How are EPR fees calculated? Schemes set rates in 12 of 14 markets, and regulators mostly approve the method

Who sets and who approves the schedule in 14 markets

Exhibit 2 is the core of this piece: for each market, the body that sets the schedule, the body that approves or checks it, the costs the fee must cover and when the schedule is published. It is built from each market’s law or licence and the scheme’s own fee documents, read between 14 October and 3 November 2026.

Three things stand out. First, the word “approval” means different things. In Oregon, Colorado and British Columbia the regulator approves a plan, and the plan, not each schedule, carries the method. In Ireland the approval sets conditions on the fee structure itself. In Luxembourg the ministerial approval sets the floor and the criteria, while Valorlux’s general assembly approves the numbers.

Second, competition changes the picture. ARA in Austria held a 72.2% share of licensed volume in 2024 against other licensed systems (ARA general assembly, 18 June 2025). Where producers can switch, price discipline comes partly from the market and the regulator’s role is to police tariff principles, not to set rates.

Third, the gaps are real. SPI could not find a published rule naming who approves the yearly tables in Spain, Portugal or the Netherlands. SPI has not yet confirmed whether Spanish, Portuguese or Dutch authorities sign off each year’s numbers, and readers should ask their scheme directly.

What the law says EPR fees must cover

Fee methods differ, but the legal tests behind them are close. In the EU the anchor is Article 8a(4) of the Waste Framework Directive, which says producer contributions must cover separate collection, transport and treatment, information to waste holders and data reporting, net of revenue from reuse, material sales and unclaimed deposits; must be modulated where possible in collective schemes; and must not exceed the costs of a cost-efficient service (Directive 2008/98/EC, consolidated 5 July 2018). Regulation (EU) 2025/40 has applied since 12 August 2026, and the national rules below still carry these tests.

The words “net necessary cost” do a great deal of work. In Ireland, the approval’s success factors list “Net Necessary Cost %” as a measured indicator, and Repak is working with the Department on a consultant’s review of the net necessary cost system (Repak approval; Repak annual report 2025). In Spain, the decree’s preamble says contributions must be set transparently between the actors concerned, taking into account costs incurred by public and private waste managers, and that collective systems must return excess income each year (RD 1055/2022, preamble IV).

How are EPR fees calculated? From net cost to a rate per kilogram

Every EPR scheme whose method SPI could read in full follows four moves: build a cost budget, assign it to materials, net off material revenue, and divide by reported tonnage. The order and the extras differ (Exhibit 4).

The shared logic has a consequence producers often miss: rates move when tonnage moves, even if costs do not. Oregon DEQ stresses that because rates follow reported supply, they change every year and late or missing data distorts them (Oregon DEQ, producers of covered products). PackUK’s year 2 calculation left the costs of littered and on-the-go packaging out of the numerator while keeping their tonnage in the denominator (GOV.UK, updated 19 December 2025), which lowers the rate per tonne for everyone.

Extended producer responsibility fees, market by market: the yearly cycle in eight markets

Exhibit 4 shows the method where schemes publish it in full. The yearly cycle matters as much, because it is what a producer has to plan around. Here it is for eight markets, including two from Exhibit 4 where the cycle adds something.

Spain. Ecoembes publishes one price per kilogram for each material and format, with separate lines for packaging inside the Single-Use Plastics Directive scope, and then moves the base price up or down per packaging element through its eco-modulation guide (Ecoembes Precios 2026; Guía de ecomodulación 2026). The guide is calibrated on final annual declaration data for year n-2, and the euros raised by penalised tonnes are the ceiling for bonuses in the same fraction, so the modulation is self-funding by design. The legal frame is RD 1055/2022, whose preamble lists the modulation criteria and provides for an analysis of their effects within four years.

Portugal. Sociedade Ponto Verde (SPV) sets a value per kilogram by material, by urban or non-urban flow and, for single-use plastic cups, by unit, with a reduced value 10% below the base for packaging that meets every eco-modulation criterion for its material (SPV Tabela VPV 2026). The UNILEX law requires each producer’s contract with the managing entity to state the financial contributions owed and how they are updated (UNILEX, article 10(3), per the APA manual). SPV’s 2026 table first appeared in December 2025 and was reissued in June 2026 with the same values. SPV also reports a fall of about 26% in the resale prices of recovered materials in 2025, which raises the net cost the fees must cover (SPV activity report 2025).

