US packaging policy update: Oregon, California, Maryland and Maine

Four US state developments from the past few weeks share one thread: packaging rules are moving from statute to operation. A federal court has upheld Oregon’s EPR law, California’s producer organisation has put per-pound fees on paper, a Maryland hauler is building sorting capacity ahead of reimbursement deadlines, and Maine’s PFAS restriction for paper packaging has applied since May. This roundup is based on trade press, regulator pages and one plaintiff’s own press release. None of the main sources sells compliance services for the laws discussed, but some vendor blogs are cited for dates and are labelled as such. Status is as of 3 November 2026.

State	What happened	Who it touches	Next date to watch
Oregon	Federal court upheld the EPR law (27 August 2026); appeal filed	Brand owners, wholesaler-distributors, retailers	Ninth Circuit briefing (schedule not found in sources)
California	Producer organisation filed a final SB 54 plan with fee schedule	Brand owners, converters, recyclers, local governments	Comments close 13 November 2026; implementation from 1 January 2027
Maryland	Hauler plans a USD 30 million MRF	Recyclers, local governments, producers	Groundbreaking early 2028; 50% reimbursement level by 1 July 2028
Maine	PFAS ban on plant-fiber food packaging in effect	Converters, food-service operators, brand owners	Wider restrictions from 2032

Oregon: the first trial of an EPR law ends in the state’s favour

On 27 August 2026, Judge Michael Simon of the US District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in NAW v. Feldon. Freshfields notes the decision followed a five-day bench trial brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW). Resource Recycling reports that the 71-page ruling found the Recycling Modernization Act (SB 582, 2021) breaches neither the dormant Commerce Clause nor the Due Process Clause.

Packaging World adds the court’s reasoning: NAW never proved a burden on interstate commerce, and producers are not truly compelled to join Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the producer responsibility organisation (PRO) Oregon approved. The ruling also dissolved the preliminary injunction that had shielded NAW members since February 2026.

NAW has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In its own release (NAW is the plaintiff, so read this as one side’s account), it says the appeal rests on two points: the cost of funding Oregon infrastructure falls on out-of-state customers, and the state handed fee-setting power to a private body. With the injunction gone, Resource Recycling says Oregon can keep implementing the law while the appeal runs.

NAW’s release also cites figures from the ruling: CAA collected USD 145.5 million from producers and spent USD 56.5 million, leaving almost USD 90 million in unspent funds. Our calculation: USD 145.5 million minus USD 56.5 million is USD 89.0 million, and USD 56.5 million divided by USD 145.5 million is about 39% of collected fees spent. A PRO that is still building programmes will naturally hold cash, and the court found no constitutional violation, so the figures show timing more than anything else.

The practical effect for brand owners is that fee invoices stay payable. For wholesaler-distributors and retailers selling into Oregon, the argument that costs pushed to customers in other states breaks the Constitution has lost at first instance. Recycling Today notes NAW is also challenging the California and Colorado laws, and those cases involve different facts, so the Oregon outcome informs them without deciding them.

California: SB 54 gets a budget and a price list

CalRecycle’s permanent SB 54 regulations took effect on 1 May 2026, according to the agency’s rulemaking page. Resource Recycling reports that the regulations arrived 16 months after the statutory deadline, by CAA’s count, and that CAA’s final program plan, filed in October, sets a USD 1.1 billion budget for 2027. That compares with as much as USD 1.87 billion in the June draft.

The fee schedule is where converters and brand owners will look first. Resource Recycling reports plastic film and flexibles at the top, mostly at 24 to 30 US cents per pound, against 3 cents for cardboard and 2 cents for glass bottles. The figures below are proposed rates in a plan still under review, not final invoices.

Proposed California SB 54 producer fees, selected materials (cents per pound). Fee in US cents per pound: Film and flexibles (low end) 24, Film and flexibles (high end) 30, Cardboard 3, Glass bottles 2 (US cents per pound) — Proposed California SB 54 producer fees, selected materials (cents per pound)
Source: Resource Recycling reporting on CAA's final SB 54 program plan, 13 October 2026 (film given as a mostly 24 to 30 cent range)

The chart shows the spread: film at its low end costs 8 times as much per pound as cardboard (24 divided by 3). Weight matters, so a lightweight flexible pouch may still cost less per unit than a heavy glass jar, but a switch from rigid to film that cuts grams while moving to the top fee band deserves a calculation before it goes into a spec.

The plan also concedes that even PET and HDPE bottles fall short of the law’s first plastic recycling target, per Resource Recycling. It says recovering post-consumer film will need design changes as well as more sorting, and CAA says it will work with producers to raise verified recycled content in stretch and shrink film.

