Bill to Make Suppliers Responsible For Collection, Recycling Of EV Batteries Proceeds in Senate

A bill that would require EV battery suppliers to fund the collection and recycling system for batteries in electric vehicles gained traction in the Senate this week, with the first committee meeting set for April 2nd.

Senate Bill 615, authored by Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would require a battery supplier to be responsible for ensuring the responsible end-of-life management of a vehicle traction battery if it is removed from a vehicle that is still in service or if the vehicle traction battery is offered or returned to its battery supplier, and reporting information regarding the sale, transfer, or receipt of a vehicle traction battery or module to the department. SB 615 would also impose related duties on a secondary user, ensuring the responsible end-of-life management for a vehicle traction battery or returning a vehicle traction battery to the battery supplier, and reporting information regarding the sale, transfer, or receipt of a vehicle traction battery or module to the department as provided. The bill would further require an auctioneer and salvage disposal auction to report similar information regarding a vehicle traction battery to the department.

In addition, the bill would require the battery supplier to pay the department’s actual and reasonable regulatory costs through a Vehicle Traction Battery Recovery Fund and would require the department to deposit all moneys received from the battery supplier into the fund.

In total, the bill would put the cost of battery collection and recycling on battery suppliers, to “ensure all vehicle traction batteries are reused, repaired, repurposed, remanufactured, and eventually recycled”.

Senator Allen wrote the bill to help deal with the growing number of electric vehicle batteries in California as the state complies with the 2035 gas-powered car sales ban mandate. Building on that, SB 615 has been seen by some as needed to plan for both handling the batteries at end of life and for reducing the environmental impact of making new batteries.

A similar bill, also numbered as SB 615, was passed by the Senate and Assembly last year with significant opposition from Republican lawmakers. However, Governor Gavin Newsom wound up vetoing the bill because of the burden that would be placed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

Coming back after a veto

“This bill would require that all electric vehicle (EV) batteries in the state be reused, repaired, repurposed, or remanufactured, and eventually recycled at the end of their useful life,” said Newsom last year in his veto message. “The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) would be responsible for adopting regulations to implement and enforce the bill’s requirements, and for establishing a method for EV battery suppliers, secondary users, secondary handlers, and qualified facilities to report EV battery transactions.

“I agree with the intent of this bill and the need to responsibly manufacture, recycle, and reuse EV batteries. As California continues to lead the revolution toward a zero-emission transportation future, with a requirement that all new vehicles sold in the state be zero-emission by 2035, responsibly tracking the sale, use, and reuse of these vehicle batteries will be critical. Effective EV battery stewardship also presents an exciting opportunity to develop new innovative industries that use repurposed or recycled batteries.

“California has successfully implemented many reuse and recycling systems. These market-based solutions significantly reduce waste and create jobs by turning a challenging product into a resource. However, this legislation places a significant burden on DTSC to implement the policy, instead of building on the success of existing producer responsibility models. I encourage the author to continue working with stakeholders to explore if a producer responsibility organization would yield more equilibrium among public agencies and industry in sharing the administrative burden required by this policy. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.”

Allen subsequently made significant changes to the bill when out of session.

“I would like to reintroduce the bill after discussions with others to see what needs to be tweaked and to chart out the best path forward,” Allen said late last year.

This led to a renewed SB 615 being introduced last month. With support for the bill remaining at similar levels as it was at last year and the reasons behind Newsom’s veto now changed, Senator Allen hopes that the bill will be passed this year. Republican opposition, as well as objections from manufacturers, is expected to come up again this year.

Senator Allen’s office was contacted on the bill on Friday, but as of Friday evening, they have yet to give a response.