2026 EPR Reporting: Lessons Learned from the Initial Consolidated Reporting Round

The June 1, 2026¹ deadline marked the first consolidated annual extended producer responsibility (EPR) reporting cycle under the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) framework for six of the seven states with EPR programs. Producers obligated under EPR programs were required to submit up to eight separate reports: three simplified state supply reports (Minnesota, Maryland and Washington), three annual supply reports (Oregon, Colorado and California) and two additional California-specific reports (the California Baseline Report and California Individual Source Reduction Plan). Producers could also submit voluntary reports in Colorado and Oregon relating to eco-modulation to potentially achieve a reduction in fees.

Given the infancy of these programs, with some even lacking final regulations leading up to the reporting deadline, many producers were ill prepared to fully understand how EPR may apply to them and their associated obligations in time to meet these deadlines. Additionally, for many producers, this was the first time navigating CAA's Producer Portal under live deadlines with real financial consequences. The compressed timeline, volume of simultaneous filings and variation in requirements across states created several common pain points, including data collection hurdles, missed fee-reduction opportunities, confusing timelines and inadequate methodology sections.

This Holland & Knight alert reviews some of these issues and provides high-level recommendations for how producers can be better prepared for the next annual reporting period.

Applicability Analysis

Given how new these programs are and how soon a reporting requirement has arisen, many producers were just learning about these EPR laws and beginning to understand how they may affect their business as the reporting period was upon them. Producers were left to make guesses as to the scope and extent of what they were responsible for under each state's EPR laws and hastily collect data that often did not previously exist in the manner required for EPR reporting, with the understanding that such decisions could have significant financial consequences or result in significant noncompliance. To avoid such an uneasy approach to one's legal obligations moving forward, producers should monitor and stay on top of changes to existing EPR programs and the potential for new EPR programs to be enacted in other states. Producers should use the downtime between this past reporting period and the next to fully vet the EPR laws as applied to their businesses in each state on a per-stock keeping unit (SKU) basis, including the producer hierarchy, associated definitions and applicable exemptions, to ensure they are adequately capturing the scope of EPR obligations without overreporting.

Review of State-Specific Data Requirements in Advance

Each state imposes different data requirements, and the portal screens differ by state program. Producers who were not aware of these differences found themselves scrambling at the deadline. For example, Colorado required data reporting for post-consumer recycled content (PCR) this reporting round that some producers had not tracked.

Though CAA aimed to provide guidance via state-specific guidance documents and Report Preparation Workbooks in the Producer Portal, many were posted very close to June 1 and thus were not available to guide producers in their early preparation and data collection stages. To avoid this in the future, producers should become familiar with the differences in state requirements, reflect upon the recent reporting process and monitor the CAA Producer Portal for updated guidance and workbooks. Additionally, producers may want to consider changes that can be made to their own data storage and arrange for data collection from business relationships to make data aggregation for the next reporting period as efficient as possible.

Don't Leave Money on the Table: Optional Eco-Modulation Reports

In the scramble to submit the required reports by June 1, many producers overlooked optional eco‑modulation bonus reports, which provide fee reductions for producers that make more sustainable packaging choices such as using recycled content or reducing material weight. These bonuses can significantly reduce fees but were submitted through the Help & Support function in the Producer Portal, not via the main reporting screen. This different submission pathway meant that even diligent reporters may have missed the opportunity. Further, the lack of adequate information regarding these opportunities prior to the reporting deadline left many producers with no time to contemplate these optional reports, forcing them to focus their limited resources on ensuring they complied with the required reports only.

During the most recent round of reporting, two states offered optional eco-modulation or Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reporting (Colorado and Oregon), and at least one more state (California) will offer similar bonuses in the future tied to its mandatory source reduction reporting. Colorado offered four active eco-modulation bonuses (each a 5 percent dues reduction, capped at $50,000 per producer) for source reduction (weight reduction per SKU), recyclability improvements, PCR content exceeding category thresholds and reuse/refill systems. The state's fee structure also includes passive (automatic) bonuses and maluses.

Oregon offered three voluntary LCA-based bonuses: 1) voluntary LCA disclosure (capped at $20,000 per report), 2) packaging design improvements that reduce environmental impact (up to 30 percent of base fees, maximum $50,000) and 3) switching from single-use to reusable or refillable packaging (potential payouts of up to $1.5 million over three years for reusable packaging).

Though these optional reports can yield significant fee savings, they do not come without burden: A producer seeking all four Colorado active bonuses and all three Oregon LCA bonuses would need to submit up to seven separate forms or report packages, each with detailed SKU-level data, supporting documentation and, for Oregon, third-party verified LCAs.

In the future, California will offer source reduction incentive bonuses for reducing plastic supply below the 2023 baseline (through reuse/refill, elimination, material switching or lightweighting) and a separate PCR content bonus. Bonus amounts will be announced in 2026, with bonuses earned in the 2027 data year applied to producer fee invoices in the 2029 program year. The other states may also offer bonuses in the coming years as their programs evolve.

Producers are encouraged to review the available eco-modulation programs in each state and evaluate whether the resulting cost savings are worth the additional effort associated with the voluntary reporting. If determined to offer a significant financial benefit, producers should begin preparing now for next year's reporting by initiating protocols to collect the relevant data.

The Importance of Drafting a Strong Methodology Section

The methodology section of the reports is a critical component that CAA evaluates closely. CAA guidance is clear: A single-line methodology is not acceptable, nor is a template methodology copied and pasted from another report or example. A detailed methodology ensures that a producer's data is sufficiently backed, reducing the likelihood of scrutiny or even challenge to the reported data as inadequate – thereby mitigating the risk of a reporting violation.

