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

The European Commission’s proposed Critical Raw Materials Act is a much-needed initiative in today’s world. Demand for critical raw materials (CRMs) will continue to increase, in order to underpin a sustainable transport system in the near future. Indeed, the proposed Act aims to ensure the sustainable supply of those CRMs essential for electric mobility-enabling sectors, electric cars themselves and renewable energy technologies. We particularly welcome the Act’s efforts to balance resilience, security of supply and environmental protection with the new focus on refining and remining, which are crucial steps in producing and securing CRMs. ‘Refining’ refers to the process of purifying raw materials, which can reduce the waste and environmental impact of their extraction. ‘Remining’, meanwhile, involves the extraction of raw materials from the waste or by-products generated during the production process or from legacy mining sites.

Furthermore, the Act also stresses the importance of the responsible extraction and processing of CRMs. This includes promoting the use of new and innovative technologies for reducing the environmental impact of extraction and processing activities. By adopting these measures, the European Union (EU) can lead the way in sustainable mining practices, while also ensuring the ongoing availability of critical raw materials for the production of high-tech products. These measures will also help reduce the dependency of the EU on raw materials sourced from outside its borders, thereby ensuring a stable, sustainable and secure supply of these much-needed CRMs.

For these reasons, the CRMs Act proposed by the European Commission is a generally welcome initiative, one which can help ensure the sustainable supply of critical raw materials. However, the following addition improvements, proposed by all members of the Platform for electromobility, from NGOs to industries, should be considered by co-legislators:

Conclusion

The CRM Act proposed by the European Commission is a much-needed step in securing the supply of raw materials essential to the EU’s economic and strategic interests. The Act acknowledges the increasing demand for critical raw materials, as well as their limited availability, and aims to establish a comprehensive framework for ensuring their sustainable and responsible sourcing.

However, there are some concerns and reservations that need to be addressed to ensure that the Act is fully effective. First, it must balance the need to secure critical raw materials against environmental and social sustainability, as well taking account of ethical considerations. In addition, it is essential to ensure that the implementation of the Act does not lead to trade barriers or lead to unfair competition that could ultimately harm the EU’s industrial competitiveness.

Careful consideration and monitoring are needed to ensure that the implementation of the CRM Act is effective, sustainable and equitable. By addressing these concerns and reservations, the EU can pave the way for a more resilient and sustainable supply chain for critical raw materials, while upholding its values and commitments.

The vital transition away from fossil fuels to cleaner technologies such as electric transportation – cars, trucks, buses, trains and public transport – will drive the demand for raw materials. Lithium, nickel, copper and cobalt will all be required in varying amounts depending on the technologies and applications.

Whilst certain Critical Raw Materials (CRMs) are accessible on the EU territory, Europe remains largely dependent on third countries for mining, processing, refining and recycling. This dependency has been accentuated by current geopolitical events and supply chain tensions, which have led to volatility, increasing prices and uncertainties over global supply. For this reason, we strongly welcome the principle of today’s Commission’s CRM Act, and we will shortly publish a detailed assessment from the perspective of the electromobility ecosystem.

Three clear flaws for Europe on CRMs

In light of the urgently required transition to e-mobility, and the need to ramp up a domestic Electric Vehicle (EV) value chain in Europe, there is a clear flaw; the EU is primarily deficient in domestic capacity beyond that of battery manufacturing. It lacks access to resources to extract, and – critically – the capacity to refine and process, as well as to recycle. Such processes are still undertaken almost entirely in resource-rich, more experienced and more competitive third countries. This is endangering both Europe’s autonomy in CRMs and the respect of the upmost environmental standards.

It is therefore vital that Europe builds its own processing and refining capacity for battery materials, using existing domestic sources of valuable materials. Europe must also increase its recycling capability and competitiveness in order to reduce the EU’s dependence on primary raw materials.

The second flaw is the excessive hurdles to the permitting. In particular, the range of mining codes that exist in Europe creates incoherence and differences in the levels of ambition between Member States, which in some cases may threaten safeguards to social and/or environmental protection. The processes for granting permits becomes excessively lengthy when multiple permits are needed for both renewable energy production and for sustainable mineral extraction projects.

