Most states have some type of extended producer responsibility statute; Minnesota is implementing one new to the Midwest: EPR for packaging

Faced with a rising tide of packaging waste, some states are now requiring the producers and distributors of these materials to assume financial responsibility for helping manage their re-use, recycling and disposal.

The concept is known as “extended producer responsibility,” a policy option first employed by states 35 years ago when Minnesota (along with New Jersey) adopted an EPR law related to the disposal of rechargeable batteries.

Today, 35 states (including seven in the Midwest; see map) have a total of 146 EPR laws across 21 product categories, according to the Product Stewardship Institute. Most prevalent are state statutes that extend producer responsibility for the entire life cycle of batteries and electronics.

Less common have been EPR laws specific to packaging, though Minnesota and six other U.S. states have enacted such measures since 2021. In Canada, all four member and affiliate provinces of The Council of State Governments’ Midwestern Legislative Conference have EPR laws for packaging.

‘Overwhelmed systems’

Picture a product delivery to your home: In the big box is your item, often in a smaller box or envelope, nested in packing materials — usually crumpled, heavy brown paper or plastic airbags.

The use of this packaging is on the rise with the dramatic increase in e-commerce retail sales. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, these sales doubled during the first part of this decade alone, reaching $310 billion by the third quarter of 2025.

“Municipal solid waste systems are getting more and more waste piling up,” says Ammi Borenstein, the founder and CEO of Snaplinc Consulting, which advises companies on EPR compliance and participation.

“The pace of consumer waste has gone up stratospherically in the U.S. in the last 20 years, and that’s generating tons of waste. Municipal solid waste systems are just overwhelmed.”

Extended producer responsibility for packaging originated in the late 1980s and early 1990s in Sweden and Germany; it first came to the United States under laws passed by the Maine and Oregon legislatures in 2021.

Minnesota’s Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act (HF 3911) was enacted in 2024. Three types of products and materials are covered under the law: packaging and packaging components, food packaging, and paper products.

Minnesota’s fee structure

In her home county of Hennepin, Minnesota Rep. Sydney Jordan says, estimates show that 40 percent of the waste going to landfills or incinerators is paper and packaging.

Local residents, meanwhile, have been seeking to shut down a county-run incinerator, especially those who live downwind from it and worry about the health effects from air pollution. The problem from the county’s perspective: “too much trash” and “nowhere else to put it,” Jordan says.

Hence her sponsorship of the EPR law, modeled in part from what she learned from statutes already in place in states such as Maine, Colorado and Oregon.

Under Minnesota’s HF 3911, starting in 2032, all packaging, food packaging and paper products must be refillable, reusable, recyclable or compostable. This requirement applies to all producers with $2 million in annual global revenue or 1 ton of packaging sold in the state.

Producers are defined as the manufacturers, importers or brand owners of the products covered under HF 3911. They must join and pay fees to a producer responsibility organization, which develops and oversees implementation of a stewardship plan.

Rep. Sydney Jordan

Fees will cover 50 percent of the plan’s costs in 2029, 75 percent in 2030, and 90 percent in 2031.

In establishing this fee structure, Jordan and other legislators included statutory language to incentivize producers’ use of materials or design attributes that reduce environmental and human health impacts. This is known as an “eco-modulated” structure: lower fees for sustainable design practices. (Other EPR laws use fixed-rate or product-specific fee structures.)

Moving to implementation

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has been charged with setting EPR program requirements, determining which materials will be included, and enforcing the law.

An 18-member advisory board will oversee the work of both the agency and the designated producer responsibility organization (Circular Action Alliance). Board members cannot be legislators, registered lobbyists or employees of packaging producers.

The agency has released a preliminary assessment of Minnesota’s current recycling and composting infrastructure as well as a summary of what’s currently being collected — the first of two reports required under HF 3911. A needs assessment is due to the EPR Advisory Board by the end of 2026. It will:

• set baselines for EPR performance;
• suggest statewide program requirements for rates of recycling, composting, re-use and return of packaging;
• recommend a method to set reimbursement rates for collection companies;
• assess best practices for public outreach; and
• help guide investments in future infrastructure upgrades, such as more curbside services for recyclables and compostables or a greater availability of drop-off collection sites.

This needs assessment, as well as the state’s stewardship plan for better life-cycle management of packaging, must be updated every five years.

Bills stall in other states

EPR for packaging has drawn some legislative interest in other Midwestern states. Bills have been introduced, but not advanced, in Illinois (HB 4064 of 2025), Wisconsin (AB 772 and SB 778 of 2025), and Michigan (HB 5902 of 2024).

Beyond packaging, current EPR-related legislation would establish such programs for batteries in Nebraska (LB 607) and carpeting in Illinois (HB 1876).

Rep. Lee Snodgrass

Wisconsin Rep. Lee Snodgrass, author of AB 722, acknowledges her EPR bill on packaging isn’t going to advance this year, but believes it is a good marker for future sessions.

“The second time around, you can say, ‘Okay, well, who showed interest last time? What were the barriers? Who were the people that were concerned?’” Snodgrass says.

“We’ll continue to introduce it next time around, we’ll have more stakeholders who might want to uplift it,” she adds. “And really, the best thing is to bring the people who had concerns into the bill-writing process to see if you can get them on board.”

Jon Davis is CSG Midwest staff liaison to the Midwestern Legislative Conference Energy & Environment Committee. Illinois Sen. Laura Ellman and Michigan Rep. Pauline Wendzel serve as committee co-chairs. North Dakota Rep. Anna Novak and Saskatchewan MLA Erika Ritchie are the co-vice chairs.

 

---