• About Us
  • Our Services
    • Banking & Financial Services
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Digital & Tech
    • EU & International
    • Food & Drink
    • Green Transition, Energy & Industrials
    • Healthcare, Life Sciences & Wellbeing
    • Trade & Investment (including EU-UK)
    • Transport, Travel & Logistics
  • Our Team
    • FIPRA International
    • Special Advisors
  • FIPRA Network
  • Latest News
  • Careers
Skip to content

FIPRA

COVID-19 Resources
Search for:
Analysis

Green battery proposal: commendable ambition hindered by patchy modus operandi

By Dorothée Coucharrière
Monday, 14 December 2020
Green battery proposal: commendable ambition hindered by patchy modus operandi

The long-awaited legislative proposal of the European Commission to underpin a competitive and green battery value chain in Europe has been published. It aims to create a level playing field for battery production in Europe, serve zero mobility deployment and decarbonisation.

The proposal also intends to address the EU’s dependency on third-country extracting industries by securing access to raw materials and promoting batteries with lower environmental impact.

But this commendable ambition may well be hindered by a patchy modus operandi.    

Devil in the detail

The proposal, currently under public consultation until February 2021, has three main weaknesses:

  • It does not solve the complex question of standardisation and calculation methodologies to evaluate the performance and the carbon footprint of batteries, the efficiency of the recycling process, and the use of recycled raw materials.
  • Apart from the 6.2 million euros allocated to the Joint Research Centre, it does not give much assurance on how standardisation and evaluation will be financially sustained in the long run.
  • The proposal does not provide clarity on how the regulation will be effectively implemented across the 27 Member States.

Not to mention a rather unfortunate flaw in the definition of the subject: the proposal does not distinguish between batteries and battery cells. Every actor in the sector knows the importance of such distinction, since the production of cells demands a large amount of energy power and raw materials, with a significant impact on the lifecycle analysis of batteries.

We can therefore legitimately ask ourselves whether or not this voluminous piece of work will help establish a new framework that can champion the major goals set by the European Battery Alliance.

We can therefore legitimately ask ourselves whether or not this voluminous piece of work will help establish a new framework that can champion the major goals set by the European Battery Alliance.

– Dorothée Coucharrière

A regulatory labyrinth

Looking at the goals set by the Strategic Action Plan on Batteries, published in May 2018, the timeline of the proposed regulation seems quite challenging.

For each and every new battery put on the market after January 2024, manufacturers will have to communicate their carbon footprint, a first-of-a kind in the global battery market. But the way the best pupils will be awarded remains unclear. At least until 2027, the proposed date to set mandatory thresholds for carbon content, the question remains open.

Moreover, this new requirement regarding carbon footprint information is not yet connected to any potential future carbon adjustment market mechanism, a revised Emissions Trading System (ETS) or the Renewable Energy Directive’s guarantees of origin. This leads to a lot of uncertainty and interrogations concerning the way EU Green Deal objectives will be concretely implemented in the battery industry. Furthermore, the methodology for its calculation is not defined and will have to be set by a delegated act.

One cannot but wonder if such a regulatory labyrinth, with the same administrative burden for good and for bad pupils, might become counterproductive and increase the cost of market access for low-carbon and innovative products.

One cannot but wonder if such a regulatory labyrinth, with the same administrative burden for good and for bad pupils, might become counterproductive and increase the cost of market access for low-carbon and innovative products.

– Dorothée Coucharrière

How to address market failure

The different, new definitions are confusing. The proposal talks about “industrial”, “electric vehicles” or “automotive” batteries. If the need to distinguish between batteries for stationary storage purposes and batteries for mobility is obvious, the differentiation might lead to the creation of different markets and sub-markets, therefore compromising the necessary economies of scale.

Finally, the proposal addresses important questions related to the end of life of non-portable batteries. It gives a legal framework for the “repurposing” and the “reuse” of electric vehicle batteries, allowing the extension of their lifecycle and lowering their environmental impacts. This was a demand from car manufacturers. It might now need some adjustments on the electric market design side of the dice.

