A defining feature of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws emerging across the United States is the expectation that producers join a statewide producer responsibility organization (PRO). But for some producers, joining a PRO may not be the only compliance pathway.
Several EPR laws include options for independent collection systems, material-specific exemptions, or sector-specific alternative PROs. These alternatives may offer more tailored, cost-effective, and operationally appropriate strategies, especially for companies whose packaging materials or business models fall outside the scope of traditional curbside recycling systems.
While these options are not universally available and may require special regulatory approval, they are in the early stages of deployment in some states. International experience also suggests these options may have promise for EPR states in the US as well. For producers seeking options beyond the default PRO-led model, these alternative pathways may offer flexibility and other benefits.
Below, we offer an overview of these alternative pathways and related developments.
Exploring alternative compliance pathways
EPR laws tend to share common features, but they differ meaningfully in how they approach alternative compliance options. Some EPR statutes provide clear authority for alternative compliance options, like independent collection systems. Others defer to regulators to define potential alternatives as needed.
Understanding each state’s approach is critical for producers evaluating whether participation in a statewide PRO is mandatory or simply the default.
Compliance with EPR laws in Oregon, Colorado, and California
- Oregon: Under SB 582 (the Recycling Modernization Act) and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations, producers of covered products are generally required to join a PRO. DEQ selected the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) as the sole PRO to administer the program, but the framework technically allows for multiple PROs to operate in coordination. Some producers are already pursuing more tailored compliance pathways.
For instance, the Lubricant Packaging Management Association (LPMA) is a nonprofit organization created to help lubricant brand owners comply with packaging EPR laws, with the intent to improve environmental outcomes and reduce overall program fees. Members of LPMA received an exemption from 2025 CAA obligations for certain difficult-to-recycle high-density polyethylene (HDPE) materials that are privately recycled under ORS 459A.869(13). Ongoing discussions between LPMA and DEQ suggest that additional exemptions or alternative arrangements may emerge, particularly for materials managed through industry-specific recycling systems.
- Colorado: Colorado has also designated CAA as the PRO to manage its EPR program. Producers may submit an individual program plan proposal in lieu of participating in a PRO, subject to detailed requirements and regulatory approval (25-17-705(8)). These plans must meet specific requirements for approval, including details on reimbursing service providers, plans for any alternative collection systems, funding mechanisms, performance targets, and compliance with state and local laws. LPMA is currently operating such a plan on behalf of producers of petroleum and automotive products.
- California: SB 54 requires all producers of covered material to join a PRO. However, under PRC § 42051, producers may comply individually without PRO membership if they submit an approved plan demonstrating that their program meets the statutory performance requirements. The law also permits alternative collection for covered material not managed through curbside collection. CalRecycle is in the process of developing and implementing regulations.
At a May 30, 2025 SB 54 Advisory Board (AB) meeting to review the latest draft regulations, certain AB members raised concerns that the definition of “alternative collection” could unintentionally allow duplicative curbside “take-back” programs that bypass local permits and create confusion in public messaging. AB members requested that CalRecycle include explicit coordination or notification requirements before approving alternative collection programs. Producers that satisfy the performance criteria through their own systems may be able to operate independently of a PRO. These approvals would require detailed plans and agency review but may offer more tailored compliance pathways.
Alternative compliance under other EPR laws
As the first states to adopt EPR laws, California, Colorado, and Oregon have received the most attention. But several other states are beginning to develop frameworks that contemplate alternative collection models.
- Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 115A.144-115A.1463) requires PRO participation by January 1, 2025, but leaves open the opportunity for alternative pathways that meet statutory requirements. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is currently engaging stakeholders and may clarify whether regulatory carve-outs or alternative PROs will be permitted.
- Maine (Title 38 § 2146 Stewardship program for packaging) allows producers to fulfill their EPR obligations through the statewide “stewardship organization,” or by establishing “alternative collection programs” for specific packaging materials. Producers or groups of producers can submit a proposal to the Department of Environmental Protection for approval, which includes a public review period. Producers can also offset their financial obligations under the main program for materials managed through an approved alternative program.
- Maryland (SB 901) explicitly creates a pathway for alternative collection. Beginning July 1, 2026, producers or groups of producers may develop and operate alternative collection programs for specific types of covered materials sold or distributed in the state. Participation in an approved alternative collection program allows a producer to wholly or partially offset financial obligations under the EPR law.
- Washington (SB 5284, enacted) allows producers or groups of producers to develop and operate alternative collection programs for covered material included on the alternative collection list. Initial lists are expected to be developed by October 1, 2026. Alternative collection programs must include the number, type, and location of each collection opportunity, performance targets, and accurate measurements of collected materials.
Implications for specific producers
For many producers, joining a state-approved PRO may be the default – or the only – compliance pathway under emerging EPR laws. For certain sectors, however, this assumption may overlook meaningful opportunities to tailor obligations more closely to operational realities.
Alternative compliance pathways may be of particular interest to producers whose operations, materials, or logistics diverge from the assumptions embedded in a centralized PRO model. Examples may include:
- Petroleum product manufacturers, many of which already maintain robust, material-specific takeback infrastructure.
- Glass packaging producers, whose materials are fully recyclable but may face disproportionate fee exposure under weight-based structures. This concern was raised during CalRecycle’s May 27, 2025 public workshop, where the Glass Packaging Institute (GPI) commented that, despite glass containers representing only about 5 percent of the waste stream in Great Britain, the glass industry is projected to bear approximately 30 percent of the cost to support California’s producer responsibility program.
- Vertically integrated producers with closed-loop collection and recycling capacity.
- Producers of hard-to-recycle materials, such as thermoforms or multi-layer films, for whom material-specific programs may yield more predictable compliance.
Where state law permits, these producers may be able to pursue alternative compliance plans. These plans typically require agency approval, evidence of equivalent outcomes, and detailed program documentation. While approvals remain rare and are subject to evolving regulatory guidance, qualifying producers may find these pathways to be more operationally aligned and potentially less burdensome.
As rulemaking progresses across jurisdictions, producers considering these options are encouraged to evaluate whether their operations meet statutory thresholds and whether participation in a general PRO would create inefficiencies or impose undue burdens. Documenting existing collection efforts and environmental outcomes may improve positioning as agency guidance becomes more defined.
Key takeaways
Alternative EPR compliance pathways remain narrow in scope and subject to rigorous approval standards. The details and criteria also vary significantly across jurisdictions. But these options may provide more flexibility for producers whose products or business models do not align with one-size-fits-all systems.
As producers gain experience with state EPR programs, the potential benefits of these non-default options will become clearer. Producers that have identified or developed approaches that perform better than PRO participation may wish to consider exploring these pathways early.
Key considerations include:
- Does the relevant statute authorize individual compliance, alternative collection, or additional PROs?
- What are the procedures and criteria for approval?
- Would participation in a single designated PRO result in undue burden?
- Would PRO participation poorly serve the program’s legislative objectives?
For many companies, the answers to these questions will depend on evolving regulations and how EPR programs are implemented in practice. Where regulators may be reluctant to deviate from the default pathway, informed advocacy may make the difference.
[View source.]