The third flaw is the limited availability of sustainably sourced, highest quality materials, in no small part due to incomplete and limited mapping of geological and remining potentials. There are also barriers to the reuse and repurposing of EV parts, which could extend the lifespan of CRMs prior to recycling, thereby reducing the overall demand for CRMs. Member States lack the expert capacity to ensure the efficient, robust and timely evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessments and Area Assessments.

The vital transition away from fossil fuels towards cleaner technologies for transport  will drive, depending on the technology, the demand for raw materials like lithium, nickel. Whilst some CRMs are available in the EU, Europe is largely dependent on third countries for mining, processing, refining and recycling, even more so in the case of batteries needed for EVs and considering the current geostrategic tensions. We would therefore strongly welcome a CRM package beginning of 2023 to tackle our three concerns:

With the e-mobility transition, the EU is lacking an EV value chain beyond battery manufacturing – i.e. extraction, refining, processing, and recycling, which today is located in third countries – and a coherent approach of using existing EU sources of battery materials.

Hurdles to permitting is due to a) the plurality of mining codes in Europe bringing different levels of ambition and lack of coherence across Member States. This leads to, in some cases, not having any safeguards in relation to social or environmental protection; b) lengthy permitting processes when multiple permits are required for both renewable energy production and sustainable mineral extraction projects; c) lack of expert capacity to ensure the efficient, robust and timely evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessments and Area Assessments.

Limited amounts of sustainably sourced materials, notably due to limited geological mapping of available resources. Barriers also exist to the reuse and repurposing of EV parts that could extend the lifecycle of CRMs before recycling.

Include a single strategy on raw materials that defines expected needs, challenges, priorities and key lines of action with specific objectives of reducing the need of primary CRMs, with efficient reuse and recycle.

Assess the need of stockpiling mechanisms.

Provide financial, political support (e.g. tax reductions) to economic actors meeting the highest existing environmental and social standards. For EU-sourced material, the initiative would then work in relation with the package of environmental policies that control impacts from its domestic mining and refining operations and the high EU social standards.

Incentivise keeping valuable battery material in Europe, available for domestic recyclers, justifying their investments in EU today and incentivise the recycling of production scrap and blackmass/BAMM in EU.

Ensure the sustainability of CRMs by addressing adverse environmental and social impacts of their production or recycling. For imports, supply should come from responsible sources with robust certification, due diligence rules setting legal requirements for suppliers to control risk across their supply chains.

Support geological surveys to determine accessibility of domestic resources, including waste.

Mandate specific marking for any product containing CRMs to facilitate their recovery and recycling.

Streamline robust permitting processes without undermining existing environmental laws and in compliance of ESG criteria.

Support permitting authorities with additional expert capacities.

Digitalize permitting processes to ensure transparency and full engagement from project developers to local communities.

Support financially the development of recycling capacities as all recycling activities are not financially viable today due to the low cost of some primary resources. Support for the development of recycling capacities is indeed crucial to the circularity and sustainability aspect of CRM sourcing.

 Ensure consistency across different pieces of legislation – notably the proposed lithium salts classification – and make sense of the needs of the CRM demand sector.

Give the ERMAlliance the overall view of EU levers and make it a driving force behind the implementation of the strategy.

With the de facto ban on sale of ICE vehicles voted earlier this year, the argument on switching vehicles to zero emission has won in Europe. There is widespread agreement and more importantly concrete policies and targets at the EU and Member State level setting the trajectories for this to happen.

However, for the EU to continue leading the way internationally, to ensure industry produces electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure (passenger cars but also heavy-duty vehicles, collective transport modes and upcoming innovative modes) that both enable the green transition and set the foundation for resilience in an uncertain future, a more holistic approach to sustainable transport and resource flows must be adopted. This should be done by incorporating in the zero-emissions tailpipe approach, another approach with circularity and other planetary boundary impacts from transportation life cycles.

With the Sustainable Product Initiative, the European Commission (EC) gave co-legislators the opportunity to reward more sustainable behaviours in manufacturing by linking incentives to sustainability of materials. The Parliament and the Council must therefore take the opportunity to put in place a supportive framework that incentivises future improvement of EV design and promotes circular value chains.

Innovations in battery technology and manufacturing as well as opportunities to reuse and recycle batteries and other high-value and impact components of electric vehicles (EVs) are already projected to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the lifetime of an electric vehicle: Transport & Environment have analysed EV life cycle CO2 emissions, finding that, on average, EVs are already three times cleaner than an ICE equivalent.^[1] But while all vehicles on European roads will be zero emission, the policy framework will need to incentivise further innovations and improvements in recovery, recycling and re-using components and secondary raw materials.