Ultimately, the new proposal intends to address market failure for battery production and recycling in Europe. However the link with necessary actions to be taken on the demand side is not very clear. The proposal was expected to be released together with the Smart and Sustainable Mobility Strategy. But they no longer seem linked, contrary to what was done with the Communication “Europe on the move” and the Strategic Action Plan on Batteries.

Securing raw material supply, absolutely key in the battery race, is not clearly addressed by the proposal and is treated only through the prism of recycling.

– Dorothée Coucharrière

No clear reward for cleaner batteries & securing raw material supply

Securing raw material supply, absolutely key in the battery race, is not clearly addressed by the proposal and is treated only through the prism of recycling.

It is doubtful that mandatory targets for recycled content of raw material willhelp create a market for a material transformation value chain to be resettled in the EU.

Meanwhile, mining companies willing to improve the lifecycle of their extracting process and social impacts are not yet incentivised by the proposal. This particular aspect will certainly need further attention, probably by the ERMA (European Raw Materials Alliance), and might need enhanced political intervention.

Also, the idea that more sustainable batteries will be put on the EU market by mere information and labelling obligations is challengeable. A lot of paperwork is demanded by the new proposal with no clear incentive neither for most advanced producers nor for end-users.  

Furthermore, the implementation of these new obligations is to be controlled by national bodies and authorities which can take time and financial means to put into place.

Last but not least, most of the crucial aspects of the proposal will be addressed through delegated and implementing acts from 2023 and onwards, to achieve goals for 2030. We can therefore expect long technical discussions while necessary rules for the European market will come late in the process.

The proposals to achieve market transparency and market control for new products requirements are very ambitious. A Europe-wide IT tool for such market information will be difficult to put in place and will require tough implementation and market surveillance to really function. This is doubtful to happen soon and evenly throughout the Member States.

The Battery Regulation proposal is a perfect example of the difficulties the EU faces when it comes to reconciling its open market approach with necessary actions to support an EU-based industry.

– Dorothée Coucharrière

The Battery Regulation proposal is a perfect example of the difficulties the EU faces when it comes to reconciling its open market approach with necessary actions to support an EU-based industry.

Hopefully this text will go through constructive discussions between the different institutions, so that it achieves the goals originally set out in its strategy without creating extra unproductive burdens for manufacturers who wish to achieve environmental and social goals.

FIPRA’s Green Transition Practice

FIPRA is expertly positioned to advise clients across sectors on the many implications of the EU’s proposal for the Sustainable Batteries Regulation. Contact our Green Transition team. 

