This article appeared in the 2024 issue of E-Scrap News. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

There’s one very simple, unavoidable reason that global industry is at least eventually going to have to rely more heavily on recycling in order to satisfy its seemingly ever-growing demand for precious metals for its products: Several of the major mining operations around the world are in advanced stages of their life cycles.

Already, for example, South Africa’s mines are being dug 2 and 3 kilometers deep. Precious metals are a finite resource, and — given today’s rising dependance on them in a range of products — we can envision shortages of gold, iridium, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium and/or silver coming in the decades ahead. New sources are being explored, but they come at a high price.

That is only one of the reasons, however. There are multiple other factors that portend change for the precious-metals landscape. They all point to more recycling and recovering of the precious metals that already are within industry’s grasp.

The Environmental Factors

There has been a study performed twice by the International Platinum Group Metals Association, a nonprofit association which represents leading mining, production and fabrication companies in the platinum, palladium, iridium, rhodium, osmium and ruthenium industries. Member companies have been surveyed on the carbon output of their recycling processes for platinum-group metals, which are produced from the same ore mined primarily in Russia, South Africa and North America. The result was so shocking in the first run that it prompted the IPA to undertake the study a second time with greater scrutiny. The findings grew even more dramatic the second time around: Recycling can reduce the carbon output of precious metals by more than 90% versus mining.

“Effective strategies for end-of-life management of equipment containing PGMs must be established to minimise collection losses and ensure every gram of PGMs can be reused,” the IPA later wrote. “There is also scope for improved collection of the metals from existing applications to boost the recycled supply of these metals. Policies improving the collection of end-of-life PGM-containing equipment are essential to help to maximise recycling.”

Even when we think of the relatively large energy input demanded by some of the recycling processes that are employed around the world, those processes still contribute only a minute fraction of the carbon footprint compared to the use of heavy machinery and equipment in mining precious metals.

Furthermore, recycling is such a more efficient method to attain the resource. It varies depending on the vein of the ore, but about 1 ton of mined gold ore typically can be expected to yield about 5 grams of gold. On the other hand, 1 ton of cell phones, about 10,000 devices, can yield up to 280 grams of gold.

The Geopolitical Factors

Geopolitical experiences and their impact on various business sectors in the last several years also suggest change is coming for precious metals. Shortages of nickel and neon were marked throughout global supply chains in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, for example. Pandemic-related interruptions also exposed the unsustainability of typical supply lines for many rare-earth metals. Industry seeks more flexibility in how they source metals, and the London Bullion Market Association and London Platinum & Palladium Market can help suppliers of precious metals connect with suppliers to achieve stable procurement.

Ethical questions around various geopolitical issues also have grown more pressing: Where are the precious metals coming from? How were the metals obtained? Today’s requests for proposals and quotations sometimes require manufacturers to rely on only “conflict-free” metals in their products. As described by the European Union in its explanation of regulations in this area, “In politically unstable areas, armed groups often use forced labor to mine minerals. They then sell those minerals to fund their activities, for example to buy weapons. These so-called ‘conflict minerals,’ such as tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold, can find their way into our mobile phones, cars and jewelry.”

Again, the LBMA and LPPM can assist suppliers of precious metals in undertaking responsible mineral sourcing programs that address ethical issues in areas such as human rights and environmental impact.

The Business-Model Factors

Of course, the gathering scarcity of precious metals to be mined from the earth will gradually improve the business models for different ways of sourcing precious metals. As mines run dry and, in turn, prices for mined precious metals rise, the economic arguments for instead refurbishing and repurposing products with precious metals in them or recovering metals from production scrap will grow more compelling.

E-scrap contains valuable and finite resources that can be reused if properly recycled. Precious metal raw materials that are 100% recycled resources are difficult to achieve without further recovery. It is important to deepen the understanding of precious metal recovery from manufacturers to general consumers, in order to promote the precious metal recycling business.

Such market-driven realities might ultimately have the greatest influence on changing the ways that industries globally attain the precious metals that they require. Indeed, there already are a number of diverse factors other than the evaporating raw supply and evolving economic equation that are fanning greater interest in recycling these metals.

Bodo Albrecht is president of Tanaka Precious Metals (Americas), responsible for all operations in North, Central, and South America, including sales, distribution and support for all Tanaka products in close cooperation with manufacturing, marketing, technical, research and development and related operations in Asia. He is a precious metals executive with deep roots in the industry, as well as in rare earth elements and strategic metals, with 20 years of international management positions with Degussa AG and 15 years running a consulting firm, BASIQ Corporation, before joining Tanaka.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.

