Senate committee hears industry and recycler concerns on bill to add EV batteries to state stewardship program

The Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 5045, which would add electric vehicle (EV) batteries to Washington’s existing battery stewardship program and require producers to participate in and fund a stewardship organization for EV batteries beginning in 2029.

The bill’s sponsor and committee staff said the measure follows earlier 2023 battery stewardship work and would require producers to submit an EV battery plan to the Department of Ecology and provide statewide collection opportunities. Supporters and opponents at the hearing agreed on the need to manage end‑of‑life batteries safely, but stakeholders differed sharply on whether to fold EV batteries into the current stewardship structure.

Matt Sheppard, staff to the committee, told members that Washington already runs several producer responsibility programs and that the 2023 law created the state battery stewardship program with phased deadlines: a statewide collection system for some portable batteries by Jan. 1, 2027, and medium‑format batteries by Jan. 1, 2029. Sheppard said the bill would “incorporate EV batteries into the existing program,” require a plan for EV batteries within two years after Ecology adopts rules, and keep Ecology’s authority under the Hazardous Waste Management Act intact. He said Ecology’s preliminary fiscal note estimated about $200,000 over four years, largely for rulemaking.

Sen. Jeff Wilson, sponsor of the bill, described the measure as “a natural progression” of earlier stewardship work and said he supports an industry‑backed approach while acknowledging that industry opposition is likely. “I must make a confession very quickly, I am an EV owner and an operator, one of the minimum of 175,000 that we least know about that are around at this time,” he said.

Multiple recycling businesses, automotive recyclers and battery‑industry representatives testified in opposition to the current draft. Heather Trim, executive director of 0 Waste Washington, urged recycling and domestic processing but said EV batteries are different from portable batteries and require distinct handling and systems. “EV batteries include lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and copper… The EV batteries were deliberately left out of Senator Stanford’s bill because they are very different,” Trim said.

Representatives of automotive recyclers and scrap yards said the bill as drafted would force current auto recyclers — many of which strip and process vehicles on existing yards — into classifications that would make it impracticable or illegal for them to accept EV batteries. Jim King of the Automotive Recyclers of Washington said, “We can’t support this bill because there was a very good reason why EV batteries and other large format batteries were taken out of the battery stewardship bill two years ago… These are big, heavy batteries. They can be difficult, even dangerous to remove from the EV.” He urged a model that makes producers responsible for transport and management.

Industry recyclers with large processing capability, including Redwood Materials, said the underlying policy intent is sound but the program framework is mismatched to EV batteries. Daniel Zotos, senior manager of public affairs and advocacy at Redwood Materials, said his company runs end‑of‑life EV processes and noted a high material recovery rate, but told the committee he was “respectfully in opposition” because “aligning battery stewardship organizations to the market‑driven dynamics of EV battery management is a mistake.”

The Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA) and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation also said they opposed the bill in its current form. PRBA’s testimony listed two principal concerns: the bill’s definition of “vehicle battery” and the use of a single battery stewardship organization (BSO) model for EV batteries. Tesla told the committee it supports the intent of producer responsibility and asked that the bill provide an option for individual EV manufacturers to run their own stewardship programs.

Peter Lyon, manager of the Department of Ecology’s Solid Waste Management Program, testified that Ecology supports the policy discussions but had provided technical suggestions. He said the bill would likely add about six months to Ecology’s ongoing battery stewardship rulemaking to allow EV‑battery stakeholders additional input, and that the schedule in current law might need minor adjustments to account for that work.

No formal action or vote occurred at the hearing; the chair closed public testimony after dozens signed in. The committee moved from the hearing into a work session on broader recycling topics.

Why it matters: EV battery volumes will grow with vehicle electrification, and state action affects who pays for collection, who handles transport and recycling, and how public safety and liability are managed. The testimony revealed significant unresolved implementation questions — especially over who must do the heavy, hazardous work of extracting, transporting and processing EV batteries — and showed broad willingness among stakeholders to continue negotiating technical fixes and potential alternative models.