Written by
Dorothée Coucharrière
Senior Advisor - Decarbonisation, Clean Energy, Smart Mobility
Profile
Green Transition, Energy & Industrials
Green Transition, Energy & Industrials
FIPRA advises clients in wide-ranging industries from Energy, Environment, Chemicals, Mining and beyond on meeting their climate, sustainability and business goals.
More
Latest News
  • FIPRA Network
    Dutch cabinet resigns: First overview from The Hague
    15 January 2021
  • FIPRA Network
    View from the United States: From impeachment to political reconciliation
    13 January 2021
  • Analysis
    A new era: Examining the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
    6 January 2021
  • FIPRA Network
    First look: China-EU Comprehensive Agreement of Investment spurs optimism
    6 January 2021
  • Events
    Recovery, regulation & global ties: Portugal’s leitmotiv for Council Presidency
    15 December 2020
Some of our experts
  • Jens Karsten
    Jens Karsten
    Special Advisor - Food & Farm Law
  • Dorothée  Coucharrière
    Dorothée Coucharrière
    Senior Advisor - Decarbonisation, Clean Energy, Smart Mobility
  • Alexandra  Walmsley
    Alexandra Walmsley
    Special Advisor - Defence, Nuclear
  • Geert Dancet
    Geert Dancet
    Special Advisor - Chemicals
  • JB Renard
    JB Renard
    Special Advisor - Energy
  • Avril Doyle
    Avril Doyle
    Special Advisor - Agriculture, Energy
  • Krzysztof Lisek
    Krzysztof Lisek
    Special Advisor - Defence, European Parliament
  • Jan Ahlskog
    Jan Ahlskog
    Special Advisor - Industrials, Chemicals & Environment
  • Stephanie Ayres
    Stephanie Ayres
    Special Advisor - Aerospace, Defence & Security
  • Dirk Hudig
    Dirk Hudig
    Special Advisor - Competition, Green Transition, Energy, Industrials, EU & International
  • FIPRA in Argentina
    FIPRA in Argentina
    is known locally as InfoMedia Consulting
    FIPRA in Argentina
  • FIPRA in Australia
    FIPRA in Australia
    is known locally as Richardson Coutts
    FIPRA in Australia
  • FIPRA in Austria
    FIPRA in Austria
    is known locally as PANTARHEI Corporate Advisors
    FIPRA in Austria
  • FIPRA in Belgium
    FIPRA in Belgium
    is known locally as Politics Matters
    FIPRA in Belgium
  • FIPRA in Brazil
    FIPRA in Brazil
    is known locally as JG Assis de Almeida & Associados
    FIPRA in Brazil
  • FIPRA in Canada
    FIPRA in Canada
    is known locally as Earnscliffe Strategy Group
    FIPRA in Canada
  • FIPRA in China
    FIPRA in China
    is known locally as Yuan Associates
    FIPRA in China
  • FIPRA in Croatia
    FIPRA in Croatia
    is known locally as Vlahovic Group
    FIPRA in Croatia
  • FIPRA in Czech Republic
    FIPRA in Czech Republic
    is known locally as PAN Solutions
    FIPRA in Czech Republic
  • FIPRA in Denmark
    FIPRA in Denmark
    is known locally as European Advisers
  • FIPRA in Estonia
    FIPRA in Estonia
    is known locally as META Advisory Group
    FIPRA in Estonia
  • FIPRA in France
    FIPRA in France
    is known locally as Cabinet Samman
    FIPRA in France
  • FIPRA in Georgia
    FIPRA in Georgia
    is known locally as BGI Advisory Services Group
    FIPRA in Georgia
  • FIPRA in Germany
    FIPRA in Germany
    is known locally as Miller & Meier Consulting
    FIPRA in Germany
  • FIPRA in Greece
    FIPRA in Greece
    is known locally as One Team S.A
    FIPRA in Greece
  • FIPRA in Hungary
    FIPRA in Hungary
    is known locally as CEC Government Relations Budapest
    FIPRA in Hungary
  • FIPRA in India
    FIPRA in India
    is known locally as Chase India
    FIPRA in India
  • FIPRA in Ireland
    FIPRA in Ireland
    is known locally as Vulcan Consulting
    FIPRA in Ireland
  • FIPRA in Italy
    FIPRA in Italy
    is known locally as Telos A&S
    FIPRA in Italy
  • FIPRA in Japan
