Washington and Maryland have recently taken significant strides towards fostering a circular economy by implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws aimed at promoting sustainable packaging. These new regulations shift the onus of recycling costs from local governments to the companies that manufacture packaging, thus aligning financial incentives with environmental accountability.
On May 17, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed Senate Bill 5284, which represents a comprehensive approach to EPR for packaging and paper products. Meanwhile, in Maryland, Senate Bill 901 was enacted on May 13. These legislative changes represent a substantial shift in how recycling is financed and managed in both states.
With these newly enacted laws, eight states in total—joining California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Maine, and New York—have now adopted EPR policies. This marks a growing movement towards establishing a national framework for EPR, indicating that more states may follow suit.
The National Caucus of Environmental Legislators noted that requiring producers to fund the collection, sorting, and processing of packaging and paper products not only mitigates waste but also encourages the design of more sustainable materials. They view this as a crucial step in changing industry practices.
Under these new laws, companies are now responsible for financing and managing the recycling of their packaging materials. Washington’s legislation mandates that producers develop a recycling system that must be operational for nearly all residents by 2030. Governor Ferguson characterized this bill as “the biggest overhaul of our recycling system in decades.”
The legislation in Washington stands out as one of the nation’s most extensive EPR laws. It includes several key provisions: producers must align with a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) by July 1, 2027, guarantee curbside recycling for 90% of the population by 2031, and cover at least 90% of the costs associated with the recycling system. Additionally, the law emphasizes the importance of equitable recycling access, particularly for rural and underserved communities, with penalties for non-compliance reaching up to $10,000 per day for repeated violations.
Maryland’s law complements these initiatives by also mandating that producers join a PRO and gradually take on financial responsibilities for local recycling efforts. The timeline for Maryland is more aggressive, requiring PRO membership by July 1, 2026, and increasing financial obligations over the subsequent years until producers shoulder 90% of the costs by July 2030. Notably, Maryland’s approach incorporates eco-modulated fees that reward manufacturers for utilizing recyclable or compostable materials.
These initiatives align with broader concerns surrounding the recycling industry, particularly as a recent report from Circle Economy noted a decline in the global recovery and processing of materials for the eighth consecutive year. As public frustration mounts over ineffective recycling systems and corporate waste, legislation like that in Washington and Maryland aims to enact systemic change. By holding manufacturers accountable for the waste they generate, these laws could motivate packaging producers to adopt practices that lessen reliance on single-use materials.
As interest in EPR legislation grows, more than a dozen similar bills are currently under consideration in state legislatures across the country. The developments in Washington and Maryland could serve as catalysts for broader changes in the approach to recycling and packaging sustainability nationwide.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.