With EPR, WCP President Allen Warns the Industry’s Margin for Error Is Paper Thin

Ed Allen, President of WCP Solutions in Portland, Oregon, has been on the front lines of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) issue for some time now. For the paper industry, EPR mandates that brand owners, manufacturers and other producers manage or pay for the end-of-life costs of their paper products. It attempts to incentivize sustainable design, while shifting costs from taxpayers to producers. To date, seven U.S. states have enacted EPR laws including Allen’s home state, with paper products included in some cases, but not all.

Winning the First Battle in Court. Now, the War?

On February 6, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members. How big a victory was it when NAW secured this preliminary injunction?

“We are grateful for the temporary NAW victory,” Allen replies, “but it is only a minor benefit to WCP. While our fees due to the Circular Action Alliance [NOTE: CAA is a U.S. Producer Responsibility Organization (or PRO) dedicated to implementing effective EPR laws for paper and packaging] are substantial, the bigger issue to us is the massive price increases we are incurring from multiple suppliers to cover their own EPR fees in the state of Oregon. It is a substantial burden to our existing supply chain.”

He adds, “But the primary burden to our business has been the distraction from just managing our business. Unfortunately, we have spent an inordinate amount of time over the last year studying and trying to understand the complexities of EPR due to its ambiguity and the systematic challenges it has created.”

The NAW lawsuit has given Allen and his colleagues a reprieve on WCP’s 2026 CAA fees due. “While we are enjoying the reprieve on our fees due,” he states, “we are still experiencing massive price increases from our suppliers not affiliated with the NAW lawsuit. These price increases are simply not absorbable and have created turmoil in an already highly competitive market.”

What If EPR Does Go Live?

He warns that if EPR eventually does go live, as written, there will be severe consequences to the competitive landscape for paper and packaging products throughout the Pacific Northwest region because of interstate trade being necessary in the distribution business. With extreme disparity in pricing from neighboring states, it will almost certainly alter the landscape of distribution and, in particular, manufacturing on the West Coast.

Allen remarks, “There is a considerable misunderstanding in the marketplace of who is the ‘producer’ of the paper or packaging product. While the CAA did their best to capture all the categories for reporting the fees, the structures are limited and subject to interpretation. Furthermore, the brand owner could be the manufacturer, the distributor or the end customer for customized packaging.” 

With regards to printing paper and packaging items, there are exceptions for the types of products being manufactured. In wholesale distribution, it is practically impossible to determine what the application of product is once it leaves WCP’s facility and, therefore, who is responsible for reporting on the product.

The EPR fees have been an unbudgeted, retroactive expense based on EPR’s reported tonnage from 2024. “Last year,” Allen notes, “this was a substantial, unexpected expense that came directly from our bottom line. We were told that the 2026 fees would be similar but our invoices this year resulted in a 47% increase over last year. It is impossible to plan for such unexpected expenses.”

So, where do the biggest awareness gaps still exist across the supply chain, especially within the print community? Allen was quick to answer: “The CAA fee structures for printing papers are very poorly written. First, paper is the most recycled product nationally approaching nearly a 70% recycling rate, and there is already a decent infrastructure for paper products to be recycled.”

“Secondly,” he continues, “in the fee structure for printing papers, there is substantial ambiguity in the types of printing paper categories. For example, the CAA has posted fees for ‘magazine paper.’ There are multiple types of paper used for magazines and, again, most of the time we do not know the specific application of the products we sell and many applications are excluded from the CAA fee structure.”

A Legacy at Stake

Allen feels the weight of keeping WCP afloat in such uncertain times. The 96-year-old, privately held company has 15 locations in seven states. With these locations and logistics, WCP services nearly 33 percent of the U.S. geography every day with a multitude of paper, packaging, janitorial, foodservice and equipment products.

Allen touts, “At WCP, our culture is what truly distinguishes us. We have amazing people that bend over backwards to take care of our customer’s needs.”

What’s Next?

Looking ahead, the court will hear NAW’s case on July 13. Allen says that while NAW has been successful in getting an injunction, it would truly be helpful if the Oregon DEQ would grant injunctive relief to the entire EPR program so all players competing in Oregon would be on a level playing field again. He reasons, “This would bring Oregon back in line with the costing of materials in surrounding states until the hearing in July officially resolves the issues at hand.”

Allen concludes, “The ambiguity from state to state on how the EPR laws are written should be closely watched, especially when interstate trade occurs among connected states. In our market, Oregon, Washington and California all have passed EPR legislation, but they vary in the products to be reported and the fees structures as well. This creates a tremendous burden on the supply chain due to pricing disparities.”