The figures that will govern US packaging are being set by state agencies and state-appointed producer responsibility organisations, while federal action stays at the level of bills, strategies and petitions. As of 12 November 2026 there is still no federal packaging EPR law.
A note on sourcing: several fee details below come from law-firm, consultancy, converter and software-vendor posts rather than from Circular Action Alliance (CAA) documents. Check the CAA and CalRecycle originals before you budget.
California’s plastic baseline fell, and CalRecycle says it will be corrected
Packaging Dive reports that CalRecycle’s updated source reduction baseline for SB 54 counts 1.03 million tons of plastic covered material and 222 billion plastic components sold or distributed in California in 2023. The tonnage is well below the earlier estimate of 2.9 million tons, while the component count rose from 171.4 billion. The update draws on 2,127 producers, which CalRecycle says is about 50% of participating producers.
Source: CalRecycle figures as reported by Packaging Dive, November 2026
Our calculation. The SB 54 target is a 25% source reduction by 2032. Applied to the earlier estimate, that is 0.25 × 2.9 = 0.725 million tons. Applied to the updated figure, it is 0.25 × 1.03 = about 0.26 million tons. The components count moved the other way: (222 − 171.4) ÷ 171.4 = about 30% more items.
The lower tonnage is unlikely to stand. Packaging Dive also reports that Laura Moreno of CalRecycle’s policy office told the SB 54 advisory board the intent is not to leave the baseline at its current number. CalRecycle will issue a correction in November 2027, before it assesses compliance with the targets. Moreno said CalRecycle acknowledges that not all producers reported and not all reported accurately, and that it plans to update its source reduction reporting guidance in the shorter term.
A higher baseline means a larger absolute cut for the same percentage, according to the same report. Brand owners and retailers that filed late, filed partial data or struggled with component counts should expect follow-up from CAA and CalRecycle. Packaging Dive describes the component count as an especially confusing part of reporting.
Source reduction is not only lightweighting. Packaging Dive notes that the allowable methods include reusable or refillable alternatives (10% required by 2032), eliminating unnecessary plastic, substituting other materials, and rightsizing or lightweighting.
What CAA’s 2027 fee schedule contains
Law firm Greenberg Glusker says CAA published its 2027 Producer Fee Schedule on 1 October 2026. Fees are set per material category (cardboard, rigid plastic containers, flexible film and so on). The firm adds that 29% of producer fees fund the core program, while 59% fund regulatory costs. EPR tracker EPR Atlas describes the schedule as preliminary, pending CalRecycle’s approval of the program plan.
| Item | Amount (USD) | Applies to | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base fee | Varies by material category | All covered material | Two invoices: 50% in January, 50% in July 2027 |
| Reuse investment | $0.03 per lb | Any category with a plastic component | Added to the base fee |
| Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund (PPMF), weight fee | $0.26 per lb | Plastic | Separate PPMF invoice in January 2027 |
| PPMF, component fee | $0.001 per unit | Plastic components | Separate PPMF invoice in January 2027 |
| Bonus and malus values | Published 13 October 2026 | Plastic packaging | Not on 2027 or 2028 invoices |
Read together, the add-ons mean a plastic component carries $0.29 per lb before the category base fee: $0.03 for reuse investment plus $0.26 into the PPMF, plus $0.001 for each unit. For a high-count, light-weight item such as a small sachet, the per-unit charge matters as much as the weight charge. Tape, labels and closures that count as plastic components can therefore change a pack’s fee even when the main body is paper.
The incentive schedule has a longer fuse. Consultancy Repurpose says CAA published its 2027 incentive values on 13 October 2026, that 2027 and 2028 invoices cover base fees only, and that values for 2028 packaging arrive in October 2027 and show up on 2030 invoices. Compliance-software firm Asuene says 2027 fees rest on calendar-year 2025 supply data reported by 31 May 2026, so redesigns made now affect fees from 2028.
For converters, the practical request from customers will be component-level weight and material data, not only pack-level totals. Retailers with own-brand ranges are producers under SB 54 for those lines and need the same data.
Courts and midterms: state programs keep their timelines
Seven states have enacted packaging EPR laws: California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington, as law firm Proskauer and others list them. Two forces could change their timelines: litigation and election results.
On litigation, packaging converter Placon’s EPR update says a federal court paused enforcement of Oregon’s law against members of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) in February 2026, on constitutional grounds. It adds that NAW and 17 state attorneys general sued over SB 54 in June 2026, that challenges have also been filed in Colorado, and that California and Colorado courts are not bound by the Oregon decision. Proskauer separately lists a state-court suit filed on 2 June 2026 against CalRecycle’s final regulations, with a trial set for 13 July 2026. I did not find a reported outcome for that case.
On the election, Plastics News reported on 6 November 2026 that Democrats made sizeable gains in state governments with a heavy plastics presence, including Texas, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Its expectation is more attention to EPR and recycled-content mandates. A Plastics News preview had singled out statehouses as where party control could shape EPR, pellet-control and chemical recycling bills.
Analysts at ICIS, quoted by Plastics Today on 9 November 2026, expect no immediate shift in recycled plastics pricing, procurement or federal policy after Democrats recaptured Congress. They expect existing state programs to follow their statutory and regulatory timelines, and say they have found no pricing or sourcing change attributable to the election.
