Methodology
How this calculator works.
The calculator quantifies the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fee component of switching from rigid plastic, multilayer flexible, EPS-cushioned, or polycoated paper packaging to Paper Tube Co. paper tubes. Every dollar number traces back to a published 2026 producer-fee schedule or to an explicitly cited projection.
Two states currently have published 2026 producer-fee schedules: Oregon (CAA-OR, effective with the program-year-2026 invoicing cycle) and Colorado (CAA-CO, ditto). Five more states have enacted EPR programs and will publish schedules between 2027 and 2030 — for those, the calculator projects fees at 80% of Oregon’s published schedule until the state publishes its own.
The calculator math is a pure function of four inputs (current material, annual unit volume, unit weight, % sales into EPR-active states) and a small set of cited tunables: per-state per-material base fees, per-state population shares (US Census 2024), and the projection schedule fraction.
A note on weights. The unit-weight input describes the prospect’s current packaging. The paper-tube side of every comparison is derived using a per-material weight ratio (see Comparison materials below) — so replacing a glass jar at ~12% the weight produces meaningfully different fee math than replacing a multilayer pouch at ~4x the weight. Ratios are v1 starter estimates from public packaging-engineering reference data; Paper Tube Co. replaces them with SKU-level benchmarks once those are available.
Every value below is editable by a Paper Tube Co. admin via the admin panel. Each edit writes an audit log entry that is kept indefinitely. The methodology page is regenerated automatically on every settings change — so the documentation you’re reading reflects the values the calculator is using right now.
Last value updated: June 4, 2026.
Paper Tube product specs
Default unit weight by size, material composition, PCR content. The Paper Tube Co. side of every comparison.
Paper tube material key
Identifies which entry in the material registry represents the Paper Tube Co. alternative. Must match a key from MATERIAL_KEYS in code.
Comparison materials
Per-material assumptions for the four comparison formats — rigid plastic, multilayer flexible, EPS-protected, polycoated paper. Unit weight, base fee, eco-modulation tier, recyclability rate.
Display label — rigid plastic tube
Label shown in the calculator's current-material dropdown.
Display label — multilayer flexible
Label shown in the calculator's current-material dropdown.
Display label — EPS-protected
Label shown in the calculator's current-material dropdown.
Display label — polycoated paper
Label shown in the calculator's current-material dropdown.
Display label — paper tube
Label shown alongside Paper Tube Co. alternative numbers.
Display label — glass container
Label shown in the calculator's current-material dropdown.
Display label — metal can
Label shown in the calculator's current-material dropdown. Covers aluminum and steel can formats; fees are seeded against the aluminum rate (the more common consumer-packaging case).
Display label — Other
Label shown when a prospect's packaging doesn't fit the named categories. The calculator uses a midpoint blend; the submission captures the prospect's description so the sales team can follow up with a precise analysis.
Weight ratio — vs. rigid plastic tube
Paper tube unit weight as a multiple of the rigid plastic tube/canister it replaces. ~1.0 means parity (typical for a 250-500ml PP/PET/HDPE canister vs an equivalent paper tube). Range from public packaging-engineering data: 0.8-1.5.
Citation: Starter default — Paper Tube Co. v1 estimate based on public packaging-engineering reference ranges for ~250-500ml CPG containers. Replace with SKU-level benchmark data once available.
Weight ratio — vs. multilayer flexible pouch
Paper tube unit weight as a multiple of the multilayer flexible pouch it replaces. Paper tubes are HEAVIER than flexibles — ~4x is typical (a 100g stand-up pouch weighs 5-10g; an equivalent paper tube 25-40g). Range: 3.0-6.0. This INCREASES paper-tube fees relative to the pouch.
Citation: Starter default — v1 estimate based on public packaging-engineering reference ranges. Pouches are intentionally minimal-material; paper tubes carry meaningful structure.
Weight ratio — vs. EPS-protected container
Paper tube unit weight as a multiple of the EPS-protected unit it replaces. Wide range (1.5-8.0) depending on whether EPS is the only protection or cushioning inside an outer container. Default 3.0 assumes a representative cushioning-shipper scenario.
Citation: Starter default — v1 estimate. EPS foam is extremely light (1-5g per insert), so paper tubes weigh meaningfully more. Wide error bars; refine per use case (cushioning vs cold-chain shipper).
Weight ratio — vs. polycoated paper carton
Paper tube unit weight as a multiple of the polycoated paper carton it replaces. Near-parity (~1.2) — both are paper-based with similar wall thickness for comparable volumes.
Citation: Starter default — v1 estimate based on public packaging-engineering reference ranges. Range: 1.0-1.6 for comparable container sizes.
Weight ratio — vs. glass bottle or jar
Paper tube unit weight as a multiple of the glass bottle/jar it replaces. Paper is ~12% the weight of glass for comparable volumes (a 500ml glass jar weighs 200-400g; an equivalent paper tube 20-40g). This is the biggest weight-driven savings story.
Citation: Starter default — v1 estimate. Range: 0.08-0.20 depending on glass wall thickness (cosmetic vs food-grade jar).
