The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) advisory group convened in a virtual meeting to gather factual information about proposed EPR programs for plastics and packaging in Massachusetts. Scott Cassell of the Product Stewardship Institute summarized U.S. and international EPR models and implementation experience, while state Department of Environmental Protection staff and representatives from industry, haulers and advocacy groups asked clarifying questions about costs, reimbursement and timelines.

The meeting’s purpose, facilitator Jennifer Hauck of Greener U said, was fact-finding: “this meeting and subsequent [meetings] is all about fact finding,” and the group was charged with compiling research the full EPR Commission will use in future deliberations. The commission must deliver initial recommendations to the Legislature by Jan. 15, 2026, a deadline participants cited repeatedly.

Cassell framed packaging as a large and changing portion of municipal waste, saying the sector is undergoing “a paradigm shift” and that packaging accounts for roughly 40% of the waste stream when paper is included. He described two common EPR approaches used in North America: a producer-funded reimbursement model that keeps municipal collection arrangements, and a model where a producer responsibility organization (PRO) centralizes funding and program administration. States that have adopted packaging EPR laws — including Oregon, Maine, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington — vary in scope and timing. Cassell noted Oregon began implementation in July 2025.

Attendees pressed for state-specific facts. Michael Hoffman, representing a national waste industry association, said Ontario’s implementation offers the most comparable operating data in North America and warned that Ontario’s fees and consumer impacts deserve close study. Other participants echoed the need for Massachusetts-focused figures: John Fisher and Greg Cooper of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) said DEP can supply municipal reporting data but cautioned it will be incomplete; Fisher said DEP currently receives annual reports from roughly 300 of the state’s 351 municipalities.

Participants identified priority research topics to inform the commission: the share of Massachusetts households on municipal curbside service versus subscription/private-hauler models; municipal recycling and disposal costs and how those costs are currently allocated; which packaging materials are accepted by processors and have viable secondary markets; examples and impacts of exemptions and fee thresholds for small producers; and the potential consumer cost impacts reported in Canada and Europe. Several speakers emphasized the complexity of life-cycle trade-offs — for example, lightweight flexible packaging can reduce transport emissions even when recycling options are limited — and recommended life-cycle assessment be part of fee-setting and eco-modulation discussions.

On governance and program design, Cassell and others described a three-part system used in many jurisdictions: producers and PROs draft an implementation plan, an advisory council of stakeholders reviews and advises on the plan, and the state regulator provides oversight and approves the plan. Eco-modulated fees (higher fees for materials that are harder to recycle or have greater environmental impacts) and performance targets can be set in statute, regulation or the PRO plan; Cassell noted states differ in where those details are placed.

The group did not take formal votes. Instead, DEP and participants agreed on a set of next steps and data requests: the advisory group will collect and deliver background data and research to DEP by Friday, Oct. 3, so the EPR Commission can review materials in advance of its full meeting on Oct. 29 (09:30–12:30). The advisory group will meet again on Thursday, Aug. 28 (10:00–noon) to continue fact-finding. Circular Action Alliance and other PROs were invited to provide implementation timelines and examples from other states; several industry and municipal representatives agreed to share cost and operational data for comparison.

The meeting highlighted areas of friction: differing interpretations of consumer cost impacts (with Ontario cited as a case where fees increased), uncertainty about how municipal contracts and existing collection franchises would be reimbursed or adapted, and possible duplication with deposit-return systems (bottle bills). Speakers urged the commission to consider staged implementation, robust needs assessments, and harmonization with other states to limit administrative burden and reduce producer opposition.

The advisory group’s work will inform the EPR Commission’s later recommendations to the Legislature. DEP staff committed to compiling available municipal and processor reports, and multiple participants volunteered to provide supplemental analyses from Canadian provinces and European jurisdictions where EPR has longer experience.

Ending: The meeting concluded with a plan to gather the identified data, assign research tasks, and reconvene the advisory group; no formal policy decisions were made at this session.