On 26 August 2026, Vice Minister Xin Guobin of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) stated at a press conference held by the State Council Information Office that during the “Fifteenth Five-Year Plan” period (2026–2030), the government would study and draft administrative regulations relating to power battery recycling and comprehensive utilization. This policy signal comes against the backdrop of an anticipated “massive decommissioning wave”: in 2025, the comprehensive utilization volume of spent power batteries in China exceeded 400,000 tons, up 32.9% year-on-year; projections indicate that the annual generation volume will exceed 1 million tons by 2030.
The current governing instrument is the Interim Measures for the Management of Recycling and Comprehensive Utilization of Spent Power Batteries from New Energy Vehicles (“Interim Measures”), jointly issued by six departments—MIIT, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Commerce, and the State Administration for Market Regulation—which came into effect on 1 April 2026. However, the Interim Measures are already struggling to cope with the compliance pressures and market order challenges brought by the decommissioning surge. This article introduces the likely contents of the forthcoming administrative regulations, outlines the core regime of the Interim Measures, compares them with the EU Battery and Waste Batteries Regulation, and forecasts the future regulatory model.
Likely Contents of the Forthcoming Administrative Regulations
Vice Minister Xin Guobin revealed four policy signals at the press conference: 1. Legislation at the State Council level, upgrading the current departmental rules.2. Launching special joint law enforcement operations across departments to further regulate the recycling order.3. Implementing a digital identity card management system for power batteries, achieving “traceable sources and verifiable destinations”.4. Striving to achieve a comprehensive utilization volume of spent power batteries at or above the million-ton level by 2030.
The above signals indicate that battery recycling regulation will be elevated from departmental rules to administrative regulations, substantially enhancing the enforceability of extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations. Under Article 11 of the Administrative Penalty Law, administrative regulations may impose administrative penalties other than those restricting personal liberty; under Article 13, departmental rules of the State Council may only provide for warnings, circulars of criticism, or fines of a specified amount, with the ceiling to be prescribed by the State Council. Accordingly, departmental rules cannot impose higher-intensity penalties such as confiscation of unlawful gains, suspension of production or business, or revocation of permits, whereas administrative regulations may do so. This means that the types and magnitudes of penalties for failures to perform recycling obligations, unauthorized transfers of spent batteries, data falsification, and other violations will be significantly expanded.
It should be noted that EPR obligations themselves have already been established by laws such as the Law on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Wastes [ https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/fgbz/fl/202004/t20200430_777580.shtml ]; the significance of upgrading to administrative regulations lies in refining the standards for EPR performance, strengthening legal liabilities and enforcement mechanisms, thereby substantially enhancing its binding force.
The digital identity card system is expected to be an institutional upgrade of the current “New Energy Vehicle Power Battery Traceability Information Platform”. Enterprises will need to pay close attention to subsequent special rules regarding coding standards, data fields, data reporting interfaces, data retention periods, and cross-border transfer restrictions. Once implemented, this regime will establish a closed-loop data compliance framework covering the entire chain of production, sales, use, scrappage, recycling, and comprehensive utilization.
In addition, the special joint law enforcement operations mentioned at the press conference suggest that enforcement intensity may intensify in the short term even before the legislative upgrade takes effect. Enterprises should be prepared for joint inspections by environmental protection, market regulation, public security, and other multiple departments.
Core Regime and Deficiencies of the Interim Measures
The Interim Measures establish a regulatory framework centered on EPR as the “backstop”: power battery enterprises are required, by provincial administrative regions, and new energy vehicle manufacturers by prefecture-level administrative regions, to establish or entrust the establishment of recycling service outlets matching sales volumes and to make such outlets publicly known; they may not refuse to accept spent batteries transferred by battery-swapping enterprises or repair and maintenance enterprises; upon division, merger, or termination, enterprises must make succession arrangements for recycling obligations (Articles 14–17). The Measures also provide for eco-design obligations (batteries to be coded in accordance with GB/T 34014, vehicle manufacturers to use easily detachable connection components and disclose maintenance technical information), the “vehicle-battery integrated scrappage” principle (except for battery-swapping models), a prohibition on the use of spent power batteries, whether directly or after processing, in electric bicycles and other specified fields, and whole-lifecycle flow reporting through the national New Energy Vehicle Power Battery Traceability Information Platform.
The most forward-looking provision of the Interim Measures is Article 12: the State establishes a digital identity card management system for power batteries, covering product category, product composition, scrappage and recycling information, with specific rules to be prescribed separately. This is precisely the implementing basis for the “implementation of a digital identity card management system” referred to in the administrative regulations mentioned in the 26 August press conference.
The penalty provisions of the Interim Measures are relatively weak: they are limited to orders for rectification, warnings, and fines, with relatively low penalty amounts (e.g., Article 36 provides for a fine of only RMB 10,000 to 30,000, approximately US$ 1,488 to 4,464). This is not a legislative oversight, but rather a direct reflection of the limitation on rule-making authority under Article 13 of the Administrative Penalty Law. The insufficient deterrent effect of fines (the compliance recycling rate was previously below 25%, with a large volume of batteries flowing to small workshops), the weak legal basis for cross-departmental enforcement, and the regulatory gaps for new business models such as battery swapping are precisely the core issues that the upgrade to administrative regulations is intended to address.
Beyond the penalty issues, the Interim Measures have also failed to effectively resolve the following problems:
1. The cumbersome approval procedures for cross-provincial transfers of spent batteries result in high compliance costs, leading some enterprises to circumvent formal channels.
2. The legal status of “white-list” enterprises versus non-white-list enterprises remains unclear, and the order of market competition awaits regulation.
3. The responsible entities and boundaries of responsibility for new business models such as battery swapping, energy storage, and echelon utilization remain unclear.
4. The boundary between traceability data reporting and the protection of trade secrets is not clearly defined, affecting enterprises’ willingness to report.
Comparison with the EU Battery and Waste Batteries Regulation
The EU Battery and Waste Batteries Regulation is centered on “information disclosure + proportional targets + due diligence review”: it sets out carbon footprint declaration and performance class requirements for the full lifecycle of batteries, and authorizes the subsequent setting of maximum carbon footprint thresholds; it establishes mandatory recycled content proportions; it imposes supply chain due diligence obligations; and it achieves transparency to the market and regulators through “battery passports”. Its core objective is “proof of sustainability throughout the battery lifecycle.”
China’s regulatory orientation is markedly different: it is centered on “flow control + producer backstop + standard list of backbone enterprises”, addressing the order issue of “where recycling goes”. The digital identity card (an internal regulatory closed loop) and the battery passport (transparency to the market) are typical manifestations of the two different design approaches.
It is worth noting that the scopes of application differ: the EU Regulation covers multiple types of batteries, including portable batteries, light means of transport batteries, starting batteries, industrial batteries, and electric vehicle batteries; China’s Interim Measures currently focus primarily on spent power batteries from new energy vehicles, with energy storage batteries and others possibly subject to separate rules. This difference should be borne in mind when making direct comparisons.
With respect to the three “hard targets” of the EU—mandatory recycled content proportions, carbon footprint thresholds, and supply chain due diligence—China currently has no corresponding provisions. It is not inconceivable that the future draft administrative regulations may draw partial inspiration from the EU experience, but they are more likely to consider China’s industrial realities and priorities the resolution of recycling rates and flow control issues.
In terms of data mutual recognition, China’s digital identity card reporting obligations operate in parallel with the EU’s battery passport, carbon footprint, and due diligence obligations. If Chinese battery enterprises are simultaneously targeting the EU market, they should pay attention to the following key cross-border compliance issues:
1. Methodology for calculating recycled content: whether standards such as physical isolation, mass balance, and definitions of recycling utilization rates are mutually recognized.
2. Choice of carbon footprint database: it remains unclear whether to use China’s domestic databases or EU-recognized databases.
3. Data export: cross-border transmission of traceability data, carbon footprint data, and supply chain information may trigger security assessments under the Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law.
4. Balancing trade secrets with data disclosure on government platforms: the EU Battery Passport requires the disclosure of certain data, whereas China’s traceability platform is intended for regulatory purposes—how the two are to be reconciled remains to be clarified.
In addition, Japan’s Battery Recycling Act and EPR legislation in certain U.S. states are also progressing, with major global markets showing a convergent trend toward high-level unified legislation, digital full-lifecycle traceability, and strengthened EPR.
Summary and Outlook
China’s power battery recycling legal framework has now taken the shape of “general laws such as the Law on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Wastes + the Interim Measures + the traceability platform and industry standard documents”, with EPR backstop, flow traceability, and outlet disclosure as the core instruments. The Interim Measures effectively serve as a “legislative testing ground and transitional norm.”
It can be predicted that the forthcoming administrative regulations will: 1) take the digital identity card system as the main axis to build a closed-loop full-lifecycle data compliance framework; 2) substantially increase the severity of penalties, adding penalty types such as confiscation of unlawful gains, suspension of production or business, and revocation of permits, in line with the 2030 million-ton comprehensive utilization target; 3) strengthen joint departmental enforcement, clarifying the division of responsibilities among MIIT, ecology and environment, market regulation, public security, and other departments; 4) not rule out partial borrowing from EU experience in respect of recycled content proportions and carbon footprint disclosure.
It is recommended that relevant enterprises conduct self-assessments of recycling outlet and traceability reporting compliance in light of the scenario of “enhanced penalties and intensified joint enforcement”.
The current governing instrument is the Interim Measures for the Management of Recycling and Comprehensive Utilization of Spent Power Batteries from New Energy Vehicles (“Interim Measures”), jointly issued by six departments—MIIT, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Commerce, and the State Administration for Market Regulation—which came into effect on 1 April 2026. However, the Interim Measures are already struggling to cope with the compliance pressures and market order challenges brought by the decommissioning surge. This article introduces the likely contents of the forthcoming administrative regulations, outlines the core regime of the Interim Measures, compares them with the EU Battery and Waste Batteries Regulation, and forecasts the future regulatory model.
Likely Contents of the Forthcoming Administrative Regulations
Vice Minister Xin Guobin revealed four policy signals at the press conference: 1. Legislation at the State Council level, upgrading the current departmental rules.2. Launching special joint law enforcement operations across departments to further regulate the recycling order.3. Implementing a digital identity card management system for power batteries, achieving “traceable sources and verifiable destinations”.4. Striving to achieve a comprehensive utilization volume of spent power batteries at or above the million-ton level by 2030.
The above signals indicate that battery recycling regulation will be elevated from departmental rules to administrative regulations, substantially enhancing the enforceability of extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations. Under Article 11 of the Administrative Penalty Law, administrative regulations may impose administrative penalties other than those restricting personal liberty; under Article 13, departmental rules of the State Council may only provide for warnings, circulars of criticism, or fines of a specified amount, with the ceiling to be prescribed by the State Council. Accordingly, departmental rules cannot impose higher-intensity penalties such as confiscation of unlawful gains, suspension of production or business, or revocation of permits, whereas administrative regulations may do so. This means that the types and magnitudes of penalties for failures to perform recycling obligations, unauthorized transfers of spent batteries, data falsification, and other violations will be significantly expanded.
It should be noted that EPR obligations themselves have already been established by laws such as the Law on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Wastes [ https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/fgbz/fl/202004/t20200430_777580.shtml ]; the significance of upgrading to administrative regulations lies in refining the standards for EPR performance, strengthening legal liabilities and enforcement mechanisms, thereby substantially enhancing its binding force.
The digital identity card system is expected to be an institutional upgrade of the current “New Energy Vehicle Power Battery Traceability Information Platform”. Enterprises will need to pay close attention to subsequent special rules regarding coding standards, data fields, data reporting interfaces, data retention periods, and cross-border transfer restrictions. Once implemented, this regime will establish a closed-loop data compliance framework covering the entire chain of production, sales, use, scrappage, recycling, and comprehensive utilization.
In addition, the special joint law enforcement operations mentioned at the press conference suggest that enforcement intensity may intensify in the short term even before the legislative upgrade takes effect. Enterprises should be prepared for joint inspections by environmental protection, market regulation, public security, and other multiple departments.
Core Regime and Deficiencies of the Interim Measures
The Interim Measures establish a regulatory framework centered on EPR as the “backstop”: power battery enterprises are required, by provincial administrative regions, and new energy vehicle manufacturers by prefecture-level administrative regions, to establish or entrust the establishment of recycling service outlets matching sales volumes and to make such outlets publicly known; they may not refuse to accept spent batteries transferred by battery-swapping enterprises or repair and maintenance enterprises; upon division, merger, or termination, enterprises must make succession arrangements for recycling obligations (Articles 14–17). The Measures also provide for eco-design obligations (batteries to be coded in accordance with GB/T 34014, vehicle manufacturers to use easily detachable connection components and disclose maintenance technical information), the “vehicle-battery integrated scrappage” principle (except for battery-swapping models), a prohibition on the use of spent power batteries, whether directly or after processing, in electric bicycles and other specified fields, and whole-lifecycle flow reporting through the national New Energy Vehicle Power Battery Traceability Information Platform.
The most forward-looking provision of the Interim Measures is Article 12: the State establishes a digital identity card management system for power batteries, covering product category, product composition, scrappage and recycling information, with specific rules to be prescribed separately. This is precisely the implementing basis for the “implementation of a digital identity card management system” referred to in the administrative regulations mentioned in the 26 August press conference.
The penalty provisions of the Interim Measures are relatively weak: they are limited to orders for rectification, warnings, and fines, with relatively low penalty amounts (e.g., Article 36 provides for a fine of only RMB 10,000 to 30,000, approximately US$ 1,488 to 4,464). This is not a legislative oversight, but rather a direct reflection of the limitation on rule-making authority under Article 13 of the Administrative Penalty Law. The insufficient deterrent effect of fines (the compliance recycling rate was previously below 25%, with a large volume of batteries flowing to small workshops), the weak legal basis for cross-departmental enforcement, and the regulatory gaps for new business models such as battery swapping are precisely the core issues that the upgrade to administrative regulations is intended to address.
Beyond the penalty issues, the Interim Measures have also failed to effectively resolve the following problems:
1. The cumbersome approval procedures for cross-provincial transfers of spent batteries result in high compliance costs, leading some enterprises to circumvent formal channels.
2. The legal status of “white-list” enterprises versus non-white-list enterprises remains unclear, and the order of market competition awaits regulation.
3. The responsible entities and boundaries of responsibility for new business models such as battery swapping, energy storage, and echelon utilization remain unclear.
4. The boundary between traceability data reporting and the protection of trade secrets is not clearly defined, affecting enterprises’ willingness to report.
Comparison with the EU Battery and Waste Batteries Regulation
The EU Battery and Waste Batteries Regulation is centered on “information disclosure + proportional targets + due diligence review”: it sets out carbon footprint declaration and performance class requirements for the full lifecycle of batteries, and authorizes the subsequent setting of maximum carbon footprint thresholds; it establishes mandatory recycled content proportions; it imposes supply chain due diligence obligations; and it achieves transparency to the market and regulators through “battery passports”. Its core objective is “proof of sustainability throughout the battery lifecycle.”
China’s regulatory orientation is markedly different: it is centered on “flow control + producer backstop + standard list of backbone enterprises”, addressing the order issue of “where recycling goes”. The digital identity card (an internal regulatory closed loop) and the battery passport (transparency to the market) are typical manifestations of the two different design approaches.
It is worth noting that the scopes of application differ: the EU Regulation covers multiple types of batteries, including portable batteries, light means of transport batteries, starting batteries, industrial batteries, and electric vehicle batteries; China’s Interim Measures currently focus primarily on spent power batteries from new energy vehicles, with energy storage batteries and others possibly subject to separate rules. This difference should be borne in mind when making direct comparisons.
With respect to the three “hard targets” of the EU—mandatory recycled content proportions, carbon footprint thresholds, and supply chain due diligence—China currently has no corresponding provisions. It is not inconceivable that the future draft administrative regulations may draw partial inspiration from the EU experience, but they are more likely to consider China’s industrial realities and priorities the resolution of recycling rates and flow control issues.
In terms of data mutual recognition, China’s digital identity card reporting obligations operate in parallel with the EU’s battery passport, carbon footprint, and due diligence obligations. If Chinese battery enterprises are simultaneously targeting the EU market, they should pay attention to the following key cross-border compliance issues:
1. Methodology for calculating recycled content: whether standards such as physical isolation, mass balance, and definitions of recycling utilization rates are mutually recognized.
2. Choice of carbon footprint database: it remains unclear whether to use China’s domestic databases or EU-recognized databases.
3. Data export: cross-border transmission of traceability data, carbon footprint data, and supply chain information may trigger security assessments under the Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law.
4. Balancing trade secrets with data disclosure on government platforms: the EU Battery Passport requires the disclosure of certain data, whereas China’s traceability platform is intended for regulatory purposes—how the two are to be reconciled remains to be clarified.
In addition, Japan’s Battery Recycling Act and EPR legislation in certain U.S. states are also progressing, with major global markets showing a convergent trend toward high-level unified legislation, digital full-lifecycle traceability, and strengthened EPR.
Summary and Outlook
China’s power battery recycling legal framework has now taken the shape of “general laws such as the Law on the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Wastes + the Interim Measures + the traceability platform and industry standard documents”, with EPR backstop, flow traceability, and outlet disclosure as the core instruments. The Interim Measures effectively serve as a “legislative testing ground and transitional norm.”
It can be predicted that the forthcoming administrative regulations will: 1) take the digital identity card system as the main axis to build a closed-loop full-lifecycle data compliance framework; 2) substantially increase the severity of penalties, adding penalty types such as confiscation of unlawful gains, suspension of production or business, and revocation of permits, in line with the 2030 million-ton comprehensive utilization target; 3) strengthen joint departmental enforcement, clarifying the division of responsibilities among MIIT, ecology and environment, market regulation, public security, and other departments; 4) not rule out partial borrowing from EU experience in respect of recycled content proportions and carbon footprint disclosure.
It is recommended that relevant enterprises conduct self-assessments of recycling outlet and traceability reporting compliance in light of the scenario of “enhanced penalties and intensified joint enforcement”.