Weight ratio — vs. metal can
Paper tube unit weight as a multiple of the metal can it replaces. Set to 1.0 (parity) — the paper tube SKU targeting metal/tin cans is engineered to match the weight of the can it replaces.
Citation: Paper Tube Co. product direction — 1:1 weight parity for metal/tin can replacement SKU.
Weight ratio — vs. Other (unspecified)
Paper tube unit weight as a multiple of the unspecified packaging it replaces. Defaulted to 1.0 (parity) since the prospect's actual packaging is unknown — this is the most conservative neutral assumption. The submission captures their description so the sales team can refine the comparison.
Citation: Defensive default — used when the prospect picks "Other" from the dropdown. Real number is provided by Paper Tube Co. follow-up after the prospect describes their packaging.
State fee schedules
Per-state, per-material-category fee schedules across the seven enacted EPR programs. Values cite the originating producer-fee schedule.
Oregon — state metadata
Oregon Recycling Modernization Act. Program live with published fee schedule; CAA-OR is the PRO.
Citation: CENSUS-2024 for population share. Enactment year per OR SB 582 program-year-1 cycle. CAA-OR program page: https://circularactionalliance.org/oregon (accessed 2026-05-13).
Colorado — state metadata
Colorado HB22-1355 Producer Responsibility. Program live with published dues schedule; CAA-CO is the PRO.
Citation: CENSUS-2024 for population share. Enactment year per CAA-CO program plan, dues invoiced for program year 2026. CAA-CO program page: https://circularactionalliance.org/colorado (accessed 2026-05-13).
California — state metadata
California SB 54. Producer fees first due to CalRecycle July 1, 2027. No published fee schedule yet — calc-adapter projects from Oregon × tunable.projection.schedule-fraction.
Citation: CENSUS-2024 for population share. Enactment year per CalRecycle SB 54 program timeline. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/packaging/packaging-epr/ (accessed 2026-05-13).
Maine — state metadata
Maine LD 1541. Producer startup-fee invoicing targeted July 2026; first municipal reimbursements October 2027 — that's when ongoing producer fees ramp meaningfully. Calc-adapter projects from Oregon × schedule-fraction.
Citation: CENSUS-2024 for population share. Enactment year per Maine DEP packaging EPR timeline reporting; Packaging Dive 2026-05-08: https://www.packagingdive.com/news/maine-extended-producer-responsibility-packaging-timeline/819335/ (accessed 2026-05-13).
Maryland — state metadata
Maryland SB 901. Producer registration July 2026; comprehensive responsibility plans due July 2028; local-government reimbursement begins at 50% in 2028 — that's when ongoing producer fees flow at scale. Calc-adapter projects from Oregon × schedule-fraction.
Citation: CENSUS-2024 for population share. Enactment year per MDE Producer Responsibility page: https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/land/WasteManagement/Pages/ProducerResponsibility.aspx (accessed 2026-05-13).
Minnesota — state metadata
Minnesota HF 3577. Producers fund 50% of net costs by 2029, 90% by 2031; needs assessment expected end of 2026. Calc-adapter projects from Oregon × schedule-fraction.
Citation: CENSUS-2024 for population share. Enactment year per MPCA EPR program timeline. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/extended-producer-responsibility-for-packaging (accessed 2026-05-13).
Washington — state metadata
Washington SB 5284 Recycling Reform Act. Producer registration July 2026; PRO plan Oct 2028; full program live Jan 1, 2030 (≥90% cost coverage). Calc-adapter projects from Oregon × schedule-fraction.
Citation: CENSUS-2024 for population share. Enactment year per WA Dept of Ecology Recycling Reform Act page. https://ecology.wa.gov/waste-toxics/reducing-recycling-waste/our-recycling-programs/recycling-reform-act (accessed 2026-05-13).
Oregon — rigid plastic tube fee
Mapped to "PP (#5) other rigid containers/cups/trays" — 62.0¢/lb. Representative line item for the rigid-plastic-tube category in Oregon's 2026 schedule.
Citation: OR-FEE-2026 p.2.
Oregon — multilayer flexible fee
Mapped to "Plastic laminates / other flexible (multilayer)" — 102.0¢/lb. Direct match.
Citation: OR-FEE-2026 p.2.
Oregon — EPS-protected fee
Mapped to "PS (#6) white expanded cushioning" — 72.0¢/lb. Picked over the food-service EPS line (138¢) since EPS-protected packaging in the calculator's scope is cushioning, not food service.
Citation: OR-FEE-2026 p.2.
Oregon — polycoated paper fee
Mapped to "Polycoated paperboard" — 48.0¢/lb. Direct match.
Citation: OR-FEE-2026 p.1.
Oregon — paper tube fee
Mapped to "Paperboard" — 8.0¢/lb. The Paper Tube Co. value-prop anchor: paperboard sits at the bottom of Oregon's fee schedule.
Citation: OR-FEE-2026 p.1.
Oregon — glass container fee
Mapped to "Glass bottles/jars" — 10.0¢/lb in Oregon's 2026 schedule.
