an article came out about food waste becoming a strategic lever for restaurants. Food waste is moving from an unavoidable cost of doing business to a major strategic lever for the restaurant industry. In the US, restaurants toss over eleven million tons of food every year, which adds to $25 billion in lost value.
To combat this, operators are trying to shift away from treating food waste as a fixed cost. Instead, kitchens are partnering with service providers to easily separate plate scraps and redirect organic waste into useful outputs like compost, fertilizer, and bioenergy. This shift towards a circular food system isn't about keeping materials out of landfills and reducing methane emissions. It's about investment in waste reduction and how that's delivering measurable financial returns for these restaurants.
On top of the operational savings, these visible sustainability efforts are proving to be a major selling point for younger environmentally conscious diners. It's this multifaceted solution for business that is also in service of the circular economy. It's a great example. Minnesota is watching Oregon. Resource Recycling just covered how Minnesota is actively studying Oregon's implementation model as it builds out its own program for extended producer responsibility.
This matters because Minnesota has an interim reporting deadline this cycle. The way Oregon's infrastructure decisions play out is going to shape what Minnesota expects. The next milestone in the process is an additional needs assessment due December 31st, 2026, which will establish an official baseline for program measures and outcomes on where investments should be directed across collection, sorting, and responsible markets.
Maybe some exciting news, if you like trash news. Maryland, in March, passed a new law that is On-Farm Organics Diversion and Recycling Grant Program. This is establishing an annual grant program for on-farm organics recycling and compost use, wasted food prevention, and food rescue. The grant program would begin on July 1st of 2028. It's managed by the Maryland Department of Agriculture.
There's an annual appropriation of the budget starting in 2028 to this grant. That's exciting news or fun news. I was able to put out an article through Resource Recycling around EPR fees as market signals. It’s talking about recyclability and stuff that I've talked about on this show. Anyway, I'll share that as well if you're interested.
EPR Reporting Due May 31st For All Six States
Onto the super exciting fun topic of reporting. EPR reporting due May 31st. What does that mean? It's not the same for every state. Basically, it's a report of how much covered material is sold or that you, as a company, as a producer, sells into Oregon, California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. There's also likely going to be some type of a requirement related to Maine. That hasn't been announced yet officially because Maine has not yet selected its producer responsibility organization.
Nonetheless, if you heard all of those dates and you're surprised, it's because in 2025 we only talked about Oregon and Colorado. Towards the end of the year, there was a California requirement. Now, CAA is asking for data for all six of these states. This is a much bigger data lift than you would have maybe done previously.
Oregon is in Year 2. Producers would have reported March of 2025. This is the second round of reporting. Oregon's reporting categories were updated. There was a slight change to Oregon's reporting categories. It's very specific. You can see the new guidance and definitions available from CAA. This is also the first year that Oregon has bonus B and bonus C eco-modulation programs open for applications. If you're interested in those, there's additional requirements for that type of reporting.
Colorado is also in Year 2. In 2025, you would have reported in the summer. In 2026, Colorado, Oregon, California and all the others, are trying to, where possible, align to a new date of May 31st. In some cases, this won't be true in the first year because of statute requirements, as was with Colorado in 2025. Moving forward, you'll see them trying to harmonize the deadlines.
In Colorado, the material categories are mostly the same. I didn't see any major change. CAA has shared some guidance and tools about mapping the Oregon to Colorado categories. That's a resource available. It includes California categories as well. In 2026, Colorado is asking for the percentage of recycled material that is used in your packaging. I'll get into this a little bit later.
In Colorado, you don't have to have a certification of the recycled material. You do want to report it because there's an eco-modulation potential benefit. In California, on the flip side, you will also need to report recycled content. You will need a certification for that material to certify that it is recycled content.
California Source Reduction Reporting Obligations
California, this is maybe Year 1.5. There was, technically, reporting in 2025 for California to set the 2023 baseline. In 2026, the requirement is to report your full year 2025 data. I should have said that for Colorado and Oregon also is your 2025 data. For California, you're comparing the 2025 data against the 2023 data.