This article appeared in the 2024 issue of E-Scrap News. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

For recyclers involved with the rapidly expanding lithium-ion and lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery recycling market, there is an ongoing debate within the industry concerning the merits and pitfalls of dry versus wet, or water-based, processing.

Although dry battery recycling systems are prevalent, these typically require the disassembly of packs or modules and discharge of the individual battery cells before further processing and can be at risk of thermal events. Wet systems have distinct advantages in this regard and can be very efficient at recovering the most valuable materials but are largely misunderstood by those who may not be aware of recent advancements.

Industry professionals are still largely undecided as to which method can be utilized most efficiently and cost effectively to meet their reclamation safety, quality, and production goals, and there is some confusion over the role of dry and wet battery recycling methods. For example, I’ve heard some say wet processing is not feasible for Li-ion and LiFePO4 recycling, which is simply untrue. In many ways, it is safer, faster, and more efficient for recycling battery packs than dry processing — not to mention it is already being successfully implemented over the last seven years in multiple plants around the world.

The Pros and Cons of Dry Recycling Systems

Despite the prevalence of dry battery recycling systems, there are several disadvantages. To start, the variety of batteries that must be dismantled from packs and discharged can make a dry system prohibitive from a cost and return-on-investment standpoint.

The reality is that there is tremendous variation in the sizes, chemistries and construction of Li-ion and LiFePO4 batteries sourced across the globe, with essentially a thousand different arrangements and assemblies. The extent of the variety complicates creating battery recycling systems, since there is no standardization in approach. Today, all the battery packs are built differently, so there is no single method for discharge. If we could go back 30 years and start lithium battery design over, we could perhaps build a system with standardized methods and circuitry to allow for quick and easy discharging, but we are well past that point.

Since every battery cell must be discharged, there is often no easy, economical, profitable way to do it. In one method often used in the past, batteries are placed in a salt solution for several weeks to discharge, but this is messy, requires excessive space and produces a chemical effluent that must be properly disposed of. This too often requires disassembly labor and its dangers.

With dry systems, there can also be safety issues related to battery discharge. Outside of a lab, there is no practical or certain way of knowing if all the cells are fully discharged. In a large battery pack with thousands of cells, it is quite likely that at least a couple of cells can still be partially charged and create an unwanted reaction.

When dry processing Li-ion and LiFePO4 batteries, it can be very challenging to control dangerous conditions like thermal runaway, self-generating oxygen that can lead to hazardous battery fires. Although robots could theoretically dismantle, discharge and process the batteries, programming them to accommodate the wide variety of battery sizes and types would be cost-prohibitive.

Dry battery recycling systems tend to be smaller to limit the volume of combustible material and the danger of thermal runaway, so they may not always meet throughput needs enough to be profitable.

A further difficulty is that battery manufacturers are now increasingly filling their packs and modules with a glue-like gel as a safety precaution, to keep the case together in case of damage from a collision or drop. However, this makes battery disassembly even more complex. Even the companies that manufacture them have no method of disassembly.

With a dry system, battery materials also get into the air system in large volumes during shredding and processing. Treating or separating these airborne materials is more difficult as well as more costly and dangerous. You face a tougher environmental challenge using a dry system because the battery electrolyte and VOCs that are more voluminous are now in the air system, along with your inert gas. So you have to filter, scrub and oxidize them off.

The Pros and Cons of Wet Recycling Systems

Due to the rapid pace of change in battery recycling technology, there are several common misperceptions regarding wet battery recycling systems today, even among industry professionals.

Among the most pervasive misunderstandings is that wet systems are not capable of removing black mass. In Li-ion battery recycling, black mass consists of electrode coatings like metal oxides and carbon, which contain valuable elements like graphite, manganese, cobalt, nickel and lithium. Recovering the black mass generates the greatest value for reuse or sale since otherwise there are usually only trace amounts of metals like lithium, copper and aluminum.

A closed wet battery recycling system can capture black mass more effectively and at far improved purity if properly designed and built by companies experienced with these techniques. All the other particles besides the black mass are very large, so it is relatively easy to filter and press out, dewater and dry. The result is very clean, usable black mass, with the water able to be reused, utilizing a continuous water treatment system. We essentially cut and agitate the materials through the whole process to liberate the black mass from the foils in an aqueous solution and capture them without all the remnant plastics and particulate.

