August 2025
Extended Producer Responsibility in the West: What Pallet Companies Need to Know
As states look for ways to shift the burden of waste management from taxpayers to producers, Extended Producer Respons- ibility (EPR) is gaining traction. EPR laws are designed to hold product and packaging producers accountable for the environ- mental impacts of the materials they put into the marketplace, especially when those materials become waste.
While EPR isn’t new in Europe or parts of Canada, it’s relatively fresh territory in the United States. On the West Coast, Oregon, California, and Colorado are leading the way. Each state is implementing its own version of EPR legislation for packaging, but the rules are complex, and how they affect secondary and tertiary packaging, especially wooden pallets and crating, is still evolving.
Why EPR, and Why Now?
EPR is built on the principle that producers, not consumers or municipalities, should cover the cost of managing packaging at end-of-life. “States are tired of footing the bill for waste disposal,” says Patrick Owens, Chief Principal Consultant at Recirculated, who advises companies on sustainability and compliance. “With EPR, the responsibility for cleanup costs shifts upstream.”
Supporters argue that EPR will incentivize better packaging design, encourage recycling, and reduce the environmental footprint of packaging waste. But critics say the system is overly complex, costly to implement, and may not deliver the intended results.
“Some of these rules are written with good intentions, but the reality on the ground is much harder,” Owens notes. “For companies moving millions of pounds of packaging, even small fees can have huge financial impacts.”
Where EPR Stands Today
So far, Oregon is the furthest along. It’s the only state with an approved program in place, and its framework is already influencing others. California and Colorado have passed legislation, but implementation is still underway. All three are working with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA)—a producer responsibility organization backed by large brands like Walmart and Target—to develop standardized reporting systems and fee schedules.
“The CAA wants harmonization across states,” Owens says. “They know it’s unworkable for companies to deal with three different sets of rules and fees. So, they’re trying to develop a model that can roll out consistently.”
Each state’s law requires producers to report the types and amounts of packaging materials they introduce into the market, with fees tied to how recyclable or reusable those materials are. These fees fund recycling infrastructure, education, and compliance monitoring.
Pallets and Transport Packaging: In or Out?
When it comes to wooden pallets and other secondary or tertiary packaging, items not seen by consumers but essential to distribution, the EPR picture gets complicated.
“Oregon has mostly set pallets aside,” Owens explains. “They consider most pallets to be reusable and not subject to fees, unless they’re clearly designed for single use.” He says untreated, one-way pallets or custom wooden crates used for shipping large or fragile goods may still fall under reporting requirements.
California, on the other hand, has taken a stricter stance. “California puts all transport packaging in scope,” Owens warns. “Unless you can prove reuse, wooden pallets may be classified as single-use and subject to fees.” The current draft suggests untreated wood packaging could be assessed up to $2.10 per pound—a steep cost for heavy-duty shipping materials.
“If you’re shipping a 100-pound crate, that could mean over $200 in fees, just for the packaging,” he says.
Colorado is following a similar path but is still in earlier stages of program development.