There's a couple of obligations for California. One, there's the annual supply report. This is your packaging supply data for the calendar year of 2024. It's effectively the same and fundamentally as Oregon and Colorado, but sells into California. There's your annual source reduction report. This is a separate report.
You would use your data from the baseline and from your annual supply report to basically share the difference between what you had in your baseline and where you are from a plastic reduction standpoint. There will be an obligation in 2026, not by May 31st, to report an individual source reduction plan.
The Three Targets And Methods Of Source Reduction
This is basically saying, compared to your 2023 baseline, how are you going to participate? The source reduction required to reach a reduction of 25% across the industry by 2032. There's still a lot of unknowns on this particular data request, but it will be due no later than August 1st of 2026. I'm going to dive a little deeper into source reduction.
What is source reduction? I probably should have covered this in the vocabulary check. Basically, there's three targets. I normally talk about the target of 25% by 2032. That's the end goal. The end goal is that the entire industry reduces the use of virgin plastic by 25% by 2032. This can come from reuse. This can come from innovating out of plastic. Up to 7%, it can come from a use of post-consumer recycled material.
There are tier-step targets. By 2027, the industry needs to reduce by 10%. By 2030, the industry needs to reduce by 25%. By 2032, it needs to be reduced by 25%. There's also to reduce beyond reuse, switching out of plastic, and use of recycled material. You can also be reduced by light weighting. However, in some cases, there's a lot of room for light weighting. In a lot of cases, a lot of light weighting has already been done. The industry, in general, sees the value in using less material because it's cheaper. You use less material, you pay less.
There are tiered targets: a 10% reduction by 2027, 25% by 2030, and sustained through 2032. Reductions can come from reuse, shifting away from plastic, and increasing recycled content.
There's also only so much light weighting you can do before it becomes no longer recyclable or no longer functional. What does the annual source reduction report ask for? As said, it covers your 2025 data year. It captures the plastic weight and number of plastic components in each category. Where are you increasing or decreasing the number of components or weight compared to your baseline? In 2026, this report primarily satisfies the statutory requirement and will feed into CAA's data submission to CalRecycle.
As regulations are finalized, as the program plan gets finalized, we'll start to see a lot more activity and discussion with CAA around each company's role in the source reduction plan. There are a couple of new data points that are being requested. This one is not new if you reported in 2025. It is new if you only reported Oregon and Colorado.
They're asking specifically how much plastic you are using and how many number of components of plastic you're using. If you have, let's say, a paper package that also has a plastic lining, then that would be one plastic component for every sales number that you sell of that package. They would want the weight of that plastic liner alongside the weight of the paper. There's different data fields for that.
They're also asking for post-consumer recycled content amounts. As I said before, it needs to be certified by the certifications that CAA has identified. They're going to start to ask, this part won't be part of May 31st. They're going to be asking like, “Where do you anticipate your source reduction to come from? Which material do you foresee your source reduction coming from?” They want to compare against your 2023 baseline.
This is still a black box though. There's a lot of information we don't yet know for a couple of reasons. One is that the regulations haven't even been approved. We don't know the full extent of what's being required by the law. The regulations haven't been approved. This hasn't kickstarted the requirement to register and report your baseline data.
CAA is required to report the baseline within 30 days of the regulations being approved. They need to report it on behalf of the industry. They have to get the data from the industry. There's this source reduction plan. CAA will have to communicate, as a part of the industry source reduction plan, where the plastic weight will go down, where the number of components will go down, and where the PCR content will increase.
It will be a forward-looking commitment against those same deadlines of 2027, 2030, and 2032. That's the general of what we know. When the regulations are approved and when the program plan starts to come out from CAA, we'll know a lot more. What CAA has said is that by August 1st, 2026, they anticipate requiring a source reduction plan from producers.
That's the latest it would be required. You can start back into that. You'll be using your 2023 baseline in order to make that reduction. Not all producers will be required to reduce by 25%, but they will want to know, “What role are you playing? What role can you play?” The total will need to add up to 25%. Every producer will need to pull their weight basically.
Eco-Modulation Opportunities For Packaging Design
That's a lot about source reduction, which sounds super fun. A little complicated nonetheless. Shifting gears a little bit to eco-modulation. Oregon and Colorado in 2026 have opportunities for eco-modulation. Eco-modulation is a mechanism by which EPR programs reward producers for better packaging design or use of the responsible end-market, things like that.
Eco-modulation is a mechanism through which EPR programs reward producers for better packaging design and the use of responsible end markets.
Oregon's program, the Bonus B and Bonus C applications are open. There is a deadline for May 31st as well. Bonus A was first and that was in 2025. That deadline was August 15th of 2025. That was basically setting the baseline of your LCA. You had the option to disclose an LCA, meaning life cycle analysis. You didn't necessarily have to have made any changes to your packaging. You were just setting a “Here's where we are” standpoint.
Bonus B is open to do the next life cycle analysis if it makes sense to demonstrate substantial impact reductions in your packaging or improvements. Bonus C is similarly available for producers who can demonstrate substantial impact reductions from switching a single use package to a reusable or refillable format.
If you're able to create reuse scenarios, then there's an opportunity for an eco-modulation bonus. These are the two bonuses available. They're measured against, or at least, Bonus B is another LCA, Life Cycle Analysis. Bonus C is about proving your shift from single-use packaging to reusable or refillable packaging. They both have reporting requirements against them. The application deadline is May 31st as well.
It's important to note though that for any given SKU in a given year, you can only apply for one of the three bonuses. I believe you need bonus A to validate bonus B and C. If you are a top 25 producer, if you're one of the companies that produces the most material into Oregon, then you're not eligible for bonus A at all. That's voluntary.
If you're a top 25 producer and this is written to statute, then you are required to do the same activities as bonus say. It's not a bonus. It's a mandatory action activity. Colorado has some active and passive factors related to eco-modulation. I love new vocabulary words. These are a mix of incentives and analysis that are applied after base dues are calculated.
Passive, meaning they apply automatically based on material category or design characteristics without producer action required. There's some that are active. Producers have to apply and submit documentation to claim the incentive. Some of these passive bonuses or malices are just baked into the process.
You don't have to do anything extra, but there is an opportunity. You should check them out to see what they're incentivizing so that you can receive that passive benefit if it makes sense, if you're innovating, or what have you. There's other things around active, actions that you would have to submit and get approval for. There's extra work that needs to be done.
Some of the things that are rewarded are reduction in packaging material used, innovations that enhance recyclability, or improve the commodity value of a material, or the use of post-consumer recycled content, and then designing for reuse and refill. Colorado, California, Oregon may have been repeat information for you with some expanded requirements.
Three New States For Early Interim Reporting (Maryland, Minnesota, And Washington)
There's three new states that are being asked for by May 31st. Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. They all have EPR laws. Some of them have a registration deadline of July 1st of 2026. CAA is asking for this early interim reporting. They're asking for not a full detailed material category structure because, most of those states don't have a full list. Maryland, we have a list. Minnesota and Washington don't have a full category list.
They're asking for reporting at a simplified category level. Glass and ceramics or metal or paper and fiber or rigid plastic or flexible plastic. This is higher level reporting, which in theory is simpler. They're asking for these for a couple of reasons. For Washington, there is an early fees or startup fee deadline this 2026. There will be an invoice against this data in 2026.
This invoice will be smaller than you would anticipate the full invoices to be, similar to how we're seeing these California early fees. It's likely close to 10% of what you would see, give or take a lot of factors. Maryland and Minnesota, not required from an invoicing standpoint. What they're trying to do is get as much data as possible to help inform future program plans and generally understand how much material is into these markets.
You're reporting very similar to the data that you're sharing for Oregon and Colorado for these three states, except it's at a higher level. You can roll up these categories into the parent category, if you will, of those other states. You still have to say how much of each that you're selling into that particular state. Even though it feels preliminary, it's still going to be a decent heavy data lift. Remember that and account for that in the amount of time that you're giving yourself to complete these reports.
