Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recycling Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears AB 493 on solar panel disposal and EV battery recycling; stakeholders urge more rulemaking detail
Summary
AB 493 would require decommissioning and recycling plans for utility‑scale solar and leased distributed generation (targeting a 90% material‑recovery rate by weight for recycled solar panels) and would create framework to prevent EV propulsion batteries from being disposed in municipal landfills.
The Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure received testimony on Assembly Bill 493 on April 8, which would revise how the state handles the retirement and recycling of certain solar panels and electric‑vehicle batteries.
Evelyn Butler of the Solar Energy Industries Association summarized the solar provisions. The bill requires decommissioning plans for utility‑scale solar and leased distributed generation systems, with a required material recovery rate of 90% or greater by weight for recycled solar panels and a plan to return the land to a substantially similar condition. The bill excludes ordinary homeowner‑owned systems from the decommissioning plan mandate.
Aaron Kresig of Western Resource Advocates described the bill's EV battery elements: prohibiting disposal of EV propulsion batteries in municipal landfills, designating a responsible party for handling removed propulsion batteries, promoting reuse, repurposing and remanufacturing, and ensuring batteries destined for recycling are handled to industry best practices. WRA argued the bill would help Nevada develop a circular “lithium loop” and create local economic opportunities for advanced battery recyclers.
Supporters including the Sierra Club, Nevada Conservation League and SWEEP emphasized job growth and environmental benefits. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection provided a neutral statement noting federal classifications: when discarded, lithium‑ion batteries are treated as hazardous waste under EPA rules and would fall under Nevada’s solid and hazardous waste statutes; NDEP asked for additional clarity on definitions and the regulatory roles assigned by the bill.
Several industry stakeholders raised concerns or asked for changes. California‑area and national recyclers and remanufacturers (Champion Recycling, LKQ, Redwood Materials) and vehicle‑sector representatives (Tesla, Nevada Battery Coalition, auto dealers) warned the bill’s reporting obligations and certain definitions could impose duplicative or unclear requirements, risk shifting responsibility from original equipment manufacturers to downstream recyclers, and create implementation uncertainty. LKQ said it had not been consulted on the proposed amendments and urged the committee to reject the WRA amendment as written. Redwood Materials, while supportive of the bill’s goals, said it could not support the bill as written due to potential unintended consequences on the battery supply chain. Tesla and other industry representatives requested more alignment with federal EPA rules and further stakeholder work.
Auto wreckers and secondary handlers warned that overly burdensome reporting and financial obligations could push some firms to stop accepting end‑of‑life batteries, which in turn risks improper disposal. Some recyclers and advocates asked for clearer prohibitions on smelting/incineration and for stronger worker‑safety and storage protocols. NDEP asked for clarity on definitions (for example, which types of propulsion batteries are covered and how “spent” would be defined) and cautioned that adding new regulatory entities to Nevada’s solid and hazardous waste framework would change the Division’s enforcement responsibilities.
The committee did not take a vote. Proponents and opponents said they would continue stakeholder discussions and requested expanded rulemaking workshops and clearer statutory definitions before moving the bill further.
