ARTICLE
10 June 2026

EPA Publishes Battery Recycling Best Practices Report, Federal EPR Framework To Follow

SH
Shook, Hardy & Bacon

Contributor

Shook, Hardy & Bacon has long been recognized as one of the premier litigation firms in the country. For more than a century, the firm has defended companies in their most substantial national and international products liability, mass tort and complex litigation matters.

The firm has leveraged its complex product liability litigation expertise to expand into several other practice areas and advance its mission of “being the best in the world at providing creative and practical solutions at unsurpassed value.” As a result, the firm has built nationally recognized practices in areas such as intellectual property, environmental and toxic tort, employment litigation, commercial litigation, government enforcement and compliance, and public policy.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a report to Congress addressing best practices for battery collection, recycling, labeling and consumer education...
United States Environment
Shook, Hardy & Bacon are most popular:
  • within Criminal Law, Corporate/Commercial Law and Privacy topic(s)
  • with readers working within the Basic Industries, Environment & Waste Management and Technology industries

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a report to Congress addressing best practices for battery collection, recycling, labeling and consumer education that states, tribes and local governments may implement. Required by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Pub. L. No. 117–58, 135 Stat. 429, the report focuses on approaches EPA considers technically and economically feasible, safe and environmentally sound, and optimal for ultimate recovery of critical minerals, metals and other valuable materials derived through recycling. 

EPA’s report addresses recycling best practices for a variety of battery formats, including small-format consumer electric and portable batteries, mid-format batteries (including batteries used for electric bikes, power tools/other outdoor power equipment, and portable power stations), vehicle lead-acid batteries, large-format vehicle batteries, and stationary storage large-format batteries. This analysis builds on EPA’s work in recent years to host dedicated technical and government working sessions with key stakeholders across different battery formats.

The report also catalogs the status of state-level extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws and battery collection frameworks for each of these battery types. EPR programs shift the primary managerial and financial responsibility for the entire product life cycle, including end-of-life waste management or recycling requirements, from governments to product manufacturers. EPA’s report notes that a growing number of jurisdictions have adopted EPR frameworks for batteries and electronics, contributing to an increasingly complex and fragmented compliance environment for companies operating across multiple states. According to EPA, eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of legislative battery and electronics waste EPR frameworks so far, two states have enacted battery-only EPR legislative frameworks, and 16 states have enacted electronics EPR laws.
EPA also indicates that it is working with the Department of Energy, as required by the IIJA, to develop a federal voluntary EPR framework for all battery types. EPA’s webpage on this work suggests, however, that large format electric vehicle batteries may be excluded in this initial framework proposal. EPA expects to publish its voluntary EPR framework in calendar year 2026 to cover battery recycling goals, mandatory recycling cost structures, reporting requirements, product design, and a variety of collection models. Rather than supplanting the existing patchwork of operative state-level battery and e-waste EPR laws, this forthcoming federal voluntary EPR framework will likely identify best practices and suggestions in an effort to influence future state legislation and shape producer compliance strategies nationwide. Companies that manufacture, distribute or sell battery-containing products should expect continued expansion of EPR requirements and increasing pressure to harmonize compliance across jurisdictions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More