Key Takeaways

  • California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law, Senate Bill (SB) 54, is facing a broad constitutional challenge brought by 17 states and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW).
  • The lawsuit targets core features of California’s EPR framework, including source-reduction mandates, recyclability and recycling-rate targets, producer fees, the $500 million annual environmental mitigation surcharge, and mandatory participation in the Circular Action Alliance (CAA).
  • The lawsuit does not change current compliance obligations. Unless and until a court issues injunctive relief, California can enforce SB 54 deadlines, reporting requirements, and producer responsibility organization (PRO) participation obligations.
  • Companies subject to California’s EPR program should continue building systems to report covered material, evaluate packaging reduction opportunities, and document assumptions underlying their producer-status determinations while the lawsuit proceeds.
  • First-of-its-kind program: California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (SB 707) creates a statewide extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework for apparel and textile articles.
  • July 1, 2026 deadline: “Producers” of “covered products” must register with CalRecycle-approved producer responsible organization (PRO) Landbell USA.
  • August 13, 2026 workshop: CalRecycle will seek
…

California and Maryland ushered in a number of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) obligations last week. Although packaging EPR laws in Oregon and Colorado have been operational for some time, recent milestones in California and Maryland will bring their programs into full swing this summer. While not yet fully implemented, Minnesota and Washington’s programs also hit recent milestones.

On April 23, 2026, Maine became the first U.S. state to enact an extended producer responsibility (EPR) law that targets “electronic smoking devices” used to consume nicotine and cannabis. The Act to Create a Stewardship Program for Electronic Smoking Devices and Related Products (LD 1519) applies to every company that qualifies as a “producer” of “electronic smoking devices” sold in Maine. That will likely include all major manufacturers and brand-holders of electronic smoking devices, such as e-cigarettes, vape pens, and refill cartridges.

Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and released it for public comment. CCL 6 identifies contaminants that are not yet regulated but are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require future regulation. The draft list includes four contaminant groups — microplastics, pharmaceuticals, per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and disinfection byproducts — along with 75 individual chemicals and nine microbes that may be found in drinking water. Although PFAS were included on prior lists, this is the first time the EPA has designated microplastics or pharmaceuticals as priority contaminant groups. Inclusion on the draft CCL 6 signals an emerging concern about these new contaminant groups and the potential for future regulatory action.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a list of companies that are allegedly noncompliant “producers” under Oregon’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging and paper products, known as the Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). The list appeared on the Circular Action Alliance’s (CAA) website on April 10, 2026. The CAA is the “Producer Responsibility Organization” that is charged with implementing EPR programs in Oregon, Colorado, and California.

A March 30, 2026, decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior, vacated key provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations, including several regulations from 2019 that were revised and/or reissued in 2024. This ruling arrives amid a swirl of potential changes to implementation of the ESA, and signals that courts will be closely scrutinizing forthcoming regulations for consistency with a statute that has long been labeled the “pit bull” of environmental statutes.

At a public hearing held February 26, 2026, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a resolution to adopt initial regulations implementing California’s landmark climate reporting and disclosure laws, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261), which will require private and public companies whose revenues exceed certain thresholds to report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and disclose climate-related financial risks, respectively. In its resolution, CARB largely adopted the regulations proposed by staff in December 2025.

On December 22, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued short and nearly identical lease suspension orders that halted construction on five utility-scale offshore wind projects off Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, alleging new and classified national security threats. These suspensions sparked an immediate wave of litigation as the affected developers sought court orders that would allow them to resume work and keep to their carefully scripted construction timelines. Six weeks later, the dust has settled on a clean sweep for the offshore wind industry: all five projects won injunctions from four different judges in three different jurisdictions, appointed by one Democratic and two Republican presidents. Now that all construction of these projects is back on track, what lessons can we learn from this episode?

On February 6, 2026, an Oregon district court issued a decision barring the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing the nation’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging, food serviceware, and paper products (referred to as “covered products” under Oregon’s law). The very brief order enjoins DEQ from enforcing the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members, who filed their suit in July 2025, challenging the law and claiming it violated the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions.