Executive Summary
This document prepared by A123 Systems LLC (“A123”) summarizes the company’s analysis and
conclusions regarding the draft COMMISSION DIRECTIVE (EU) .../… amending Annex II to Directive
2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of life vehicles (“ELV”). While the
draft 8th Amendment to the Directive deals with multiple exemptions to the ELV Directive, this
commentary exclusively addresses exemption 5 regarding the use of lead in batteries.
In the Annex of the draft Directive under Point 5(b), “Lead in batteries for battery applications not
included in entry 5 (a)” there has been no end date set, but reference has been made to footnote (1)
that states : “ (1) This exemption shall be reviewed in 2021”.
A review process only in 2021 means in practice that the exemption to lead in batteries will be allowed
far beyond this date, ignoring the current availability of the alternative of 12V Li-ion batteries which are
already now used in a growing number of cars and are ready for mainstream adoption. Granting such a
long-term exemption to lead-acid batteries locks the vehicle industry in to an old fashioned battery
technology for many years, whilst the innovation, also used for full electric vehicles, should be
stimulated for several environmental reasons including vehicle CO2 benefits and longer battery lifetimes
leading to fewer batteries used over a vehicle’s life.
European governments are developing numerous initiatives to advance battery technology within their
own boarders and to incentive local production of lithium-ion batteries. Yet when a clear and existing
regulatory framework can be reasonably applied to achieve the same objectives with the same industry
in a different application, there appears to be strong determination to maintain the status quo.
We therefore urge the Commission, the competent Committee and the European Parliament to bring
this review date forward to 2019 or earlier and to start the review work as soon as possible in order to
support the accelerating technological transition of transport.
Background
A123, a developer and manufacturer of advanced lithium-ion batteries and systems, has been
developing lithium-ion alternatives to lead-acid starter batteries since 2009. Over the past 8 years, the
company has achieved numerous technical and commercial milestones and today its products are
offered in a steadily growing number of European passenger vehicle models. The company’s technology
has been operating successfully for more than 5 years on the roadways of Europe.
The proposal for a Commission Directive, which has been published for public consultation, represents
the culmination of a review process which began in late 2014. At the beginning of the review process,
Öko-Institut e.V. was contracted by the EU Commission to assess the state of technologies which are
candidates to replace lead in batteries. The work of the Öko-Institut began with a period for public
comment in which A123, Fraunhofer ICT, LG Chem, and Samsung SDI jointly submitted a paper
summarizing the state-of-the-art in lithium-ion battery technology relevant to starter battery
applications. This paper was published on December 17, 2014 and may be downloaded from
http://elv.exemptions.oeko.info/index.php?id=61
The statements made by our industry at the time were objective assessments of the technology status
and every technical claim could be supported by scientific evidence. At the time of the industry paper’s
publication, it was widely understood that lithium-ion starter batteries had inferior performance to leadacid batteries under extremely cold conditions. Fortunately, A123 achieved a technical breakthrough on
cold cranking power in the spring of 2015. Just 4 months after participating in the joint statements of
the lithium-ion industry, the company issued a press release highlighting a 25% increase in cold cranking
power which was sufficient to close the remaining gap to typical lead-acid performance. The press
release published by A123 in April 2015 is available at http://www.a123systems.com/da6fda44-5e1745e8-a37e-a952eac55b7b/media-room-2015-press-releases-detail.htm Furthermore, it is known and
accepted by A123 that other lithium-ion battery suppliers have also achieved outstanding progress in
their own efforts to provide cold cranking power comparable to a lead-acid battery at temperatures as
cold as -30 degC.
During the stakeholder meeting convened by the Öko-Institut, opponents of lithium-ion alternatives to
lead-acid batteries also argued that the incremental cost of lithium-ion batteries presented an economic
problem for their adoption. However, the lithium-ion industry responded by quoting from the ÖkoInstitut’s report from the previous review cycle in 2010 that “Stakeholders’ arguments about costs of
possible alternatives and standards are not relevant to the rationale of the ELV Directive. The ELV
Directive does not give grounds for a lead-use exemption to be based on economic arguments but on
basis of the unavoidability of the use of lead.” [S. Zangl, et al., Öko-Institut e.V, “Adaptation to scientific
and technical progress of Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC (ELV) and of the Annex to Directive
2002/95/EC (RoHS)”, 28 July 2010].
Unfortunately, the considerable technical progress on cold cranking power which was achieved in the
months following the industry’s official submission to the Öko-Institut in December, 2014 seems to have
not been fully considered in their final report which was published on February 17, 2016. To be clear,
the final report was published more than 10 months after A123 publicly announced significant technical
progress and presented it at multiple industry technical conferences in 2015. Specifically in section 6.2.3
of the report titled “Conclusions”, the authors begin with “The consultants can follow that the
development state of Li-ion starter batteries has changed. Though there are conflicting views, it is
understood that this technology has matured and may now provide sufficient performance in relation to
some of the OEM requirements.”
