Colorado's First Producer Fees: What the First EPR Invoices Tell Us

On January 1, 2026, Colorado becomes only the second state — after Oregon — where producers actually pay Extended Producer Responsibility fees for packaging. This milestone, mandated by HB 22-1355 (signed June 3, 2022), transforms EPR from a registration exercise into a financial obligation. For producers who have been tracking compliance deadlines abstractly, the arrival of an invoice makes the cost of packaging accountability concrete.

How Colorado Got Here

Colorado's EPR timeline has been methodical. The state required producers to register with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) — the approved PRO — by October 1, 2024, making it the first state to impose a registration deadline. Producers then submitted initial supply reports to CAA by July 31, 2025, detailing the volume and types of packaging they introduced into the Colorado market during the prior year. Those supply reports form the basis for fee calculations, with first invoices due January 1, 2026 based on 2024 data. Colorado activated its sales restriction on July 1, 2025, meaning any producer that failed to register with CAA by that date is legally prohibited from selling covered products in the state.

What Colorado Covers

Colorado's HB 22-1355 mirrors Oregon's model in many respects but has its own distinct coverage definitions. The law applies to consumer packaging and paper products, including newspapers, magazines, and brochures — a broader paper category than most other EPR states. The producer definition follows a tiered approach common across EPR legislation: first, the brand owner or manufacturer; if none is identifiable, the licensee, importer, or distributor; and as a catch-all, the retailer or first point of sale. Small producer exemptions apply, with revenue thresholds in the $2 million to $5 million range varying by specific provisions.

Following Oregon's Path

Oregon's SB 582 program provides the closest precedent for what Colorado producers should expect. Oregon began issuing fees on 2024 reported supply data, making it the first operational fee-collecting EPR program in the country. CAA serves as the PRO in both states, and the reporting framework is broadly similar — producers report packaging volumes by material type, and fees are calculated based on those volumes with adjustments for material recyclability and other factors. Oregon's penalties for non-compliance reach up to $25,000 per day under SB 582, and while Colorado's penalty structure operates within a similar range ($5,000 to $100,000 per day depending on circumstances), the sales restriction provides the more immediate enforcement lever. A producer barred from the Colorado market faces revenue loss that likely exceeds any fine.

Fee Structure Considerations

While specific fee rates are determined by CAA's program plan and approved by the state, the general framework across EPR programs ties fees to packaging volume, material type, and recyclability. Holland & Knight has noted that fee structures may include eco-modulation — bonuses for packaging that is readily recyclable or made from recycled content, and surcharges (maluses) for packaging that is difficult to recycle or uses problematic materials. This means the invoice a producer receives is not simply a function of tonnage; it reflects the recyclability profile of their entire packaging portfolio in the state. Producers with packaging that already meets high recyclability standards may see meaningfully lower per-unit fees than competitors using hard-to-recycle materials.

Strategic Implications

Colorado's first fee invoices mark the beginning of a financial reality that will expand rapidly. Oregon is already collecting. Colorado starts January 2026. California's fees are expected to begin in 2027. Minnesota's stewardship plan is due October 2028 with 50% municipal cost reimbursement by February 2029. Maryland's responsibility plans are due July 2028. Within three years, producers selling nationally will face EPR fee obligations in multiple states simultaneously. The companies that treat Colorado's first invoice as a signal to invest in packaging data infrastructure, material optimization, and multi-state compliance systems will be better positioned than those who treat each state's fee as an isolated cost center.

The M&A Dimension

Holland & Knight has flagged an important secondary consideration: how EPR obligations transfer in mergers and acquisitions. When a brand is acquired, the packaging obligations — registration, reporting, and fee liability — follow the brand, not the corporate parent. Due diligence processes should now include EPR compliance status across all seven states and exposure analysis for the eight-state pipeline. A target company that is unregistered in Oregon or Colorado as of July 2025 carries regulatory risk that should be priced into any deal.

What Comes Next

Colorado producers should treat the January 2026 invoice as the first of many. The next supply reporting cycle will require 2025 data, establishing the ongoing annual rhythm of report-then-pay that defines EPR programs. Smart operators are already integrating packaging data collection into their supply chain systems so that annual reporting becomes a routine operational function rather than a fire drill. The cost of EPR compliance is real, but the cost of non-compliance — sales restrictions, daily penalties, and reputational exposure — is substantially higher.

Sources: Proskauer (Oct 2025); Holland & Knight (Jan 2026); H2 Compliance (Dec 2025)

Constellation Insights, a division of Trash Club Ventures, provides strategic regulatory intelligence for brands, investors, and operators navigating the circular economy.