Across the country, individual states are considering extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws as an incentive for more companies to use sustainable packaging materials. Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI) has been closely tracking this emerging patchwork of laws and views the laws in Minnesota and Maryland as among the fairest and potentially most effective.

EPR laws require “producers,” often brand-owners, manufacturers or importers, to be accountable for the entire packaging lifecycle in states where their products are shipped or sold and require producers to pay fees based on the amount and type of product packaging they use. If done well, EPR laws could contribute to a more sustainable packaging lifecycle; however, if poorly designed, these laws could add compliance and other costs and fail to meet their recycling objectives.

Seven states — California, Colorado, Maine, Oregon, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington — have enacted EPR laws for packaging so far, while several others introduced new bills in 2025. Of those, Minnesota’s 2024 EPR law and Maryland’s 2025 law stand outstand out as good models for many reasons. In particular, they follow a thorough, data-driven needs assessment; call for genuine shared responsibility among all players involved in managing product packaging waste; and align key definitions.

PMI and the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment (AMERIPEN), with which PMI partners, would prefer one consistent national EPR law for packaging. For now, though, plumbing manufacturers and other businesses need to navigate the growing hodgepodge of state laws, fees, timelines and compliance obligations. 

Working with states to find common ground

PMI works with the various states and key stakeholders, together with AMERIPEN, submits comments on EPR legislation, and educates its members about the latest EPR laws to help states achieve their sustainability goals. 

Securing true shared responsibility in all packaging laws is a top priority for PMI. 

That means all stakeholders involved, including producers and service providers (waste collection and recycling companies), will collaborate on developing fair programs and fee schedules and share the benefits and responsibilities of managing packaging waste throughout its lifespan. 

For example, PMI recently signed on to a Maine Chamber of Commerce letter in support of LD 1423, a bill that seeks to address some issues of concern in Maine’s 2021 EPR law. The bill would update Maine’s packaging stewardship program by expanding the definition of “producer” and introducing new, clearer definitions related to recycling processes. It would also substantially change the definition of “packaging material” by creating exemptions for specific types of packaging, such as commercial and medical packaging. 

Minnesota’s program promotes a fair approach

The Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act, Minnesota’s EPR packaging bill signed into law in May 2024, is a strong model of genuine shared responsibility. AMERIPEN describes Minnesota’s law as reliable, efficient, equitable, fair and effective. 

The state’s EPR framework complements Minnesota’s substantial recycling and composting infrastructure while ensuring that producer fees directly fund efforts to increase recycling and composting. Minnesota’s program incorporates antitrust provisions to promote fair competition, offers a phased-in implementation approach over several years, and requires service providers to participate in competitive bidding and meet performance standards for reimbursement. 

AMERIPEN also commends Maryland for aligning its law with Minnesota’s law to deliver consistency across the two states. The association stated that “Maryland’s EPR bill is the product of significant effort that aligns key definitions with Minnesota’s 2024 law. This provides consistency across states in funding methodologies and the role of a producer responsibility organization (PRO).” 

Most EPR laws require producers of packaging products to join a PRO, which provides a single point of compliance for producers to meet state-specific regulatory requirements. Currently, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) operates as the PRO in California, Colorado, Oregon and Minnesota. CAA has also been chosen to represent producer interests as the PRO on the State Producer Responsibility Advisory Council in Maryland. 

Maine uses a stewardship program that requires producers of packaging materials to contribute to a stewardship fund administered by an independent organization.

The laws in Minnesota and Maryland contrast starkly with California’s EPR law, SB54, and its subsequent regulatory process, which have been criticized for being inadequately receptive to industry input. Opponents of California’s law have expressed concern over its potential high costs to consumers, as well as the limited range of packaging materials and designs that manufacturers can use. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently directed CalRecycle to restart the regulatory process for the state’s law following concerns about its associated costs and the need to ensure fair implementation.

Without one consistent federal EPR packaging law, plumbing manufacturers, distributors and others must continue to maneuver the complexities of a growing number of state EPR laws. We urge other states considering such EPR bills to mirror Minnesota’s framework. In the meantime, PMI will continue to work with AMERIPEN to foster collaboration that drives consistency and fairness among state packaging laws. 

Matthew Windrum is the director of state government affairs, policy and advocacy of Plumbing Manufacturers International. He has spent more than 15 years working in state government affairs and public policy. Contact him at [email protected].