Citation: OR-FEE-2026 p.1.
Oregon — metal can fee
Mapped to "Aluminum containers" — 6.0¢/lb in Oregon's 2026 schedule. Steel containers are 10.0¢/lb in the same schedule; we use aluminum as the representative since it's the dominant consumer-packaging metal.
Citation: OR-FEE-2026 p.1.
Oregon — Other-material approximation
Used when the prospect picks "Other". Unweighted average of the four primary current-material categories ((0.62 + 1.02 + 0.72 + 0.48) / 4 = 0.71). Surfaced to the prospect with a clear "approximation — describe your packaging" note; the sales team uses the description on the submission to provide a precise figure.
Citation: Derived midpoint — not a published OR rate. Methodology: arithmetic mean of rigid-plastic-tube, multilayer-flexible, eps-protected, polycoated-paper Oregon 2026 fees.
Colorado — rigid plastic tube fee
Mapped to "PP (#5) other rigid containers/cups/trays/tubs" — Final Dues 20.0¢/lb (base 20.0, no malus/bonus).
Citation: CO-DUES-2026 p.2.
Colorado — multilayer flexible fee
Mapped to "Plastic laminates / other flexible (multilayer)" — Final Dues 74.0¢/lb (base 71.1 + 4.1% malus).
Citation: CO-DUES-2026 p.2.
Colorado — EPS-protected fee
Mapped to "PS (#6) white expanded cushioning" — Final Dues 156.0¢/lb. Picked over the food-service EPS line (172¢) for the same reasoning as Oregon.
Citation: CO-DUES-2026 p.2.
Colorado — polycoated paper fee
Mapped to "Polycoated paperboard" — Final Dues 20.0¢/lb (base 20, no malus).
Citation: CO-DUES-2026 p.1.
Colorado — paper tube fee
Mapped to "Paperboard" — Final Dues 8.0¢/lb (base 8, no malus). Matches Oregon at the same fee tier.
Citation: CO-DUES-2026 p.1.
Colorado — glass container fee
Mapped to "Glass bottles/jars" — Final Dues 4.0¢/lb (base 4.2 − 0.2 HRRI bonus).
Citation: CO-DUES-2026 p.1.
Colorado — metal can fee
Mapped to "Aluminum containers" — Final Dues 2.0¢/lb (base 2.1 − 0.1 HRRI bonus). Steel containers are 7.0¢/lb in Colorado.
Citation: CO-DUES-2026 p.1.
Colorado — Other-material approximation
Used when the prospect picks "Other". Unweighted average of the four primary current-material categories ((0.20 + 0.74 + 1.56 + 0.20) / 4 = 0.675).
Citation: Derived midpoint — not a published CO rate. Methodology: arithmetic mean of rigid-plastic-tube, multilayer-flexible, eps-protected, polycoated-paper Colorado 2026 final dues.
Eco-modulation
PCR discount thresholds, recyclability discount percentages, mono-material substitution credits. Drives the eco-mod arbitrage between current materials and paper tubes.
Oregon — eco-modulation status
Oregon's 2026 schedule embeds USCL/PRO/N/A material tagging into the base fee column rather than offering a separate eco-mod discount tier. Active LCA-based bonuses (Bonus A/B/C) exist but are per-SKU and capped, so they're not modeled here.
Citation: OR-FEE-2026 p.1–2; The Packaging School, "Unpacking Oregon's Ecomodulation Bonuses". https://packagingschool.com/lessons/unpacking-oregons-ecomodulation-bonuses (accessed 2026-05-13).
Colorado — eco-modulation status
Colorado's 2026 schedule applies three passive factors automatically — Detriments Malus (+5%), Not-on-MRL Malus (≥10–20%), and High Recycling Rate Bonus (−5%). The seeded fees in fee.CO.* use the Final Dues column, which already includes these adjustments. Four active incentive programs are referenced for 2026; detailed guidance was scheduled to post by Oct 31, 2025.
Citation: CO-DUES-2026 p.3.
Calculation tunables
Default slider positions, 5-year projection assumptions (states-enacted-per-year, projected-schedule-fraction), industry tonnage factors.
Grams per pound (conversion constant)
Physical conversion used to translate per-unit weight (grams) into producer-fee units (pounds).
Citation: NIST conversion factor for the international avoirdupois pound. 1 lb = 453.59237 g exactly.
5-year projection — schedule fraction applied to non-OR states
For states with no published fee schedule, the 5-year projection applies this fraction of Oregon's published schedule. Methodology is from the build spec.
Citation: Build spec section 7.2 — 5-year projection model. Defensible derivation: Oregon is the most mature program with the highest base fees; new states historically launch with rates somewhat below the most-developed program's baseline.
5-year projection — additional states enacting per year
Number of states predicted to add an EPR program each year of the projection window. Not currently used by the math (all 7 states are pre-seeded with enactment years); kept as a tunable for future "what if rollout accelerates" scenarios.
Citation: Build spec section 7.2 — 5-year projection model.