A turnkey wet Li-ion battery recycling system should combine several separate but complementary processes. The primary system shreds the batteries in inert atmosphere and water, and secondary systems further reduce the material to smaller, more separable sizes. The key is specialized secondary shredding, a factor not well understood yet throughout the industry.

When you try to recirculate the material through a standard shredder with a screen, the material blinds and clogs the screen. However, a specialized shredder can be used to further reduce the material to a uniform size without the need for a screen. If you can’t do that in one pass, it takes multiple shredders to get the same product at far greater expense.

In the LithiBatt system, this secondary shredding step is accomplished using its patented Triplus knife technology that reduces the material size to three-eighths of an inch. The knife technology is uniquely suited to wet battery recycling because it reduces to a predictable and regular size in one pass without screening, eliminating the concern over blinding.

Additional processing using proprietary chemical injections and drying methods captures valuable battery cell black mass from the shredded material before it goes through the entire system.

We are currently using a proprietary wet process to shred the biggest EV packs still charged for the world’s largest EV maker, and successfully collecting black mass.

The use of water in processing Li-ion and LiFePO4 batteries has other significant advantages, beginning with increasing safety by deterring thermal runaway. Since the recyclable Li-ion battery material does not readily absorb water, it can be used to cool the materials and quash incipient fires. Combined with nitrogen to eliminate combustible oxygen, we can control and eliminate thermal events with a wet process. By preventing thermal events, processing is faster with higher battery weights and volumes possible.

The glues or gels tend to float, so they can be easily handled in a wet recycling system if you have the ability to shred whole packs and whole modules all at once. In addition, a wet system can capture VOCs in the water, which can be filtered, so air filtration can be simple with just a scrubber and charcoal filter.

If there is a drawback to wet battery recycling systems, it is that it involves several separate stages that must be sufficiently integrated by an experienced manufacturer. Consequently, manufacturers and recycling professionals usually will want an industry expert involved from the start, so a system can be built that is customized to their specific needs. However, once installed, Li-ion and LiFePO4 batteries of all sizes and chemistries can be quickly and profitably reduced into valuable, reusable or saleable materials without disassembly.

This type of flexible wet system can recycle tons of Li-ion or LiFePO4 material per hour to whatever sellable state is required. If you need to produce tons per hour instead of a fraction of a ton per hour, hydro/nitrogen systems will get you there much faster than a dry system.

For industry professionals still undecided about whether to consider a dry or wet battery recycling system, they should inquire about both, weigh the pros and cons for their goals, then move forward with the system that best fits their needs. There are several different ways to design a Li-ion and LiFePO4 battery recycling system, but the decision should be based on the facts and a good understanding of dry versus wet, as well as the types of advanced systems that are already being operated by some of the largest battery manufacturers and recyclers in the world.

John Neuens is an industrial consultant for Wisconsin-based LithiBatt, a division of BCA Industries. LithiBatt provides both dry and wet, turnkey, closed loop, recycling systems for Li-ion, LiFePO4, nickel metal hydride, zinc-bromine and other types of batteries. For more information, call 414-353-1002, email [email protected] or visit bca-industries.com.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.

This article appeared in the 2024 issue of E-Scrap News. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

One of e-scrap recycling’s chief concerns boils down to mining copper, gold and other metals all over again, this time from within piles of cell phones and computers rather than veins of ore.

The U.S. Department of Energy has dubbed these substances “critical minerals” because of their importance to electric vehicles, solar panels and other ubiquitous technologies, with the federal government putting millions of dollars in grants and other support on the line for the minerals’ recovery. Globally, energy-critical mineral trade reaches hundreds of billions of dollars each year, according to the World Trade Organization.

Researchers and companies across the globe therefore continue to seek more efficient and economic methods for these metals’ extraction via creative chemistry and even biology. What follows are some of the big steps they’ve taken over the past year.

Feds seek to ‘defragment’ sector

A technology manager with the DOE said improving e-scrap management fits squarely within the federal government’s material sourcing and climate goals, so the agency last spring launched a new funding and technical assistance opportunity targeting electronics recovery.

The department on March 6 announced the Electronics Scrap Recycling Advancement Prize, or E-SCRAP. It’s a competition for a broad range of applicants connected to the electronics recycling industry, with multiple phases highlighting different stages of project implementation.

