EPR Moves from Theory to Reality

For several years, extended producer responsibility laws for packaging have been discussed as an emerging issue for manufacturers in many industries. The conversation often centered on whether more states would adopt them, which products would be covered and how quickly the idea might spread. 

That conversation has changed. 

EPR is no longer theoretical. It is moving from enactment to implementation, and the next phase may prove far more consequential for manufacturers than the legislative debates that preceded it. 

Across the country, states are beginning to test what packaging EPR looks like in practice. Oregon is facing litigation. California has finalized regulations implementing SB 54. Colorado is moving through implementation while also facing legal pressure. Maryland has enacted a new law and begun the regulatory process. Washington has joined the growing list of states with packaging EPR requirements. Meanwhile, proposals in New York, Tennessee and Wisconsin may not have crossed the finish line, but they came close enough to signal that the map is still expanding. 

For manufacturers of windows, doors, skylights and other building products, the message is clear: EPR is entering a new and more complicated phase. 

What to watch  

The Oregon lawsuit is one of the most important developments to watch. A federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Oregon’s law against members of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors while the litigation proceeds. The injunction is limited, but the significance is larger than the immediate parties. The case raises questions about how far states can go in assigning compliance obligations and costs to companies whose products and packaging move through interstate commerce. 

Whether the challengers ultimately prevail remains to be seen. But the case underscores an important point: passing an EPR law is not the end of the policy debate. In many ways, it is the beginning of a new one. 

Oregon also illustrates another challenge: exemptions. Many industries assumed that packaging used in commercial, construction or business-to-business settings would be treated differently from consumer packaging. In practice, those distinctions are proving difficult to secure. Oregon’s limited exemption process has left many sectors concerned that packaging that rarely, if ever, enters residential recycling systems may still be swept into programs designed to fund those systems. 

California represents a different kind of test. With permanent SB 54 regulations now approved and in effect, the state is moving from broad statutory concepts into the details of registration, reporting, compliance and producer responsibility. California’s program is likely to become either a template or a cautionary tale for other states. Its scale alone makes it impossible to ignore. 

For manufacturers, California matters not simply because of its market size, but because state-level regulatory models often migrate. Once definitions, reporting systems, fee structures and compliance expectations are developed in one large state, other states often look to them as reference points. 

Colorado shows that implementation concerns are not limited to Oregon or California. The state approved Circular Action Alliance’s program plan, moving Colorado further into operational reality. At the same time, legal challenges and stakeholder concerns demonstrate that questions remain over how these systems are structured, who governs them, how fees are allocated and whether affected producers believe the process is fair. 

Maryland’s new law adds another layer of momentum. Its enactment confirms that EPR continues to advance even as earlier states wrestle with implementation complexity. In other words, uncertainty is not slowing the movement. New states are entering the field while existing programs are still being tested. 

The near misses are just as important. New York’s packaging EPR proposal again failed to become law, despite Senate action and significant advocacy. Tennessee’s Waste to Jobs Act was sidelined, but supporters have indicated the issue will return. Wisconsin introduced a packaging reduction and recycling producer responsibility bill that failed to advance this session. None of these outcomes should be interpreted as the issue going away. If anything, they show that EPR is moving into states with different political profiles, different waste systems and different economic priorities. 

That is what makes the current moment so important. 

EPR is no longer just an environmental policy discussion. It is becoming a business operations issue. It affects packaging decisions, supplier relationships, data systems, legal compliance, administrative costs and ultimately product pricing. 

Fenestration specifically 

For the fenestration industry, there is an additional complication: construction-product packaging is not the same as consumer packaging. 

Windows, doors and skylights are not typically sold like consumer goods on a retail shelf. They move through manufacturers, distributors, dealers, contractors, builders and construction sites. Packaging is used to protect products from damage, preserve performance, support transportation and facilitate installation. Much of that packaging is managed through commercial, jobsite or construction waste streams rather than residential curbside recycling. 

That distinction matters. 

Packaging EPR laws were largely designed to address municipal recycling system costs associated with consumer packaging. But when those laws are applied broadly to construction inputs, they risk imposing fees and compliance burdens on materials that do not meaningfully contribute to the systems being funded. 

There is also a housing affordability dimension that deserves far more attention. 

Windows, doors, skylights, insulation, roofing, siding, appliances, cabinetry, lighting and other building products are essential inputs in housing construction and renovation. If EPR fees and compliance costs are imposed across these categories, the impact will not remain isolated. Costs will move through the supply chain from manufacturers to distributors, builders, remodelers and ultimately homebuyers and property owners. 

Any single fee may appear modest in isolation. But when multiplied across dozens of products, multiple suppliers and multiple state compliance systems, the cumulative effect can become significant. 

This creates an uncomfortable policy tension. Policymakers are trying to improve recycling systems. They are also trying to address a housing affordability crisis. Poorly designed EPR programs could make both goals harder to achieve if they add cost to essential construction inputs without producing proportional recycling benefits. 

That does not mean manufacturers should ignore environmental responsibility. Nor does it mean packaging practices should remain static. It does mean that EPR programs must be designed with a better understanding of how construction products move through the marketplace. 

Forward focus 

The next chapter of EPR will not be written only in state legislatures. It will be written in regulatory proceedings, producer responsibility organization plans, fee schedules, courtrooms and compliance departments. 

For manufacturers, the most important takeaway is this: implementation is where the real consequences emerge. 

The industry has moved beyond the question of whether EPR is coming. It is here. Now the question is whether these programs will be designed in ways that recognize the realities of construction supply chains, protect housing affordability and produce meaningful environmental outcomes. 

That is the debate manufacturers need to be prepared for now.