Despite this opening acknowledgment of progress among lithium-ion alternatives, the report also stated
“…we conclude that Li-Ion alternatives cannot yet be used as a mass-market alternative starter battery.
Subsequently, the use of lead-acid batteries cannot yet be considered avoidable for SLI functions.
Nonetheless, the current state of the various alternatives suggests that within a few years, the use of
lead-acid batteries may become avoidable, at least in some vehicles, with other vehicles possibly
requiring more time for implementation than others. A future review should thus be carried out within
a few years regarding the need for an exemption for starter battery applications, as with the maturing of
the various technologies it is expected that estimating the length of the needed transition period shall be
possible.”
Ultimately, in section 6.3 of the report titled “Recommendations”, the authors state “The consultants
would recommend the next review is held within 3 years.”(as from Feb 2016 when the final report was
issued). This was the specific statement within the consultants’ report which led the lithium-ion industry
to conclude that the overall technical review had been fair and balanced.
This conclusion is also loosely consistent with the timeframe suggested by the lithium-ion industry at the
beginning of the last review process. In the industry’s original report submitted to the Öko-Institut in
December, 2014, the authors wrote “… it is plausible that lithium-ion battery technology will fully close
this final [cold cranking] gap in the next three to five years.” This is the same statement that proved to
be far too conservative as the industry overcame the subject performance deficiency less than a year
after making this statement. It must also be remembered that this industry projection was made in late
2014, so the industry proposed starting the next review between 2017 and 2019.
As we now look to the regulatory proposal issued by the EU Commission on March 21, 2017, we cannot
understand how the start of the next technical review can be delayed until 2021! The technical
consultants, on whom the EU Commission appropriately relied, proposed that the next review start in
2019 and we are unaware of any publicly available consideration which should cause a delay.
Furthermore, precedent of the review cycle on this exemption 5 of the ELV directive is a technical
review every 5 years. This has been true since the beginning of the ELV directive and precedent would
dictate that a review should be completed in 2020. Just as the Öko-Institut began its request for input
during the fall of 2014 to prepare for the 2015 review, starting the next review process in 2019 would
also be logical from a historical perspective.
When considering the current proposal to start the next review process in 2021, it would seem that the
lithium-ion industry’s active participation in the last review cycle had the perverse effect of delaying the
next review, which might have started in late 2019 if nothing had been said. This is an unbelievable
result which cannot be defended by the substance of the last review process. We regard the proposal
for a review in 2021 to be a result of lobbying rather than science. The lithium-ion industry is only asking
that we not wait many more years to talk again about the very real progress that lithium-ion technology
continues to make as a completely viable alternative to the use of lead in batteries.
Perspectives on Public Commentary from the Lead-Acid Industry
We also feel compelled to respond to the position paper published by ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, EUROBAT
and ILA and submitted by several organizations in the lead-acid industry. While we acknowledge that
lithium-ion batteries have not yet been applied in high volumes, it must be clear that the electrical
architectures of the vehicles employing lithium-ion batteries have not required re-engineering to accept
the new technology. The lead-acid position paper also shows poor awareness of the technical progress
that the lithium-ion community continues to make. Now that the cold cranking challenges of lithium-ion
have been solved, the industry has turned its attention to the goal of installing our products wherever in
the vehicle the lead-acid battery is installed today. A lot has been accomplished in the last few years
since the Öko-Institut last studied this issue and more will be achieved before the next review, even if it
should come earlier than 2019.
Arguments made about the price differential between lead-acid and lithium-ion alternatives are also out
of context and grossly overstated. The lithium-ion industry’s submission to the Öko-Institut back in 2014
stated that “several lithium-ion vendors are offering fully compliant starter batteries below 300 EUR for
annual volumes of less than 500,000 units.” This volume is of course still far below the volumes enjoyed
by the lead-acid manufacturers and cost gaps will narrow further as volumes become more comparable.
Furthermore, lithium-ion costs have decreased faster than was forecasted in 2014. As for economic
impact within the EU, A123 has already opened a manufacturing plant in the Czech Republic earlier this
year and our industry colleagues are building plants in Europe as well. This localization will surely
continue as rising market volumes justify further investment.
The desire to maintain the market position of the lead-acid battery is not surprising, but it is rather
unprecedented that to achieve such a goal, the lead-acid industry seeks to limit innovation by avoiding
an open discussion of technical progress for the next 5 years. The strength of the EU automotive
industry in global innovation would never have been achieved if this had been the industrial policy in the
past.
Finally, we should not lose sight of the ELV Directive’s purpose. There is no dispute that lead is a
hazardous substance which threatens human health and it must therefore only be used when no
alternative exists. The lead-acid industry’s statement about 99% of its products being collected and
recycled also means that 1% of the enormous lead-acid market volume is ending up somewhere else in
the environment. While it’s true that lithium-ion recycling rates have not yet reached those of lead-acid,
the environmental and public health impacts of the lead-acid volume which is not recycled is far greater
than the comparable risks posed by the use of lithium-ion technology.