EU Versus US Scope for Batteries and the Passport

EU and US scope for batteries differ in structure before they differ in detail, because the EU has a single Regulation with a single scope article, while the United States has no federal battery scope article and instead has a set of state scopes, each with its own definitions, thresholds and exclusions. A comparison that lists EU and US duties side by side without stating the structural difference will mislead, because it will imply a single US position where none exists. The correct comparison starts from structure, then moves to the EU scope, then to the state scope pattern, and only then to a worked example such as California, labelled as an example rather than as the US position.

The scope is a structural comparison, read as checked on 28 October 2026, with California used as the example state. The guide does not state the scope law of any other state.

How is EU scope structured?

EU scope is structured as a single article, Article 1, applying to all batteries in the categories defined in Article 3, subject to the limited exclusion wording described in the specialist scope guide. The single structure means that a battery classified once under the EU definitions carries that classification across the EU, subject to national producer registration and market surveillance arrangements that operate within the single Regulation. The passport duty then applies as a narrower test within that scope, by category, capacity and date, and a battery inside EU scope but outside the passport test still carries other duties. The single scope, multiple duty structure is the EU pattern, and it should be stated in every EU scope note.

How is US scope structured?

US scope is structured as a set of state scopes, with each state defining its own covered batteries, its own producer definition and its own thresholds. A battery can be covered in one state and uncovered in another, covered as a portable battery in one state and as an embedded battery in another, or covered under a stewardship law in one state and under an e waste law in another. The state pattern means that a US scope note must name the state, the law, the definitions and the thresholds, and a note that states a US scope conclusion without a state label is incomplete. The state register is the US equivalent of the single EU scope article, and it needs the same care in maintenance.

What does the California example show about scope?

The California example shows scope by weight, chemistry and product type, with AB 2440 covering most batteries sold in California subject to exclusions for batteries over a certain weight and batteries in medical devices, cars and bicycles, and SB 1215 covering battery embedded products subject to its own definitions. The example shows that scope can turn on design details, such as whether a battery is easily removable, because removability decides whether a product falls under the stewardship regime or the e waste regime. The example also shows that scope dates matter, because the stewardship programmes and the fee and reporting duties start on different dates. A scope note for California should therefore record weight, removability, product type and date, not only battery type.

What does a structural comparison table look like?

A structural comparison table keeps the system pattern visible, so that the reader does not mistake an example for a system. The table below states the patterns in general terms.

How should a business map scope for both systems?

A business should map scope for both systems in two documents, an EU scope note and a US state register, linked by battery identifier and kept apart by jurisdiction. The EU note should state the Article 1 reading, the Article 3 category, the Article 77 tests and the conclusion, with dates. The US register should state, for each state of sale, the law, the definitions, the thresholds, the producer position and the start date, with a recheck date. The two documents should be updated together when a battery changes, but they should never be merged into a single scope conclusion, because the systems answer different questions in different structures.

What is uncertain in a US scope mapping?

Uncertainty in a US scope mapping arises from new state laws, from rulemaking that is still in progress, and from design details that move a product between regimes. Each uncertainty should be recorded in the state register with the state, the law, the uncertain point and the recheck date, rather than being resolved by assumption. A register that records uncertainty is more reliable than a register that states a firm conclusion for a state whose rulemaking is incomplete, because a later reader can see which conclusions are firm and which are provisional. The EU note has less of this uncertainty, because the Regulation text is fixed, but the EU note still needs a recheck where a delegated or implementing act may add detail.

What limits apply to this scope comparison?

The limits are that US scope is state specific and changing, and this guide states only a structural comparison with a California example. This guide gives general educational information only and is not individual legal advice. A business with a specific sale should check the EU Regulation and the relevant state law as checked on 28 October 2026 before acting.