It may feel like just yesterday that Oregon became the second state to pass an extended producer responsibility for packaging law. But the end of this month marks a major milestone for EPR in the U.S., as Oregon is the first with a reporting deadline for obligated producers.
By March 31, producers, manufacturers and importers of packaging, paper and food service ware are on the hook to report 2024 Oregon supply data through a portal set up by Circular Action Alliance, the producer responsibility organization operating in the state. This is all part of the Recycling Modernization Act, which was approved in 2021 with the aim of improving recycling throughout the state, leveraging an ecomodulation approach as it charges producers.
More than 2,300 producers have registered with CAA, the industry-formed organization said this week, 93% of which are obligated in Oregon. CAA, which has scaled-up rapidly in the past year, has offered numerous training courses and workshops to producers in the lead-up.
Any first comes with challenges — and stress — according to professionals working to help producers prepare.
“The anxiety is real,” said Michael Washburn, principal at Washburn Consulting, who assists with “producer readiness.”
“We’re compliance anxiety counselors over here,” he said.
Part of the challenge was the short span between when Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality announced its approval of CAA’s program plan on Feb. 21 and the March 31 reporting deadline.
For a company participating in an EPR program for the very first time, “I can see where it can create some added anxiety,” said Les Griffith, senior business development director with RLG, which works with producers on EPR data management and compliance. However, “I don't think that's the main disruptor. I think the fact that [Oregon is] first, that's the elephant in the room,” he said.
The program plan details the approach to implementing the law beginning July 1, outlining the recycling acceptance list, materials strategy, membership fee structure and base fee rates, compliance management and more.
Ahead of the document being finalized, RLG cast a wide net in how it prepared so that producers could make progress, regardless of variations in the final version. “We were collecting materials that exceeded that list,” Griffith said.
Even for companies that are familiar with EPR reporting through experience with programs in Canada or Europe, Oregon is still a new ballgame with plenty to learn. “The obligated materials are going to be different. The fee structure is different. The ecomodulating system is different,” he said.
What’s more, in very large companies, colleagues experienced with EPR abroad don’t necessarily communicate that expertise with North American counterparts, Washburn noted. As companies have been on this data journey, part of what’s needed is “to build a process to make sure that the organization is talking to itself effectively,” including involving supply chain, packaging procurement or other parties that might have exposure to relevant data, he said.
What’s next
“The deadline is the deadline,” said Geoffrey Inch, senior vice president of producer services at CAA, on a quarterly informational call hosted by the PRO this week. CAA urged producers to reach out as soon as possible with questions or any issues. “We really encourage you to get in the best estimated report that you can based on our guidance documents,” he said.
CAA will begin validating reports to guide fee-setting. It needs to get invoices out in June and collect fees from producers in July, Inch said.
In Washburn’s estimation, “If you're just awakening to this now [in mid to late March] and you literally haven't begun the process of preparing your data, I think it is nearly impossible to comply,” he said. “What I tell folks is: you're going to be late, you're going to be out of compliance, but it's in your interest to do this as well and as expeditiously as possible.”
As for producers that began scrambling a few months ago, “Many of them are doing sort of good-faith draft reports so that they get something that is defensible in front of CAA on March 31 and then they will continue their process,” he explained. “In the event that they discover they can improve on those reports, they'll submit a subsequent correction.”
CAA will conduct periodic audits. Following Oregon statute, the PRO will have to publish lists of compliant producers — as well as those that have not met their regulatory obligations, CAA said.
CAA also notes that non-compliant producers will face retroactive fees and late charges. Enforcement could escalate up to fines as much as $25,000 per day or even loss of market access for producers that fail to register or report.
As for Oregon producers that are compliant and confident come March 31? “They’ll get a day off,” Washburn said, “and then they’re going to turn their attention to Colorado.” Reporting in that next state will require its own version of data based on different covered material categories and sales volumes.
The reporting deadline in Colorado, which also runs through CAA, is July 31. CAA submitted a proposed program plan there in February.
Focusing on getting things right in Oregon sets the early foundation for success in the other U.S. states with upcoming EPR programs. And on an optimistic note, muscle memory should begin to improve, Washburn said. “So I hope that this anxiety turns, ultimately, to familiarity over a couple of years.”
Looking ahead, “I think Colorado, just by not being first, will run better,” Griffith said. While the first reporting cycle may not be perfect, “it is a start ... we can only get better.”
Correction: A previous version of this story included an incorrect date for Colorado's EPR reporting deadline. It has been updated to reflect that the reporting deadline is July 31.