To reach Europe’s 2050 climate objectives, it is necessary that all vehicles on the road are zero emission. But in addition, continuous improvement in sustainability beyond CO2 (reduction and prevention of impact to water use, biodiversity and other planetary boundaries from the materials chosen and processes undertaken) of vehicles is also vital. European legislation should therefore endeavour to support:

• Innovations in materials, manufacturing and processes that improve both products and production processes sustainability.
• Research and innovation in industrially co-generated materials, e.g., industrial by-products and residues, and materials generated from secondary sources to mitigate the use of natural resources and avoid unnecessary landfilling).
• Advancement in the uptake of sustainably superior materials, e.g., recyclable composite materials and low- and carbon-neutral metals for vehicle body panels and parts.

We therefore call the EC to consider the following policy recommendations:

1. Support the advancement of sustainable and circular products across the value chain, including investment into advanced ELV management focusing on harvesting parts for circulation, advanced disassembly for sorting and separation and recycling with the intention of closing resource loops within the EU.
2. Focus on the precise sustainability performance of final products by providing a definition to differentiate the product from components and materials.
3. Review the information requirements along the product supply chain between business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumers (B2C) products, components and materials.
4. Pivot support schemes including incentives to take into account a lifecycle analysis (LCA) approach, going beyond just tailpipe emissions to include design, components, targets for low-carbon and carbon-neutral materials and production processes and systems for component and material value retention.
5. Target incentives to the most sustainable vehicles – for example on the basis of their energy efficiency (km/kWh) and through life utilisation.

If the European Commission desires to continue to lead on sustainability and specifically circular economy topics we see the sustainable product initiative as a unique and well-timed opportunity to set the basis for significant advancement alongside Industry.

[1] T&E, ‘How Clean are Electric Cars?’, 2022.

For Europe to become carbon neutral by 2050, road transport needs to be entirely decarbonised by this date. Considering the average retirement age of petrol and diesel vehicles in Europe (around 15 years), the Platform for Electromobility believes that an EU-wide phase-out date for sales of new pure internal combustion engine passenger cars and vans no later than 2035 is necessary to achieve this objective with a clear emissions reductions trajectory.

Last year, the sales of new BEV accounted for 5.3% of the total (1). In other words, European market will need to grow from 530.000 battery cars today to around 16 million in less than 15 years.

Considering that to produce the corresponding amount of battery cells will require huge quantity of critical raw materials. There are several critical raw materials for which these market requirements mean a significant challenge. For example, major manufacturers (2) have already announced they will not use Ni in their entry level models. On average, it takes 10 years from taking the internal decision to have a new mine in operation. Accelerating the recycling capacities is therefore key for the deployment of accessible and sustainable electric vehicles (LDVs and HDVs alike).

Yet, in 2014, 4.66 million end-of-life vehicles (ELV), representing 39% of the total vehicles being decommissioned, were at ‘unknown whereabouts’ (3). From 2007 at least, the ‘unknown whereabouts’ share has remained at a constant level4. The two main elements that explain most of the issue with ELVs at ‘unknown whereabouts’ are vehicle dismantling at illegal sites, and exporting of ELVs outside of Europe as used cars.

Consequently, it’s of key relevance for the deployment of electromobility and to reach 2030 and 2050 EU climate goals not to spoil 39% of used batteries from future EU battery ELVs. Reinserting those ELV into the recycling system will reduce the stress of primary production as well as cost impact and a potential slowdown of the BEV uptake by lack of affordable materials.

While it is true that vehicle registration procedures are the national competence of the Member States, each EU legal act has to comply with two fundamental principles laid down in the Treaty on European Union, proportionality and subsidiarity. The content and scope of EU action may not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. Also, given that transport is a shared competence, the EU may act only if — and in so far as — the objective of a proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the EU countries, but could be better achieved at EU level.