Recyclers are raising their own concerns. At a California Resource Recovery Association conference, a panelist from Berkeley’s Ecology Center warned that meeting carton and cup targets through single-stream collection could add roughly 100,000 tons of plastic contamination a year to exported paper bales. That is one panelist’s estimate. Separately, panelists at the same conference said flexible film generates 550,000 tons a year of waste but has end markets for only about 10% of it.

Several dates are close. CAA’s comment window on its draft reimbursement application for eligible entities closes on 3 November 2026, according to the EPR Atlas tracker. CalRecycle is taking comments on the producer plan through 13 November 2026, with an Advisory Board meeting on 6 November. Per the UCLA Luskin FAQ, advocacy groups have sued CalRecycle, arguing the May regulations leave loopholes, and the agency can issue civil penalties of up to USD 50,000 per day per violation.

Maryland: sorting capacity arrives after the money does

Resource Recycling reports that JLT Recycling, a Washington, DC-area hauler, plans a materials recovery facility (MRF) for commercial single-stream recyclables in Upper Marlboro, expected to cost about USD 30 million. Recycling Today says Van Dyk Recycling Solutions will design and build the 50,000-square-foot plant, with planning continuing through 2027 and groundbreaking expected in early 2028. JLT says local processing should cut transport and recover more marketable commodities (a company expectation, not a result).

The timing matters because of Maryland’s SB 901, signed in May 2025. Resource Recycling says producers must reimburse local governments for 50% of recycling costs by 1 July 2028, rising to 90% by 2030. The state’s 2025 needs assessment, it adds, found EPR could lift the paper and packaging recycling rate from 34% to 50%.

Our reading is that a plant breaking ground in early 2028 cannot be processing material by the first reimbursement milestone that July. The project is also for commercial customers, so it is one piece of capacity rather than a fix for residential collection. Brand owners should expect the first reimbursement years to run on existing MRFs and their sorting limits, which is where film and cartons struggle.

A tracker run by a packaging consultancy, Strategic Packaging Insights, lists Maryland registration as due from 1 July 2026. Check the Maryland Department of the Environment’s regulations for your own deadlines.

Maine: PFAS in plant-fiber packaging is now restricted

Packaging Dive reports that rules adopted by Maine’s Board of Environmental Protection in 2024 prohibit PFAS in certain food packaging from 25 May 2026. They cover plant fiber-derived materials such as paper and paperboard bags and sleeves, containers, food boats, wraps and liners, and pizza boxes. Packaging Dive’s summary also mentions a carve-out for food and beverage manufacturers with national sales below USD 1 billion, so confirm the exemption wording in the rule before relying on it.

Wider PFAS-in-packaging restrictions apply in Maine from 2032, per Packaging Dive. Unlike the EPR programmes above, this is a product ban, so the burden sits with converters and the brand owners that specify coated paper. Many suppliers moved away from PFAS grease-proofing earlier; Packaura, a packaging supplier, says there is still no nationwide statutory ban and that the FDA worked with manufacturers to phase out certain PFAS grease-proofing agents.

The same supplier timeline lists New Hampshire’s ban on food packaging with intentionally added PFAS as next, from 1 January 2027. That is a vendor’s summary, so check the statute. Retailers carrying private-label paper packaging from several suppliers should ask for a written declaration that no PFAS is intentionally added, because supplier-by-supplier state coverage differs in scope.

What links the four

Each story turns on who holds a cost or a risk. Oregon’s court decision keeps producer fees flowing. California’s plan converts a policy target into a per-pound price. Maryland’s capacity gap shows where recovery could fall short of the reimbursement the law demands, and Maine puts the material choice on the converter.

What to do now

Budget for Oregon fees. Treat CAA invoices as payable while the Ninth Circuit appeal runs, and review your registration and reporting data by SKU.
Model California’s draft rates. Run your film, carton and rigid formats through the 24 to 30 cent, 3 cent and 2 cent per-pound figures, then repeat when CalRecycle decides on the plan.
File comments if you are affected. CalRecycle’s window on the producer plan closes 13 November 2026, and Minnesota’s draft needs assessment window closes the same day, per EPR Atlas.
Check Maryland deadlines. Confirm registration and fee dates with the state, and ask your PRO how film and cartons will be collected in 2028.
Audit paper and molded fiber for PFAS. Collect supplier declarations for Maine now and for New Hampshire before 1 January 2027.
Read the primary texts. This is information, not legal advice; confirm obligations against the statutes, regulations and court opinions, or take legal advice.

Sources

Header image: illustration, AI-generated.