Luxembourg. Valorlux publishes its tariff each autumn for the following year after its general assembly; the 2026 detailed table is marked GV October 2025 (Valorlux 2026 table). Its board also sets a minimum contribution, which the general conditions cap at EUR 125, and members pay quarterly advances adjusted later by a complementary invoice or credit note (Valorlux general conditions, articles 5.3 and 5.4).

Netherlands. Verpact sets one tariff per material each year from the expected costs of meeting its legal duties, and folds in surpluses or deficits from earlier years (Verpact Tarieven). The fee is owed by every obliged firm, signatory or not, because the state has declared the 2023 to 2027 waste management contribution agreement generally binding (Ondernemersplein). Modulation is a discount on the plastic tariff adopted under the agreement’s annex, not a set of bands, and it is redesigned for 2027 (Verpact Tariefdifferentiatie 2027).

Italy. CONAI’s Board of Directors sets each value after monitoring the finances of the material consortia and announces changes months ahead with a stated effective date (CONAI, 25 May 2026). The fee is charged at the first transfer of finished packaging inside Italy, on the seller’s invoice, rather than when goods reach the shelf, so the fee cycle runs through the supply chain’s own invoicing (CONAI 2026 value table).

Colorado. CAA’s 2026 dues schedule, published on 13 October 2025, lists base dues per material and then applies eco-modulation automatically, as the Act requires (CAA 2026 Colorado schedule). The Act also requires an annual report with the schedule of dues by weight for each material, the total collected and the reasons for changes, which the advisory board reviews and the department posts (C.R.S. 25-17-709(2)(a)). The executive director had to produce a bonus schedule by 1 January 2026 and must revisit it each year.

British Columbia. Recycle BC’s plan, approved on 17 September 2025, sets the allocation rules: every obligated material bears a fair share of cost even when it is not collected, commodity revenue goes only to the materials that earn it, and extra cost is loaded onto uncollectable or underperforming categories to fund improvement (Recycle BC plan). Beverage container revenue is netted off gross programme cost before material fees are worked out. Recycle BC’s 2027 schedule came with cause-of-change graphs that split each line’s movement into the factors in its model, as SPI’s report on the 2027 schedule and Canada EPR overview set out.

Isle of Man. The Island runs no calculation. Its Treasury notice of 3 March 2026 says the rate must stay aligned with the UK figure, which Westminster sets in section 45 of the Finance Act 2021, and the Manx change took effect on 1 April 2026, the same day as the UK one (Isle of Man Government, 3 March 2026). Recycled content decides the bill: components below 30% recycled plastic pay, those at or above it do not.

A framework: four ways to govern a fee schedule

Exhibit 5 sets out SPI’s framework. It sorts markets by one question: who has the last word on the yearly number, and what check, if any, sits before it.

Model A gives the most predictable method and the least room to bargain. PackUK publishes its modulation rules in a statement, and the red factor rises on a set path: 1.2 in year 2, 1.6 in year 3 and 2.0 in year 4 (PackUK modulation statement). The Isle of Man has no method of its own at all; its Treasury says the rate must stay aligned with the UK rate under the 1979 Customs and Excise Agreement (Isle of Man Government, 3 March 2026).

Model B front-loads the argument. In Colorado, the PRO must seek and consider advisory board input when it drafts the plan; the board reviews the plan and any proposed amendment and forwards a recommendation; and the executive director approves or rejects within 120 days, on the plan requirements alone (C.R.S. 25-17-705(4), (5) and (6)). The plan must provide for annual updates to the dues schedule. The statute does not say whether each annual update counts as an amendment needing approval, and SPI has not yet confirmed CDPHE’s reading. British Columbia’s ministry approved Recycle BC’s plan on 17 September 2025 and will next review it by 15 April 2028 (Recycle BC plan and approval).

Model C adds a checkpoint without handing the pen to the state. Austria’s ordinance requires each system to publish general tariffs per category, treat partners equally, allow no rebates and notify planned tariff changes to the minister in good time, attaching the calculation basis and an auditor’s opinion on the tariff principles (VerpackVO § 9(2) and (3), unofficial consolidation). France goes furthest: a stakeholder committee of producers, waste operators, local authorities and associations must publish an opinion before Citeo decides on the contribution amount, support scales and eco-modulation proposals, and Citeo may not act before the opinion is out unless it shows urgency (Citeo, governance fact sheet, 18 February 2025).

