Maine Packaging EPR Program Faces New Uncertainty After DEP Receives No Bids

Maine’s implementation of its packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program faces renewed uncertainty after the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced that it received no proposals in response to its Request for Proposals (RFP) for administration of the program.

The failed procurement raises immediate questions for producers, retailers, municipalities, and other stakeholders about when the program will become operational, what compliance obligations will ultimately look like, and whether Maine’s EPR framework will be modified to more closely align with programs in other states.

What The Failed RFP Means for Producers

For producers, the most immediate takeaway is that Maine’s registration, reporting, and fee requirements are not yet operational. The stewardship organization that will administer key elements of the program has not been selected, and the DEP has not announced a revised implementation schedule or identified an alternative path forward.

As a result, producers should continue to monitor developments, but, at this point, there is no functioning system through which to register, report packaging data, or make payments.

Why Maine's Approach Has Presented Implementation Challenges

Enacted in 2021, Maine’s EPR law established the first statewide framework in the country requiring producers of packaging materials to reimburse municipalities for eligible recycling costs. Since then, six other states have enacted packaging EPR laws, including California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington.

Those programs generally use a model under which producers organize through a producer responsibility or stewardship organization that operates the program subject to state regulatory oversight.

Maine took a different approach. The law gives the DEP a more direct role in program administration, most notably drafting rules for the fee structure that govern what producers must pay and selecting the stewardship organization to operate the program.

That distinction has been a source of concern for industry stakeholders, particularly because companies participating in multiple state EPR programs prefer a more consistent administrative and reporting structure. Industry stakeholders also have questioned whether Maine’s reimbursement methodology will promote the efficient allocation of producer funds and improvements in recycling infrastructure.

Those concerns became more concrete during the recent procurement process.

No Bidders for DEP's RFP

Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which serves as the producer responsibility organization in the other six states with packaging EPR programs, did not submit a proposal. CAA has indicated that Maine’s RFP was not aligned with its existing operating model and data systems.

No other organization submitted a bid.

The result leaves Maine without the stewardship organization that is expected to play a central role in implementing the program, and creates uncertainty about both the timing and mechanics of compliance.

The RFP itself contemplated a Maine-specific reporting structure, with the state retaining proprietary rights to the resulting system. The state’s retention of IP rights may have been an additional deterrent to a stewardship organization investing in a Maine-specific product design that could not be marketed elsewhere. Thus, the approach to data management and reporting will be an important issue in a revised procurement.

What Happens Next?

On September 11, 2026, the DEP sent an email to interested parties saying it will be revising the RFP and alerting stakeholders when that document will be available. In doing so, the agency may engage with CAA or other potential administrators to determine what changes to the procurement process will be necessary to generate interest.

The failed procurement also is likely to prompt renewed legislative discussion about whether Maine’s underlying EPR statute should be amended.

When the law was debated in 2021, producers, retailers, and other stakeholders proposed a framework that more closely resembled the systems subsequently adopted in other states. That proposal emphasized producer-led governance, operational flexibility, and greater consistency across EPR programs. Very little of that language was included in the enacted legislation.

The upcoming legislative session could provide an opportunity to reconsider aspects of Maine’s program in light of the experience of other states and the challenges encountered during Maine’s implementation process.

Additionally, there are ongoing legal battles over EPR programs in other states that may have a residual effect in Maine. A federal district court in Oregon recently rejected a legal challenge from the National Association of Wholesaler Distributors that Oregon’s EPR law violated the dormant commerce clause and due process clause. The same court had granted a preliminary injunction in February 2026, blocking the law’s enforcement. The plaintiffs have not indicated any next steps, although there are similar legal challenges underway in Colorado and California.

What Should Companies Be Watching?

For producers and retailers, the important issues to monitor are:

• Implementation timing: When will Maine establish a functioning stewardship organization and set a new compliance schedule?
• Registration and reporting: When will producers be required to register and begin submitting packaging data?
• Program costs: How will producer fees and municipal reimbursements ultimately be calculated?
• Administrative structure: Will Maine retain its current state-directed model or move toward a producer-led approach like other states?
• Data requirements: Will Maine's reporting requirements be compatible with systems companies already are using for EPR compliance elsewhere?
• Legislative changes: Will the Legislature amend the existing statute before the program becomes operational?
• Multistate compliance: To what extent will Maine's eventual requirements align with those being implemented in other states?
• Legal challenges: How will current litigation in other states affect Maine’s EPR law?

For now, do not assume that the failed RFP means Maine’s EPR law is going away. Rather, this development signals that the program's implementation framework may change before producers are required to begin complying.

Companies that sell packaged products in Maine should continue tracking the DEP’s actions and legislative developments, and should consider how potential changes to Maine’s program could affect their broader packaging EPR compliance strategy.

We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the DEP and Maine Legislature clarify the path forward. For questions on the EPR program or any of the information discussed here, please contact firm attorneys Newell Augur or Georgia Bolduc.