In the past month, both Maine and Massachusetts have taken steps to implement extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws and rules, with the intent of shifting the financial responsibility of managing packaging material from municipalities to producers.

Maine

On December 5, 2024, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) adopted Chapter 428, which is designed to carry out the Stewardship Program for Packaging law (38 M.R.S. §2146) enacted in 2021. The rule requires the installation of a stewardship organization (SO) that will collect money from producers and direct those funds to municipalities to offset the cost of their recycling programs.

The rules impose annual reporting and reimbursement requirements for a “producer,” defined as the entity that has “legal ownership” of a product sold or distributed in Maine. Reimbursement requirements are determined by, among other factors, the weight and amount of the producer’s packaging material(s), the cost to collect those materials, and their recyclability.

The rule creates incentives for producers to use “readily recyclable” packaging materials. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will initiate an additional rulemaking this summer to define what materials are “readily recyclable.”

A chief concern about Maine’s EPR program is that there has been no needs assessment of Maine’s existing municipal recycling infrastructure. Therefore, producers have little or no idea what the cost of the program will be and how it will impact the price of their products.

In contrast, under recently passed EPR laws in Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. §25-17-705 (2024)), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 2024 §115A.1450), and Oregon (c. 681, Oregon Laws 2021, §61), a needs assessment of the states’ solid waste infrastructure will be conducted before producers are assessed funds to supplement those systems.

Unlike other EPR programs, the State of Maine is heavily engaged in operating and running its program. Maine DEP designed the program’s terms (i.e., the recently adopted rules) and will soon issue a request for proposals and select an SO to run it. In a traditional EPR model, the state directs producers and packagers to meet recycling targets but gives them the flexibility to select an SO (subject to state approval) and establish the terms for how the EPR program will be paid for and operated.

A further concern raised by BEP Chair Sue Lessard, who cast the lone vote against adopting the rule, is that the distribution of funds to municipalities by the SO will be uneven. She opined that smaller, rural towns do not have the staff to compile the required information about their recycling operation in order to participate in the program. Consequently, larger towns in the southern half of the state may have greater access to the available funds.

Attempts to change the underlying law (and indirectly change the newly adopted rule) may be on the horizon when the 132nd Maine Legislature convenes next week.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts has not yet adopted EPR laws but could be one step closer due to recent legislative action. A broad clean energy law, signed by Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey on December 3, 2024, included language to create a special legislative commission on EPR.

The law calls for the creation of a 20-member special commission on EPR for categories including paint, mattresses, electronics, lithium-ion batteries, plastics, and other packaging. The commission will be led by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection commissioner or a designee, and will include a range of government officials and legislators, recycling and packaging industry representatives, and nonprofits such as environmental justice groups.

The Massachusetts special commission is expected to solicit public comment, meet at least four times, and share initial recommendations and related findings with relevant legislative committees by January 15, 2026. Recommendations should include:

• A structure for each product and packaging category that includes collection, processing and financial responsibility
• Cost effects for residential curbside collection and transfer station operators
• The role of “material reduction, reuse, and lifecycle extensions” for different products and packaging
• Effects on waste generation and contamination reduction