New Hampshire and Wisconsin: 2026's First EPR Bills
The 2026 legislative session opened with new EPR packaging bills in two states that had not previously appeared on compliance radar screens: New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Holland & Knight's January 2026 analysis identified both states as having introduced EPR legislation, joining an expanding pipeline that already includes New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Illinois, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Hawaii. While neither bill has been enacted as of this writing, their introduction signals the geographic expansion of EPR beyond the coastal and upper Midwestern states that adopted it first.
The Expanding Pipeline
To understand New Hampshire and Wisconsin's significance, it helps to see the full legislative pipeline. Eight states had active EPR packaging bills as of late 2025: New York (SB 5062, the Affordable Waste Reduction Act, and SB 1464, the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act), Massachusetts (SB 571), Rhode Island (SB 939), New Jersey (A5009 and SB 3398), Illinois (HB 4064, the Extended Producer Responsibility and Recycling Refund Act), Tennessee (SB 296/HB 600, the Waste to Jobs Act), North Carolina (HB 882, Break Free From Plastic & Forever Chemicals), and Hawaii (HB 1264). Adding New Hampshire and Wisconsin brings the total pipeline to at least ten states considering EPR legislation, on top of the seven that have already enacted it. If even half of these bills advance, the U.S. EPR landscape could encompass twelve or more states within the next two to three years.
Why These States Matter
New Hampshire and Wisconsin represent different political and economic contexts that test EPR's ability to transcend traditional political alignments. Both are states where waste management policy has historically been handled at the local level, with limited state-level mandates. The introduction of EPR bills in these states suggests that the fiscal pressures driving EPR adoption — rising municipal recycling costs, contaminated waste streams, and the declining economics of single-stream recycling — are not confined to traditionally progressive states. Tennessee's Waste to Jobs Act (SB 296/HB 600) further illustrates this point, framing EPR in economic development terms that resonate across political lines.
The Pre-EPR Pattern
Several pipeline states are following a pattern that preceded Maryland's 2025 EPR law. Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island have mandated statewide recycling assessments — comprehensive analyses of current recycling infrastructure, costs, and gaps that provide the data foundation for EPR legislation. Maryland required a similar assessment in 2023, and the findings directly informed SB 901's enactment in 2025. When a state commissions a recycling assessment, it is often a strong leading indicator that EPR legislation will follow within one to three years, as the assessment typically reveals the gap between recycling system costs and available funding that EPR is designed to close.
What Producers Should Watch
For companies already managing compliance in seven EPR states, the prospect of ten or more is operationally significant but not structurally different. The compliance framework — determine coverage, assess producer status, register with a PRO, submit supply data, pay fees — is consistent across states even when specific definitions and timelines differ. CAA's multi-state presence provides a built-in compliance pathway for new states that adopt PRO-administered models. The more complex questions arise around coverage definitions (which materials are included, whether paper products and food service ware are covered separately or together) and fee structures (whether eco-modulation rates vary significantly from state to state).
Implications for National Strategy
The introduction of EPR bills in New Hampshire and Wisconsin reinforces the case for treating EPR as a national compliance challenge rather than a collection of state-specific obligations. Companies that build state-by-state compliance in response to each new law will face escalating complexity and cost as the number of states grows. Companies that invest now in centralized packaging data infrastructure, standardized reporting processes, and a strategic relationship with CAA (or, in Maryland's multi-PRO model, multiple PROs) will be able to absorb new state requirements incrementally rather than starting from scratch each time. Holland & Knight has noted that Virginia also has pending EPR legislation, further expanding the geographic scope of potential obligations.
The Political Economy of EPR Expansion
EPR's expansion into politically diverse states also creates uncertainty about the specific form future laws will take. Oregon, Colorado, and California adopted broadly similar PRO-administered models, but Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington each introduced variations — mandatory PRO membership, multi-PRO competition, and reuse assistance funding, respectively. Future states may borrow from any of these models or introduce novel provisions that reflect local political dynamics. New Hampshire's strong tradition of local governance could lead to a municipal cost-reimbursement model similar to Maine's, while Wisconsin's manufacturing base might produce a law with different coverage definitions or small-producer thresholds. Producers should monitor not just whether bills pass, but what specific provisions they contain, as these details determine compliance obligations and cost exposure.
Sources: Holland & Knight (Jan 2026); Proskauer (Oct 2025); 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.