Jeremy Mehta, technology manager within the department’s Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies Office, said the department has invested in a number of e-scrap recovery-related projects over the past decade, particularly in the separation and material extraction stage. For example, the department is a funding partner of the REMADE Institute, which supports research and development related to recycling, reuse and remanufacturing. Other government branches including the U.S. military have also funded such efforts.

The E-SCRAP prize aims to build on that work and connect it to other segments of the end-of-life electronics sector.

“We see this prize as being an effective tool to bridge some of the different players that exist along the value chain, from collection to sorting, to concentration, to preprocessing, to actual separation and extraction,” Mehta said. “It’s a fragmented value chain … and we’re trying to defragment that.”

The prize has three phases, with the first focused on incubation-stage projects; applications were due early this month. The department will choose 10 competitors to each receive $50,000 in cash and $30,000 in analysis and support from a national laboratory. During this phase, selected competitors “will propose solutions that have the potential to substantially increase the amount of recovered critical materials from electronic waste and used in U.S. manufacturing,” according to the program.

The second phase will focus on prototype projects. It’s another open application process, so even projects that aren’t selected for the incubation phase can apply again. During this stage, “competitors will prototype their innovation and begin collecting and/or generating data that can be used to optimize technoeconomic strategy and life cycle impacts between partners along the recycling value chain,” the department stated.
The third phase is a demonstration, where competitors will implement what they’ve come up with and propose ways to scale it up. Mehta said the prize would be suitable for applicants from many backgrounds, including but not limited to e-scrap processors, end users and researchers.

Bacteria help recover rare earths

A team of Austrian researchers developed what they describe as a cost-effective and non-polluting method to recover rare earth metals from electronics, and in June they said they’ve achieved recovery rates of up to 85% from the e-scrap stream.

In the collaboration between multiple Austrian research universities, researchers tested a two-stage bacterial process for recovering both common metals and rare earths from shredded e-scrap.

They found that the acids produced by specific microorganisms are able to leach iron, copper, aluminum and other metals from the stream, and that with these metals leached out, separate bacteria draw in the remaining rare earth metals through a process called “bio-accumulation.” Without the first stage, the common metals interfere with this process of accumulation, so both steps are needed for rare earth recovery.

Escherichia coli, better known as the E. coli behind common gastrointestinal illnesses, was found to be the “most successful accumulator of rare earths,” the researchers noted.

They suggested several benefits to their bacterial approach over the current standard practices.

“The methods currently used to extract rare earths are based on chemical processes, which are associated with the formation of environmentally harmful by-products and the creation of new problematic substances,” the university said in a written summary. “A combination of biotechnological methods has clear advantages over chemical methods, as both the leaching and the accumulation in the cells of the bacteria are environmentally friendly and sustainable, and no hazardous or polluting substances are produced at any stage of the process.”

They added a caveat that the process needs to be refined to be able to handle the typical varying concentrations of different metals in the e-scrap stream. This is the current area of research, they added, with a goal of making the process “reproducible and reliable” with any inbound ratio of metals.

The research was conducted by the University of Natural resources and Applied Life Sciences, abbreviated as BOKU in Austria, and the IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems.

The Austrian research joins a growing body of work to explore a variety of recovery processes for rare earth metals. One recent project examined a method that does not involve any acid, while another explored what the researchers described as “membrane solvent extraction.” That process involves dissolving rare earth magnets in acid and feeding the resulting liquid through a membrane that only allows the rare earth component to come through.

Using saltwater for metal recovery

Researchers at DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found a way to recover some critical metals from e-scrap using a mixed-salt water-based solution.

Materials separation scientist Qingpu Wang led a team to develop this method to selectively recover manganese, magnesium, dysprosium and neodymium by dissolving the e-scrap containing them in continuously flowing reaction chambers, according to a press release in April.

The method relies on the behavior of metals when placed in a reaction chamber in which two different liquids are flowing together. Dissolved metals will form solids at different rates, which the researchers used to separate and purify them.

“Our goal is to develop an environmentally friendly and scalable separation process to recover valuable minerals from e-waste,” Wang said. “Here we showed that we can spatially separate and recover nearly pure rare earth elements without complex, expensive reagents or time-consuming processes.”

The first success occurred in February, when the researchers successfully separated neodymium and dysprosium from a mixed liquid. The separation process took four hours using their method, while conventional separation methods typically take around 30 hours.

