What's Next for EPR in Q3: Your Questions, Answered

Filing your ISR Plan didn't mean the questions stopped, it just changed what people are asking. At our recent webinar unPacked: Filed Isn't Finished, our compliance team took live questions on what's next: Maine's rollout, California's fees and baseline mechanics, and the recurring question of who's on the hook when more than one name touches a piece of packaging.

We're sharing the full Q&A here for anyone who attended and wants to reference it, and for anyone who didn't and has the same questions. As always, the answers below are for general reference only and don't constitute legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel to determine how these rules apply to your specific business.

Maine's New Program

Can you describe what non-compliant packaging actually looks like under Maine's law? 

This isn't about specific packaging types being outlawed, it's about non-compliant producers. A liable producer is one selling covered packaging above Maine's revenue and packaging thresholds. If that producer hasn't registered, reported, or paid the required fees, Maine's law allows the state to bar them from selling into the state, an enforcement mechanism most EPR programs have in reserve.

There's enough clarity in Maine's rules today to determine whether you're a liable producer. Get your data and internal processes in order now, before that becomes a risk.

What data year does Maine's reporting cover, 2025 or 2026 year-to-date?

Maine's reporting and early fees are both based on your 2025 packaging and sales data. Your 2026 data will inform 2027 reporting and fees. As Maine expects program implementation delays, we will keep our customers informed of any significant changes to the scope.

Is the first invoice from Maine expected in September 2026 for early program fees? 

During the webinar, we shared that Maine's DEP initially informally indicated Q3 as a rough timeframe for reporting, and the expectation for reporting 2025 data would land sometime in late Q4 2026.

However, shortly after, the DEP announced that there is no Stewardship Organization selected to run its EPR program, as there were no proposals submitted. This means the program will be delayed, like until 2027. See the full breakdown of their status here.

Is there a de minimis level for Maine like Oregon/Colorado have?

Yes. Maine has a producer exemption, though the specific thresholds differ from Oregon's and Colorado's. You're exempt from Maine's packaging stewardship program for a given year if you meet any one of these:

• Revenue: less than $2,000,000 in total gross revenue the prior calendar year
• Volume: less than one ton of packaging material sold, offered for sale, or distributed into Maine the prior calendar year
• Business type: more than 50% of prior-year gross revenue came from goods acquired through insurance salvage, closeouts, bankruptcies, or liquidations

If you're above those thresholds but still relatively small, there's a tier worth knowing about too: low-volume producers can pay a flat fee instead of a material-specific rate, capped at $500 per ton and $7,500 total per year. 

California Fees and Baseline

If source reduction planning revealed that our 2025 report needs changes, what's the right move? 

The right move for now: log a support case with CAA as soon as possible. CAA doesn't yet have a formal revisions process for California, but the more producers submit tickets describing what they found and want corrected, the more pressure there is on CAA and CalRecycle to build one. Finding errors during source reduction planning isn't unusual either. We've seen it happen for several customers whose planning surfaced issues in earlier reports. Support tickets go directly through your CAA portal.

Has CAA said when producers will be invoiced for the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fee (PPMF), and should we be modeling it separately from the base fee and Reuse Investment Fee? 

We haven't gotten full clarity from CAA on exactly how this will work yet. CAA's illustrative fees cover letter states that the PPMF will be invoiced separately from the program fees, but that hasn't been stated consistently everywhere, and no timing has been confirmed. It remains an open question for now. We'd expect more clarity once CAA publishes the finalized fee schedule by October 1.

Is there a way to correct or update the 2023 California baseline if we've found errors in it? 

During the webinar, we shared that there was no way to correct or update the 2023 baseline. However, on August 20th, CAA sent an email out to all producers announcing that they can adjust their 2023 baseline until August 31.

Beyond this, however, there's no mechanism to amend a submitted 2023 baseline report under the current law. Part of the complexity is that the aggregated 2023 baseline is used to measure the state's collective 25% source-reduction goal, which makes any change harder to implement cleanly.

CAA is working with CalRecycle to figure out a path forward. For comparison, Colorado and Oregon already allow revisions to previous reports, so there's a reasonable chance California follows suit eventually, though there's no clarity yet on timing or process.

In the meantime, if you've identified a correction, you can explain it directly in your source reduction plan's narrative if the plan is based on the corrected numbers. We've done this for customers whose recalculated baseline differed from what they'd originally submitted. We'd also recommend logging a support ticket with CAA describing the issue.

When is payment due for the illustrative fees California released in August? 

Payment is due 45 days after the invoice is issued.

Who's Responsible

For small business exemptions, is eligibility evaluated at the parent company level or the subsidiary level? 

This is a legal question we can't advise on directly, and it varies significantly by state. California, for example, offers different options for claiming a small business exemption at either the subsidiary or the group/parent level, but the right approach depends on how your company is incorporated and how your packaging supply chain and sales work. Because both the rules and the underlying business facts can be unclear, this is a good one to bring to legal counsel who can evaluate your specific corporate structure.

If packaging is sold through a distributor that doesn't register or pay fees, does responsibility get pushed one layer up? 

This gets at what's called the producer hierarchy, and it's genuinely complicated. All covered packaging is supposed to be reported by someone, but exactly who requires a case-by-case analysis. The more complex your supply chain, the more complicated the answer. Nothing should be double-reported, and everything covered should be reported by at least one entity. As a rough rule of thumb, the brand whose logo is on the packaging is typically the obligated party. You may need to look further up the chain depending on importer status and how the packaging moves through the supply chain. CAA is actively interested in identifying non-compliant producers, so if you're seeing a case where the hierarchy isn't being respected, you can report that to CAA. If you're in a dispute with a supply-chain partner over who's responsible, that's a good situation to get legal support for.

If a brand's logo isn't on the product itself but is on the outer case, does that make the case owner responsible? 

Generally speaking, and this can vary enough that complex supply chains should get specific legal guidance, each packaging layer is attributable to its own producer rather than the outermost logo being solely responsible. If chocolate bars carry the chocolate brand's logo, that brand carries EPR responsibility for that primary packaging. If those bars ship in a case bearing different branding, say, a box manufacturer's, that outer case very likely carries a separate obligation belonging to whoever commissioned that layer. It's not just whichever logo is on the outermost layer: each layer of packaging is generally attributable to whoever commissioned it.

How should white label, private label, or private brand products be handled? 

In the vast majority of cases, the owner of the brand is ultimately responsible, including for white label, private label, and private brand products. As a general rule of thumb, the logo listed on the packaging is a good starting point for identifying that owner. Confirming the specifics of your own arrangement is still worth doing, since setups can vary.

Looking Ahead

Is there any hope for consistent EPR rules across states? 

A single federal policy would be simpler, but full uniformity would strip states of the ability to address their own needs: geography, infrastructure, and economics all differ, and California's challenges look very different from smaller or more rural states’. This is especially the case with the latest news coming out of Maine, as CAA announces that Maine’s RFP as written is not aligned with CAA practices.

That said, harmonization efforts are underway, including the federal PACK Act, which seeks a national standard for what counts as recyclable. States and organizations like CAA are also learning from each other as programs roll out, and newer states are drawing on lessons from Oregon, Colorado, and California. There won't likely be one uniform rulebook, but expect gradual convergence and easier implementation as more states stand up programs.

If you haven’t submitted your reports this year and you’re still wondering if your brand is liable, know that late compliance is better than non-compliance. From determining your obligation to getting your data streamlined and reporting-ready, rePurpose is built to help with that. 

If you’ve finished your reports and want to stay ahead on what’s next on the EPR horizon, speak with one of our compliance experts.

‍