Several expansion bills have stalled. Plastics News reported in June 2026 that New York’s Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said the state’s EPR bill lacked the votes to pass that year. EPR Atlas records that Massachusetts’ formal session ended on 31 July 2026 with no floor vote on either of its bills. New entrants in 2027 are possible, but none is confirmed in the reporting I found.
Congress: FPA presses for three recycling bills
The Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) has urged congressional leaders to schedule floor consideration of the Pack Act, the Recycled Materials Attribution Act (RMAA) and the Steward Act, Labels & Labeling reports. FPA’s chief executive Dan Felton said the three bills together span recyclability labelling, recycled-content verification and infrastructure investment. FPA also says the growing patchwork of state labelling requirements, California’s SB 343 among them, confuses consumers. That is an association position, not a finding.
Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ office said on 21 May 2026 that the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act, which now goes to the full House. The Energy and Commerce Committee says the version it advanced was amended to include the data language of H.R. 4109. That language directs EPA to work with state, local and tribal governments on composting and recycling data, and to compile a nationwide inventory of materials recovery facilities every four years. EPR Atlas lists a 16 September 2026 committee vote to report the Pack Act.
None of these bills is law as of 12 November 2026, and I found no report of a floor vote. For a packaging team, the near-term effect is limited: recyclability and compostability claims remain governed by state rules, and a federal labelling statute would only matter if and when it passes and sets its own terms.
EPA and USDA: PFAS cleanup and compostable feedstock
Waste Dive reports that EPA’s new PFAS technology strategy, released in late October 2026, centres on public-private partnerships for water treatment and Superfund sites. Critics quoted by Waste Dive say the agency has been slow to address upstream sources. The reporting does not link the strategy to packaging limits. Brand owners selling fibre-based food packaging should keep tracking state PFAS rules and retailer restricted-substance lists rather than expect a federal packaging standard.
The compostables question is also at USDA. The Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) petitioned the National Organic Program in 2023 to allow compostable products meeting ASTM standards as compost feedstock in organic production. The Organic & Non-GMO Report says the National Organic Standards Board voted unanimously against this in January 2026, that BPI is still pressing USDA to act, and that the Safer Soils for All coalition launched on 10 November 2026 in opposition. Waste Dive notes the coalition includes the California Compost Coalition, WM, Republic Services and Recology, and that USDA is not required to follow the board’s advice. The coalition wants synthetic substances assessed individually.
The effect on practice is indirect. Composters who supply organic growers are the ones objecting, so certified compostable packaging cannot yet count on an organic-compost outlet. Anyone designing compostable formats for California should confirm which composters will take them.
What to do now
- Check your SB 54 data. Confirm that plastic tonnage and component counts match your SKU records, and expect CAA or CalRecycle to ask about gaps before the November 2027 baseline correction.
- Model 2027 invoices. Apply the $0.03 per lb, $0.26 per lb and $0.001 per unit plastic add-ons to your own 2025 supply data. Re-run the numbers once CalRecycle approves the program plan.
- Plan redesigns against 2028 data. Bonus and malus values for 2028 packaging arrive in October 2027, so redesign choices made in the next year feed those invoices.
- Ask converters and suppliers for component-level data, including tape, closures and labels, in grams per unit and by material.
- Track litigation by state. The Oregon pause applies to named parties only. Read court orders and the statutes themselves, or take legal advice, before relying on any exemption.
- Keep federal bills on a watch list, not a plan. Budget for state rules, which are the ones with dates.
Sources
- Packaging Dive: CalRecycle lowers plastic tonnage baseline for SB 54 source reduction
- Packaging Dive: SB 54 plastic tonnage baseline expected to rise, CalRecycle says
- House Energy and Commerce Committee: Environment Subcommittee advances legislation on brownfields and recycling access
- Rep. Miller-Meeks: Bipartisan Recycling Accessibility Bill Advances Through Energy & Commerce Committee
- Greenberg Glusker: CAA Publishes 2027 Packaging EPR Fees for California
- Proskauer: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Packaging Law Update
- Plastics News: Amid blue wave, industry braces for change in DC, plastics-heavy states
- Plastics News: How midterm elections could shift state plastics policy
- Plastics News: New York plastics EPR plan lacks votes to pass, top Democrat says
- Plastics Today: US Midterms Unlikely to Shift Recycled Plastics Market
- Labels & Labeling: FPA supports recycling legislation
- Waste Dive: EPA’s new PFAS strategy reveals focus on downstream cleanup
- Waste Dive: Coalition forms to protect organic compost from packaging push
- The Organic & Non-GMO Report: Composters Form Coalition to Oppose Allowing Packaging in Organic Compost
- EPR Atlas: California EPR Law: Fees, Deadlines, and Exemptions (SB 54)
- Repurpose: CAA’s 2027 SB 54 Bonus and Malus Values, Explained
- Asuene: Packaging EPR Fees in 2027, How to Budget for California SB 54
- Placon: EPR for Packaging Update, Seven States, Legal Questions and Impact on Consumers
Header image: illustration, AI-generated.