To allow end-users to take informed purchase decisions, RECHARGE welcomes a consistent information giving approach. Also other stakeholders along a battery’s lifecycle depend on meaningful information. 

A streamlined, digitized approach is, therefore, crucial to harmonize the various needs for data. Redundancies, as is the case between articles 61, 65 and Annex XIII, must be avoided. To that end, we also want to point to the duplications between the information required in form of a label and as part of the QR code in article 13.

An electronic battery passport with relevant access levels for each stakeholder offers a unique opportunity to simplify labelling, information exchange and declaration obligations. Practically speaking, the QR code should serve as an identifier to link to the battery passport (electronic database) but should not be used to “store” information. According to their authorization, users may then obtain complete or partial information from the database.

Any remaining needs for labels should be assessed based on effectiveness and legibility. The crossed-out wheelie bin for example is an important and meaningful piece of information that must be visible from the product/battery.

RECHARGE welcomes the inclusion of carbon intensity – calculated based on an enhanced EU Product Environmental Footprint methodology – in the draft Batteries Regulation.

Carbon footprint performance classes will allow consumers to identify batteries with a superior product profile more easily and give necessary signals to poorly performing industry actors to improve their carbon emissions. Additionally, it is an effective criterion for the quality and performance of a battery (see Annex II).

We believe that the proposed step of implementing CO₂ thresholds is an important instrument to pave the way to low-carbon products. To further accelerate this transition, CO₂ thresholds should be accompanied by positive measures for frontrunners.

To ensure a meaningful differentiation between products and value chain steps, the secondary legislation process will have to ensure a robust implementation of the carbon footprint provision now:

• Prerequisite is that the carbon footprint reflects real-world manufacturing operations and is calculated based on actual emissions for the whole supply chain, and not on averaged data of upstream suppliers and operations. Data agglomeration shall only be permitted at selected calculation and declaration steps.
• At the same time, confidentiality of the data must be ensured at all times.

To that end, the industry has started to update the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR). The current calculation methodology was established in 2013 and needs to be transposed into a method that is fit for a European-wide regulation now. The goal is a robust, comparative and consistent approach.

Generally, the carbon footprint requirement must be proportionate and feasible before it can come into force. To date, PEFCR have only been established for rechargeable EV batteries. Considering the much broader scope of article 7, all other battery chemistries and categories shall only become subject to the carbon intensity requirement after the establishment of their PEFCR.

In terms of feasibility and proportion, article 7 should be limited to the initial scope of batteries for electric vehicles and large energy storage systems. Small-volume batteries should be excluded, hence. 

Paramount to the further development of our industry, and as a matter of fact of all sectors, is social responsibility.

RECHARGE and our members especially welcome that the Commission has incorporated our call for human as well as social and labor rights. Unfortunate is the limitation to the raw materials sector, however. A responsible and sustainable battery market, covering all relevant actors and value chain steps, is a key objective of the European advanced rechargeable batteries industry – and an important competitive differentiator.

In view of better regulation, we appreciate that the due diligence provision makes a clear reference to the existing OECD Due Diligence Guidance and recognizes the value that existing industry schemes have created to date (article 72). To avoid overlaps, article 39 should be extended to capture horizontal EU due diligence legislation such as the Conflict Minerals Regulation, too. 

According to the European Commission, the recycled content provision shall boost quality recycling by triggering market demand for secondary raw material. 

What does the industry say?

At RECHARGE, we welcome that the Commission has partially considered the industry’s concerns regarding the alleged benefits and burdens stemming from article 8, and introduced a stepwise implementation of recycled content as well as an amendment mechanism:

• At a time when volumes of available secondary raw materials in Europe are low, the burdens on the European industry to implement a recycled content obligation would have jeopardized the competitiveness of European batteries. The inception impact assessment clearly concluded that the European battery market is not yet mature enough for a meaningful recycled content obligation.
• The amendment mechanism is important to better reflect real-world waste streams and developments in battery chemistry. Especially the latter is expected to make certain recycled content targets marginal or obsolete even before the implementation date of article 8. Finally, the economic impact of a new mandatory requirement must be assessed, too. Referring to the inception impact, this was not the case for the recycled content provision. The amendment mechanism should be altered to a review clause, therefore. Especially the later 2035 targets should only be set following an extensive assessment.