    FIPRA in Japan
    is known locally as GR Japan
    FIPRA in Japan
  • FIPRA in Kazakhstan
    FIPRA in Kazakhstan
    is known locally as Kesarev
    FIPRA in Kazakhstan
  • FIPRA in Korea
    FIPRA in Korea
    is known locally as Macoll Consulting Group
    FIPRA in Korea
  • FIPRA in Kyrgyzstan
    FIPRA in Kyrgyzstan
    is known locally as Kesarev
    FIPRA in Kyrgyzstan
  • FIPRA in Latvia
    FIPRA in Latvia
    is known locally as Meta Advisory
    FIPRA in Latvia
  • FIPRA in Luxembourg
    FIPRA in Luxembourg
    is known locally as Huggard Consulting Group
    FIPRA in Luxembourg
  • FIPRA in Malta
    FIPRA in Malta
    is known locally as Maritimus Company Limited
    FIPRA in Malta
  • FIPRA in Mexico
    FIPRA in Mexico
    is known locally as InStrag
    FIPRA in Mexico
  • FIPRA in Mongolia
    FIPRA in Mongolia
    is known locally as Kesarev
    FIPRA in Mongolia
  • FIPRA in The Netherlands
    FIPRA in The Netherlands
    is known locally as Public Matters
    FIPRA in The Netherlands
  • FIPRA in Norway
    FIPRA in Norway
    is known locally as First House
    FIPRA in Norway
  • FIPRA in Poland
    FIPRA in Poland
    is known locally as CEC Government Relations
    FIPRA in Poland
  • FIPRA in Portugal
    FIPRA in Portugal
    is known locally as Initium
  • FIPRA in Russia
    FIPRA in Russia
    is known locally as Kesarev
    FIPRA in Russia
  • FIPRA in Singapore
    FIPRA in Singapore
    is known locally as Landmark Public Affairs
    FIPRA in Singapore
  • FIPRA in Slovenia
    FIPRA in Slovenia
    is known locally as MC Public Affairs Ltd
    FIPRA in Slovenia
  • FIPRA in South Africa
    FIPRA in South Africa
    is known locally as Ethicore Political Consulting
    FIPRA in South Africa
  • FIPRA in Spain
    FIPRA in Spain
    is known locally as Influence Spain
    FIPRA in Spain
  • FIPRA in Sweden
    FIPRA in Sweden
    is known locally as Hallvarsson & Halvarsson (H&H)
    FIPRA in Sweden
  • FIPRA in Switzerland
    FIPRA in Switzerland
    is known locally as Hirzel.Neef.Schmid. Consultants
    FIPRA in Switzerland
  • FIPRA in Tajikistan
    FIPRA in Tajikistan
    is known locally as Kesarev
    FIPRA in Tajikistan
  • FIPRA in Turkey
    FIPRA in Turkey
    is known locally as FIPRA Iletisim
  • FIPRA in Turkmenistan
    FIPRA in Turkmenistan
    is known locally as Kesarev
    FIPRA in Turkmenistan
  • FIPRA in Ukraine
    FIPRA in Ukraine
    is known locally as Stober Poltavets & Associates
    FIPRA in Ukraine
  • FIPRA in the United Kingdom
    FIPRA in the United Kingdom
    is known locally as Lexington Communications
    FIPRA in the United Kingdom
  • FIPRA in the United States
    FIPRA in the United States
    is known locally as Alpine Group
    FIPRA in the United States
  • FIPRA in Uzbekistan
    FIPRA in Uzbekistan
    is known locally as Kesarev
    FIPRA in Uzbekistan
FIPRA Network

FIPRA

© FIPRA 2021.
All rights reserved.

Follow us on Twitter  Find us on LinkedIn

  • Privacy Policy
Explore
  • About Us
  • Our Services
  • Our Team
  • FIPRA Network
  • Latest News
  • FIPRA Tools
  • Contact Us
Services
  • Banking & Financial Services
  • Competition & Antitrust
  • Digital & Tech
  • EU & International
  • Food & Drink
  • Green Transition, Energy & Industrials
  • Healthcare, Life Sciences & Wellbeing
  • Trade & Investment (including EU-UK)
  • Transport, Travel & Logistics
Contact

info@fipra.com

Brussels Office  map
Rue de la Loi 227
Brussels 1040
+32 (0)2 613 28 28

London Office  map
201 Borough High Street
London
SE1 1JA
+44 (0)203 805 7770

Company no: 3936157

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. To get more info on our use of cookies please see our privacy policy.AcceptRejectPrivacy policy
You can revoke your consent any time using the Revoke consent button.Revoke cookies