Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Battery Recycling topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Assembly committee advances bill creating state program to manage end-of-life EV batteries

3860697 · June 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sen. Allen, author of SB 615, told the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee that the bill “would establish a program under the Department of Toxic Substances Control to ensure the proper management of end of life electric vehicle batteries.”

Sen. Allen, author of SB 615, told the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee that the bill “would establish a program under the Department of Toxic Substances Control to ensure the proper management of end of life electric vehicle batteries.”

The bill would create a framework for end-of-life management of EV traction batteries that combines extended producer responsibility, tracking and reporting, and certification of recyclers. Supporters said the structure aims to increase reuse, repurposing and recycling while reducing risks from mismanaged hazardous waste.

The bill matters because California has one of the nation’s largest EV fleets and committee witnesses said a wave of battery retirements is coming. Jordan Wells of the California State Association of Counties said, “California has the greatest number of registered electric vehicles or EVs in the nation with over 1,200,000 registered in 2023.” Committee testimony noted that current recovery rates are low — cited in the hearing as about 15% — and that local household hazardous waste (HHW) facilities are already receiving batteries in inconsistent ways.

Supporters described three core elements in the bill. Daniel Bridal of the Union of Concerned Scientists said SB 615 includes extended producer responsibility, tracking and reporting to prevent batteries from “slipping through the cracks,” and a requirement that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) certify recyclers to ensure safety for workers and surrounding communities. Bridal said the bill “would be the strongest and would serve as a model to other states.”

The bill would require battery suppliers to take responsibility for batteries returned under warranty or otherwise offered back to the supplier and would require entities that remove batteries from vehicles — for example auto shops or dismantlers — to manage removed batteries properly, including returning them to manufacturers, selling for reuse in energy storage, or selling to certified recyclers.

Local-government witnesses said costs and infrastructure gaps are driving the need for state-level policy. Jordan Wells said rising HHW management costs fall to local budgets and rates, and that when local facilities cannot accept batteries because they lack capacity, improper disposal and illegal dumping can result. Tony Hackett of Californians Against Waste told the committee he supported the bill and specifically thanked the author’s office for an amendment imposing a “categorical prohibition on smelting.”

Opponents described operational and liability concerns. Lizzie Kutsona of Tesla registered respectful opposition citing reasons in the company’s letter. Trade groups and some manufacturers — including witnesses for Rivian and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association — said smaller repair or powersports businesses could face burdens and asked for amendments to address safety and scope. The committee heard a mix of industry support (Ford, Redwood Materials, LKQ) and requests from some stakeholders to refine language on responsibilities and liability for entities that handle batteries.

Committee discussion touched on prior state work and the governor’s previous veto messaging around establishing producer responsibility organizations. Sen. Allen said the bill builds on prior advisory work and stakeholder feedback and that the aim is to make a workable program in collaboration with local government and industry while addressing concerns from the governor’s office.

The committee voted to pass SB 615 to the Committee on Natural Resources. The vote as recorded and announced in the hearing was 5–1 (ayes: Connelly, Bauer-Kahan, McKenner, Pappen, Lee; no: Castillo); the roll-call was left open for absentee members.

What happens next: SB 615 was referred to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources for further consideration. Supporters and the author indicated continued negotiations with industry and the governor’s office on technical amendments and implementation details.