California’s SB 615 passed the state senate on May 29 by a vote of 28-6 and received its first reading in the state assembly the same day. The measure will require electric vehicle batteries be “repaired, repurposed or recycled,” according to a legislative analysis. It sailed through senate committees on environmental quality, transportation and appropriations since early April.
The EV battery recycling bill authored by State Sen. Ben Allen and introduced in February is similar to one that was approved last year but unexpectedly vetoed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, in pursuit of more manufacturer funding of the pending program.
The legislative analysis said, “This bill requires, among other provisions, battery suppliers of vehicle traction batteries to be responsible for the end-of-life management of that battery.” Vehicle traction batteries are ones in EVs and “responsible for” is understood to mean that manufacturers and others involved — not the state — would pay for the system and/or be responsible for actions required under it.
This includes regulatory reporting and aspects of handling including, “collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating and reconstituting materials that would otherwise ultimately be disposed of,” according to the bill’s current wording.
Order of Operations, ‘Battery Management Hierarchy’
That list of actions is part of the definition of “recycling” in the bill, which also defines other terms in a sort of descending cascade of EV battery handling — recycling, remanufacturing, repair and repurposing, in the full “end-of-life management” of a battery.
The bill also touches entities and companies that are part of that lifecycle, including auctioneers, dismantlers, salvage operations, repair shops and, of course, recyclers.
Body shops and collision centers now regularly coming in contact with EVs would certainly be among those affected.
The cumulative effort throughout the life of the battery develops a “battery management hierarchy,” according to the bill.
While regulatory reporting is required of multiple players, the bill requires the “battery supplier” to pay for it.
Battery suppliers will “fully fund the cost of collection of a vehicle traction battery for which they are required to ensure responsible end-of-life management.”
Suppliers could include the initial seller of the battery; a vehicle manufacturer; initial sellers or importers; or distributors, retailers, dealers or wholesalers — again depending on the descending definitions and particular cases. The list would not include “a secondary handler,” the text says.
Amendments, Expectations to Ensure Passage
Amendments to the EV battery recycling bill submitted this year cut a requirement for an EV battery to bear a “unique identifier” — with attendant required reporting — in favor of working that out when regulations for the new law are written. One possibility offered is “using all or part of the vehicle identification number … as the unique identifier.”
An initial requirement that recyclers establish criteria for environmental and public health impacts was also cut, also moving that to something that could emerge as regulations are written, following enactment of the law.
Newsom last year called for the maker-payer system as he vetoed a bill he said he otherwise supported. A second comment in his veto message suggested new niche industries might be born from battery recycling — a cottage industry in mineral extraction, for instance.
Such discussions are growing, with media last fall reporting on how soon or often EV batteries die; projected growth in battery-swapping to $2.8 billion a year by 2029, and that of “second-life” batteries — recycled EV batteries redeployed to other energy storage uses — to $4.2B annually in a decade.
The bill suggests possible extraction from EV batteries of chemicals and components “such as cobalt sulfate, lithium salts and nickel sulfates, [and] such as aluminum, cobalt, copper, graphite, iron, lithium compounds, manganese and nickel.”
Recent coverage in The Wall Street Journal and The Christian Science Monitor have highlighted how suppliers of rare earth elements and critical minerals that go into making EV batteries are stepping up strategies to find and develop new sources of these components.
Short Game, Long Road, Industry Watching
The bill is widely expected to pass, with elements that satisfy the governor’s expectations expressed last year. That would happen this session, and then administrative law regulations would need to be written in a process that can take many months.
Meanwhile, EVs continue to be buffeted by such as things as tariffs and OEM EV investment cuts, as well as flat interest by consumers, due to elements like affordability. Ford Motor Co., for instance, poured a multi-billion-dollar investment into two EV battery plants in the U.S. and is using so little of that capacity that it plans to allow Nissan to use some of it, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Coupled with the U.S. Senate and House reversing California’s EV/zero-emission mandates — California has said it will sue to maintain them — the road to wider EV use and an increased level of EV battery recycling might have gotten a little longer of late.
As to the immediate issue of SB 615, the California Autobody Association’s legislative update in May listed the group as having “concerns” and seeking “clarifying amendments” to the bill. Some amendments have come, with more possible as it moves through the state assembly.
“Yes, amendments were made to the bill, which provided further clarification,” a CAA spokesperson wrote to Autobody News via email. “We are closely monitoring for any additional amendments that may raise concerns as the bill progresses.”
Paul Hughes