Model D relies on the licence and on membership. Italian law has CONAI determine the fee in proportion to the quantity, weight and type of packaging, under a statute the environment minister approves by decree (D.Lgs. 152/2006, art. 224(1) and (3)(h), unofficial text). Valorlux’s ministerial approval requires contributions to cover at least the costs the law places on producers and to be modulated by seven criteria, but Article 4 contains no step for ministerial approval of the rates (Valorlux approval, Art. 4).

Where producers get a say before fees are final

The governance model decides where influence works. Exhibit 6 lists the formal routes SPI found in published documents.

The French vote shows how the route works in practice. On 8 June 2026, Citeo’s stakeholder committee approved the eco-modulation proposals for 2027 with 6 votes in favour, none against and 5 abstentions (Citeo CPP opinion, 8 June 2026). SPI has not yet confirmed Citeo’s 2027 tariff against Citeo’s own guide.

France also shows the state stepping into modulation directly. The arrêté of 5 September 2025 sets primes for recycled plastic across several EPR streams, including household packaging. Its recitals cite the opinion of the inter-sector EPR commission of 13 March 2025, a public consultation from 11 March to 1 April 2025 and notification to the European Commission on 4 September 2025, and it applies from 1 January 2026 (arrêté of 5 September 2025, via AIDA). Citeo’s 2026 guide says that prime can be combined only with the reduction, grouping and small-format maluses (Citeo guide 2026).

Ontario, outside the 14 markets, is moving the other way, from scheme discretion toward rules. ERO notice 026-1058, posted on 27 October 2026 with comments to 26 November, would require PROs to publish proposed and final fee schedules and itemise system costs on invoices (ERO 026-1058). SPI’s report on the notice covers the detail.

Which data the fee rests on, and how it is trued up

A fee is a rate times a tonnage, and the tonnage period is a governance choice too. Exhibit 7 shows which data each scheme bills on and how errors are corrected.

The PackUK case is the opposite. Its operational plan says the year 2 notice of liability will be issued by the end of November 2026, after the fees are calculated that month, on data frozen on 1 September 2026, with no plan for a producer-wide recalculation (PackUK operational plan, updated 10 August 2026). SPI’s report on the November notices sets out the payment terms.

When EPR fees are published: lead times from 29 to 129 days

The date a schedule appears is the producer’s real budget deadline. Exhibit 8 counts the days from the public release SPI could date to the day the fee first applied.

Two schemes publish much earlier than the rest. Ecoembes put its 2027 prices online in August 2026, and Verpact published a 2027 forecast in July 2026, presented at a webinar on 7 July, before setting final tariffs that it says largely match it (Verpact Tarieven page). Citeo’s calendar is fixed: tariff and eco-modulation are announced in September of the year before the packaging is placed on the market (Citeo guide 2026). For the euro schemes’ 2025 to 2026 moves, see SPI’s Benelux fees piece.

Mid-year changes and exit rights

An annual schedule is not always annual. Exhibit 9 lists the published rules on changing fees inside a year.

CONAI’s October 2026 change is the clearest recent case. Its Board of Directors set new plastic values after talks with the supply chain and the plastics consortium COREPLA, effective 1 October 2026, citing volatile markets, rising management costs, weak demand for some recycled fractions, mainly in bands B2 and C, and the aim of keeping recycling at 50% or more (CONAI, 25 May 2026). The start date, CONAI said, balanced the system’s finances against giving companies enough notice.

Scenarios: how modulation shares out a fixed UK bill

Modulation changes who pays, not how much the system costs, in schemes that are cost-neutral by design. PackUK’s statement says modulation will affect how costs are allocated by material and will not raise total disposal fees (PackUK modulation statement). Fost Plus shares non-recyclable revenue across recyclable materials, and Ecoembes caps bonuses at the money raised by maluses in the same fraction (Ecoembes guide 2026). Exhibit 10 shows what that means for the UK green discount.

The table carries a governance point. In a cost-neutral design, a green-rated producer’s bill depends on how much red packaging other producers report, which no single firm controls. The rising factor raises the stakes: at the base case, the discount needed triples from year 2 to year 3. PackUK says the factors will be reviewed no later than 2028, and its RAM change process runs to 31 December 2026 (PackUK modulation statement; GOV.UK, 22 October 2026). The tracker record PR-GB-002 holds the regulation.