As Member States have not been able to reduce since 2007 the number of ELVs at unknown whereabouts, the Platform for electromobility proposes to introduce the following dispositions in the revised ELVD:

• Registering any road transport vehicle – including heavy-duty – when the owner is a resident (or registered company) in that Member State will have a large and cost effective impact on reducing the amount ‘unknown whereabouts’. By doing so, vehicle owners will face at least two payment obligations (i.e. insurance and Periodical Technical Inspection – PTI). Owners will therefore be incentivised financially to send the vehicle to an authorised treatment facility (ATF) when it reaches its end of life and therefore avoid those costs.
• Provide necessary safeguards to avoid as much as possible temporary deregistration that currently causes loopholes and increase the amount of ‘unknown whereabouts’
• In case of sale in the same Member State, or change of ownership (typically to its insurance company), the new owner will have to be updated in the vehicle registration system.
• It will only be possible to deregister a vehicle under one of the following circumstances:
  • Destruction, after presenting a certification of destruction (CoD) issued by an ATF.
  • Export within the EU, after presenting the certificate of having been registered in the second Member State.
  • Export outside the EU, after presenting the customs declaration for export.
  • Theft, after presenting the police report. If the vehicle was recovered, the vehicle will beregistered again to its legitimate owner.
• Additionally, it should be made compulsory to have a valid roadworthiness certificate for a vehicle to be exported outside EU as used car.

To achieve the ambitious but necessary objective of decarbonizing road transport by 2050, transport must be seen holistically and therefore all upcoming legislations should, like the End-of-Life of Vehicles Directive revision, should consider needs that a fast and sustainable uptake of electromobility requires.

During current trilogue negotiation on the Battery Regulation between institutions, we welcome several changes introduced by the European Parliament (EP) and Council. Notably, we support:

✓ The change of scope for the carbon footprint declaration per battery model and plant, rather than per batch, as initially proposed by the Commission.
✓ In the EP text, ambitious deadlines for recycling and material recovery conditions for batteries on the European market whether they are imported or not.
✓ We welcome the emphasis on the waste hierarchy and the clarification on reuse of batteries when available on the market, notably the explicit transfer of Extended Producer Responsibility from producer to second user.
✓ Both texts base due diligence obligations on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and that both EP and Council have strengthened the environmental risk categories in Annex X.
✓ The Grandfathering clause for spare parts proposed in the EP text.

We have however reservations and will remain vigilant on the following points:

Timeline & targets
The innovative approach of this regulation requiring multiple new sustainability criteria declaration and control, accompanied by close to 40 currently unknown secondary acts, is a first in terms of implementation.
➢ Recommendation: ample resources should be dedicated by lawmakers to ensure that the proposed targets and timelines for the implementation of the new sustainability criteria can be met.

Guarantee of origins
Concerns over the explicit possibility in the Council text to use guarantees of origin alone as proof of clean and renewable energy for the purposes of the battery carbon footprint calculations.

Recycling and end of life
Binding recycling content should always go hand in hand with a careful assessment of the environmental costs and benefits, and compatible with the real technological state of the art and availability of recycled materials.
Further, availability of batteries for second life must be considered. We would like to stress that EV batteries should always be handled by professionals with a certain level of qualification, and that the same goes for potential EV battery waste. Minimum conditions for battery recycling outside Europe should be ensured, accompanied by a deadline for when such conditions must be established. This can help to get extra-EU battery recycling industry ready for incoming EOL battery volumes.
➢ Recommendation: Recycling targets in Article 57, Annex XII must be brought forward in the Council text (in line with the timelines proposes by the Commission) to reflect the vital need for a domestic supply of raw materials. At the same time, the possibilities for reuse must be clarified as more EV batteries are available for second life.
The substances needed for EV batteries should always remain in a waste loop. Future potential restrictions of substances must take into consideration the strategic autonomy objective of the EU battery sector, the performance of EV batteries and the closed loop of the substances needed for batteries. In addition, second-life batteries should not be exempted from obligations on performances and durability.

Removability
We want to highlight the significant technical difficulties, safety and performance challenges coming with the EP’s proposed removability and replaceability requirements for EV and industrial batteries at cell level. Such requirements would remove any incentive or space to innovate and contradicts the idea of longer lasting and better performing batteries if battery pack designs are not allowed to change over time.
➢ Recommendation: we do not support the extension of the removability and replaceability requirements to all batteries at cell level, as they would threaten the performance, safety, and technical integrity of the whole battery. We therefore call on maintaining the Commission’s current article 11 setting removability and replaceability requirements for portable batteries only.