CAA's standard review process includes a methodology assessment, and reports with weak or incomplete methodology sections may be flagged for additional scrutiny or rejected outright, requiring the producer to resubmit from scratch. A well-documented methodology reduces the likelihood that CAA will reject a report or return it with follow-up questions during validation. Equally important, developing a sound methodology in advance – rather than scrambling to manufacture one close to the deadline – allows producers to identify data gaps early and build the internal tracking systems needed to support accurate, defensible reports in future cycles.

Monitor the CAA Producer Portal After Submission

Submitting the reports is not the end of the process. Producers should log in regularly to the CAA Producer Portal after submission to check for issues. During this recent reporting round, CAA rejected some reports automatically or identified problems very quickly during the validation process. Producers are typically made aware of this only via updates in the CAA Producer Portal.

Notably, reports cannot be edited once submitted. If CAA rejects a report, whether through automated validation or a manual review, the producer must resubmit from scratch. Additionally, CAA may contact the producer with clarifying questions as part of its standard review. A producer may also request that the report's submission be rejected to submit a new report if it independently identifies a reporting error for correction. Self-identified inaccuracies that are corrected within 60 days of discovery will not incur financial consequences. Producers should therefore review their submissions promptly after filing and correct any errors proactively.

Some report rejections were due to mechanics that CAA is still working through at no fault of the producers. For example, CAA has yet to come up with a standardized approach to California baseline reports for companies that did not operate in the baseline year, leading to rejection of some California baseline reports while CAA works on a unified solution. But, regardless of whether the reason was due to the producer or to CAA, prompt responses to report rejections and clarification requests are essential to keeping a producer account in good standing.

Consequences for Late or Incorrect Submissions

Accurate and timely reporting is not just for the benefit of producers to confidently evaluate resulting fee obligations. There are also financial consequences for delayed and inaccurate reporting in addition to producer fees. Late payments incur a monthly compounded interest charge on unpaid amounts past the due date. Further, inaccurate reporting can result in charges of up to $5,000 or an amount equal to the Producer Fees associated with the inaccurately reported materials, whichever is greater.

These financial consequences flow from the contractual arrangement that the producers have with CAA to administer the program as the producer responsibility organization and are in addition to the potential risk of enforcement by the state regulators for failure to comply with the EPR laws.

Understanding the Invoicing Process

After producers submit their reports, CAA sets fee rates and issues invoices. The invoicing process can be confusing for producers encountering it for the first time, in part because the timing, billing structure and payment mechanics vary by state. Not every state that required reporting by June 1, 2026, will generate an invoice based on that report. Understanding which reports CAA will tie to fees and when CAA will invoice those fees is essential for financial planning.

For Oregon and Colorado, producers have already received invoices based on prior reports. Both states published their fee schedules in October 2025 and released invoices in January 2026. Each offered 50 percent installment billing for 2026, with the second installment due July 30, 2026. The next fee schedules for both states are expected to be published by October 2026. Those schedules will set the rates for January 2027 invoices, calculated using 2025 supply data reported in 2026.

Understanding California's fees is more complex. In October 2025, CAA posted early fee estimate ranges in the Producer Portal, which CAA will invoice in August 2026. These early fees were modest, designed solely to fund CAA's startup and planning activities before the program plan was finalized. In May 2026, CAA posted illustrative fees reflecting the full program costs under the EPR program, including the substantial $500 million annual Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund (PPMF) contribution, representing a dramatic increase in both scope and magnitude compared to the October 2025 estimates. Producer invoices issued in early 2027 will include Base Fees, PPMF Fees (weight-based and component-based portions), Reuse Investment Fees, fees for administrative/legal/organizational operating costs and any other assessments. The final fee schedule is expected following formal program plan approval, anticipated in October 2026.

For the remaining states: Minnesota and Maryland producers will not be invoiced based on the simplified supply reports that were due on June 1, 2026. Minnesota's and Maryland's first full producer fee schedule is expected in late 2028, though that timing is subject to change. Washington will invoice early fees based on the June 1, 2026, report. Washington producers should expect a fee schedule in late 2026, with early fee invoices issued in January 2027 to fund program startup. Maine did not have reporting due on June 1, 2026, and has yet to announce when fees may be implemented, which is contingent on the stewardship organization selection process for which the state did just issue its request for proposals.

Conclusion

The June 1, 2026, reporting round exposed the growing complexity of multistate EPR compliance. Due to the new and rapidly evolving landscape of the EPR laws, many producers may have found themselves scrambling at the deadline, submitting inaccurate reporting or overreporting that could artificially inflate their financial EPR obligations, and missing fee-reduction opportunities. Advance preparation, including collecting and tracking data year round, meaningfully developing reporting methodologies and treating each state's requirements as distinct will be the difference between a smooth filing and a costly one for future reporting periods.

Looking ahead, the stakes will only increase. The leniency afforded to this recent round of reporting is unlikely to continue in subsequent cycles, and producers should expect stricter scrutiny going forward. CAA will increasingly expect precise data supported by robust methodologies as these programs advance. As additional states move from simplified preprogram reporting into full implementation with detailed material categories and eco-modulation schemes, the reporting burden will continue to grow. Moreover, state regulators will likely become less compliance-focused, and the risk of enforcement may increase.

Holland & Knight is closely monitoring activities by state regulators and CAA, as well as proposed EPR legislation, and regularly advises clients navigating this evolving legal landscape. For additional guidance on state packaging EPR obligations or assistance with implementing the recommendations provided in this alert, please contact the authors.

Notes

¹ The reporting deadline was technically May 31, 2026, a Sunday, but was extended to the next workday, Monday, June 1, 2026.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.