We express our support to revise the ELVD and to combine it with that of the Directive. As a pivotal legislative tool to enhance the lifelong sustainability of EVs, this revision is key for the e-mobility transition and can accelerate the growth of a robust recycling value chain within the EU.

While our primary focus is on elements of the ELVR directly relevant to ZEVs, we welcome the overall text and notably the decision to turn the directive into a regulation, setting a comprehensive, harmonised regulatory framework across Europe.

We welcome Chapter 5, introducing provisions on the export of used vehicles. The export ban on non-roadworthy vehicles must remain a key point. We welcome the circular economy provisions addressing the design, production and end-of-life treatment of vehicles, effective dismantling, recycled content rate and the recoverability of raw materials. Measures have been forecasted to support the market for reuse, remanufacturing and refurbishment of parts and components of a vehicle

Binding targets for the reuse, recycling and recovery of ELVs must be preserved and their practical achievability ensured. Certain aspects of the proposal require clarification:

• Potential overlaps with other existing legislations, e.g. the Batteries Regulation (BR) and the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation. To reduce excessive administrative burden it t is imperative to clearly define the interlink between the ELV passport and the Battery passport – i.e. how the information is communicated between these platforms and who has access to what information, with the aim of avoiding any redundancy, and if feasible, merging requested information behind a single QR Code. Such a tool has to take into account confidentiality of information and also differentiate on levels of data accessibility depending on stakeholder type, considering the information sharing requirements in the BR.
• The annex on roadworthiness needs refinement to ensure that non-functioning batteries will not be exported, and aligning the provisions with the BR’s article on the export of waste batteries.
• A close examination of Article 7, on the design of the removability of ‎certain parts of the vehicle, particularly in the context of EV batteries and ‎drive modes (7.2), is needed. Consistency between the BR and the ELVR needs to be ensured with clear roles and responsibilities between the different actors of the value chain (battery and vehicle manufacturers, second-life manufacturers, end-of-life operators).
• When regulating the removability and replaceability of EV batteries, safety and appropriate qualification considerations is a priority. Batteries removed from vehicles need to be directed to the right recycling channels to be treated in line with the BR.

We would also encourage co-legislators to consider:

Legacy substances dilemma: The question of whether legacy substances can be used as recycled content must be addressed in a future-proof manner. The regulation needs to anticipate the potential time gap and regulatory changes between the production of EVs and their end-of-life phase. This will help mitigate contradictions between what automakers are required to do and what must be accomplished when permitted recycling facilities receive ELVs.

Beyond the proposed regulation, we would also welcome incentives for consumers to further drive the market to ever more sustainable EVs.

Incentives for low-carbon materials: Similarly to the BR, the revision should be leveraged to incentivise the use of low-carbon materials and processes. While we support the introduction of targets for producers and public procurement provisions to increase the use of low-carbon materials such as steel and plastics to drive ever more sustainable EVs, those targets should be accompanied with incentives for producers. Beyond the proposed regulation, we would also welcome incentives for consumers to further drive the market to ever more sustainable EVs.

[1] Reusability, Recoverability, and Recyclability