With regards to the inception impact assessment’s concluding remarks on the limited environmental benefits of recycled content for batteries, it must be stated that the recycled content obligation currently remains an unjustified burden on the industry. Even more so because non-European battery manufacturers benefit disproportionately from article 8. Battery waste, including production scrap, has reached significant volumes in Asia, making it easier for Asian companies to access recycled battery materials.

What does the industry propose?

1. RECHARGE recommends establishing article 8 as a voluntary provision first. Especially a clear and robust definition of recycled content would be required before defining potential targets.
2. In a similar vein, criteria for end-of-waste and end-of-recycling must be further developed to ensure high-quality recycling and to allow for a clear definition of what can be considered as recycled content. In fact, an ambitious definition of end-of-recycling could effectively replace the burdensome recycled content provision. Together, the material recovery targets and a new end-of-recycling definition would boost recycling quality in those areas where market mechanisms have not taken effect yet. 
3. All in all, the scope of article 8 should be limited to batteries for electric vehicles and large energy storage systems. The administrative cost would overburden niche and small-series batteries disproportionally. 

The batteries industry is an innovation-driven, fast-paced sector. Both battery chemistries and material compositions as well as battery-powered equipment undergo enormous design developments. 

Design obligations present a real threat to the European industry’s efforts to compete in this strategic technology. They are expected to hamper the capability of battery manufacturers to meet the specific needs of the products or applications they serve and might even contradict OEMs’ design requirements. Therefore, RECHARGE recommends the following for performance, durability and removability provisions:  

Performance and durability requirements for rechargeable industrial and electric vehicle batteries

In view of coherence and to reduce complexity as well as overlaps, article 10 should be removed from the Batteries Regulation:

• At UN level, performance and durability criteria are currently being developed for electric vehicle batteries. The Batteries Regulation should not overlap or contradict horizontal and internationally applicable legislation. 
• Article 7 already requires a test of life duration, and Annex II (3) explicitly incorporates the electrochemical performance and durability parameters as set out in Annex IV Part A. Additional performance and durability requirements would result in clear overregulation.
• Industrial batteries and batteries for electric vehicles are sold to OEMs and not to end users. These OEMs have strict quality and technical protocols in place for the components (including batteries) they purchase.

Removability and replaceability of portable batteries

At RECHARGE, we are particularly concerned about the general language in the draft Batteries Regulation, widely encouraging the unconditional altering of batteries. The draft Regulation does not provide for any technical framework for remanufacturing or repurposing that is aligned with well-defined intermediate product quality, product responsibility and certification, production process control, transport safety aspects as well as safety testing of batteries. It is for that reason that the Batteries Regulation should refrain from any wording that will encourage the altering of a battery by an unqualified person. Concretely: 

• To ensure a high level of safety, replaceability options must be restricted to batteries and shall never include individual cells within a battery pack.
• Under no circumstances should non-original battery packs or uncertified sub-units thereof be allowed in any application after the exchange of certain parts such as the battery cells.

In general, the draft Batteries Regulation should recognize the role of integrated batteries as an important design decision to protect against water, dust or direct light exposure and to consequently ensure better performance, durability and safety.

In several parts, the Batteries Regulation does not provide sufficient protection of the property rights of the (initial) manufacturer. 

This is especially the case in article 59 on requirements related to the repurposing of industrial and electric vehicle batteries. 

To protect the intellectual property and related investments of first manufacturers, additional provisions need to be made as regards the transfer of data from the battery management system. Currently, article 59 does not sufficiently protect the initial manufacturer’s intellectual value. In fact, the industry fears that article 59 (1) even permits second life at the expense of the first manufacturer.

Additionally, the Batteries Regulation should refrain from any wording that encourages unqualified persons to alter a battery by accessing battery data. Operating an electro-chemical device, such as batteries, requires adequate technical expertise. It is in this context, that article 59 (1 and 2) as well as articles 14 and 60 (1a) need to be amended to avert potential safety risks, clearly mentioning that the safety information provided for handling and testing does not guarantee the safety of the battery in case of repurposing.

Instead of enabling access to the battery management system (BMS), a possible solution could be to make BMS data available via the battery passport (article 65).