Open Items: California Regulations, Maine PRO Selection, And Missing Guidance
A couple of things I've mentioned already, but I want to reiterate. We do have quite a few open items that we don't have answers on yet. It wouldn't be EPR if there weren’t a million questions and a lack of clarity. California's final regulations is still pending, which is wild. As of the guidance published in February 2026, CalRecycle had not adopted final regulations.
As of April 2026, they have not adopted final regulations. The communication from CAA is that likely by May 1st, we should see something from CalRecycle. Will that be approval or another round of feedback? It's unclear. CalRecycle has said that on May 1st, we should have some answers. This is a big open item. Some people might think that this is a big enough open item to delay, but CAA has clearly stated that they are not delaying any reporting deadlines.
Other big open item is the framework for the Individual Source Reduction Plan that is still outstanding. The full extent of the requirements for that are still outstanding. We don't expect to have to provide that until August 1st. You're basically reporting on your progress without having a plan yet. A couple other things outstanding is that Maine still has not selected their pro. They have not yet put out their RFP for this pro either.
We anticipate that the RFP and pro-selection process should be soon, but will it be before May 31st? I don't know. There is a fee deadline. Fees need to be collected and sent. They just need to be collected beginning September of 2026. Again, it's startup fees, not total fees. Nonetheless, there is a deadline in 2026. They got to select the pro, get their reporting, and then invoice all before September.
We are still missing detailed reporting category guidance for Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. We do have some ideas around the Maryland covered material categories. We don't yet know a full list of reporting categories for each of those states. That information is not yet required by May 31st. Nonetheless, it's still an open item.
I'm going to end with, this is rocky. We talk a lot about uncomfortable changes on this show. Reporting requirements for May 31st, I would say, is up there as far as uncomfortable change happening. The guidance is coming out. There's a lot of information to digest. There's a lot of requirements. I have a couple of pieces of advice when navigating this uncomfortable change.
Where possible, try to build your data file once, and then map it to every state. A lot of people will say, “We got that California curve Fall in 2025. The data structure was different.” If you're thinking about it from a SKU mapped to type of material, that's where you want to spend your time trying to create a bit of a data reference.
You can see what is sold into the different states. Hopefully, you're only adding new things as new SKUs come online. I would also recommend sequencing your California submission deliberately. California has a submission sequence requirement. Starting with your 2023 baseline and then doing your annual source reduction report would make for a lot fewer headaches.
You can't finish a source reduction plan. I would recommend it if you're starting to look at what your options are for a source reduction plan. Especially as you think about your innovation cycle. That would be my recommendation. To sequence California submission with 2023 first, 2025 second, and then looking at source reduction options for your source reduction plan while we await the final requirements for that.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Don't wait for perfection before you get started. Don't let these open items stop you. There's nothing we can do to get the answers. There's nothing CAA can necessarily do to get some of these answers. It's out of their hands in a lot of cases. If you let that stop you from acting, then you will get behind. You will be rushed. You will have no time for building contingency plans.
If you can swim through the uncertainty a little bit and make decisions that matter for your business and for your data where it matters, then you'll be better off. You hopefully won't have to scramble as much. That's the reporting realities for this Spring. A lot is happening for EPR reporting for Earth month. Thank you for bearing with me if you stayed this long. Hopefully, you found this helpful.
This is uncomfortable and it's challenging. This is the messy middle when it comes to seeing extended producer responsibility operationalize. The next episode, we'll go back to an interview. It will be fun and hopefully inspiring. I will try to do fewer boring EPR reporting episodes. Hopefully, you found this useful. Thank you.
Important Links
JDSUPRA: Are You Ready to Report Your Packaging Data Next Month?
Resource Recycling: EPR fees are a market signal. Here’s what they’re telling you.
Midland Co: AF&PA Disappointed Following Court Decision on Oregon EPR Litigation
Resource Recycling: Minnesota watches Oregon as EPR implementation advances
Resource Recycling: Oregon’s battery EPR bill officially charged for implementation
Environment Energy Leader: Food Waste Becomes a Strategic Lever for Restaurants