Wang said the next goal is to modify the design of the reactor to recover a larger amount of product.

Building off that research and using a complementary technique, Wang and materials scientist Elias Nakouzi recovered nearly pure manganese from a solution that mimicked dissolved lithium-ion battery waste.

They used a gel-based system that relied on the different transport and reactivity rates of the metals in the sample.

“The beauty in this process is its simplicity,” Nakouzi said. “Rather than relying on high-cost or specialty materials, we pared things back to thinking about the basics of ion behavior. And that’s where we found inspiration.”

OEM invests in Cyclic Materials

Cyclic Materials received an investment from Microsoft’s Climate Innovation Fund to accelerate the company’s technology for recovering rare earth metals from hard drives, the Canadian metals recycler announced in July.

Cyclic has developed a patent-pending technology to recycle rare earths from end-of-life hard drives and other materials. The technology allows ITAD companies to separate out the parts of hard drives that have rare earth magnets and still shred the rest of the hard drive to recover the other precious metals that are typically targeted.

Microsoft launched the Climate Innovation Fund in 2020 and planned to invest $1 billion into new technologies over four years. It does not disclose individual investment amounts. Brandon Middaugh, senior director of the Climate Innovation Fund, said in a press release that “as demand for rare earth elements continues to grow in importance, we’re excited to support the creation of a sustainable supply of these materials with this investment.”

Cyclic Materials co-founder and CEO Ahmad Ghahreman said in a written statement that the investment “enables us to accelerate the deployment of our commercial facilities, which is a critical step in growing the domestic supply of rare earths in North America that support the energy transition.”

In June, Cyclic Materials opened its first commercial-scale facility in Ontario, Canada, and plans to develop five or six facilities in the U.S. and Canada that will feed magnets into a future hub.

Sims Lifecycle Services has been testing the company’s technology over the past few months and has “seen tremendous performance improvements through the development and achieved throughput of one hard drive per second,” said Sean Magann, chief commercial officer at Sims Lifecycle Services, in a written statement.

“This solution enables us to drive further value out of disposed hard drives, by reclaiming the critical rare earths, while maintaining the data security,” Magann said, noting that another benefit is fewer magnets clogging up shredders. “We look forward to deploying this technology across our operations.”

This article appeared in the 2024 issue of  E-Scrap News. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Though the right to repair consumer electronics has been written into law in only a handful of states, the past year has nevertheless brought a sea change to the movement.

Oregon and Colorado both passed right-to-repair legislation last spring, two years after New York became the first state to do so and a year after Minnesota and California followed suit.

Though they differ in specifics, generally these laws require OEMs to make available to independent repair shops and consumers the parts, tools and documentation needed to fix devices. Manufacturers have traditionally controlled repair work in various ways, such as by limiting repairs to authorized providers.

While Oregon and Colorado were fourth and fifth in line, respectively, they were the first to ban the use of software to ensure a device will only operate with specific individual parts, or parts pairing, which can interfere with third-party repairs or with device functionality afterward.

“We have supported legislative efforts to protect a consumer’s right to repair their own products because doing so reduces waste, saves consumers money and offers consumers more choice when it comes to maintaining their expensive gadgets and appliances,” Justin Brookman, director of tech policy at Consumer Reports, said in a written statement after Oregon’s passage.

“With software becoming an essential element in today’s products, Consumer Reports backs laws that prevent software from becoming a tool to enforce manufacturers’ monopolies on the repair process.”
Apple voiced its opposition to Oregon’s parts pairing provision, according to TechCrunch, with John Perry, senior manager of secure system design, telling lawmakers in February that the ban will undermine security and privacy for customers.

“It’s important to understand why Apple and other smartphone manufacturers use parts pairing. It’s not to make repair more difficult,” Perry said. “It is, in fact, to make access to repair easier while also making sure your device — and the data stored on it — remain secure.”

Yet Apple broadly supported the legislation’s other provisions, further highlighting how the right-to-repair movement’s landscape has changed in the last 12 months.

Speaking alongside federal officials last October, Brian Naumann, vice president and general manager of Apple’s repair business, said the tech behemoth supported a federal right-to-repair law as long as it balances repairability with durability, security and physical safety. And Google in January endorsed an Oregon bill as a “compelling model.”

SB 542, a right-to-repair bill that died in the 2023 session and didn’t include the parts pairing provision, “represents an inclusive compromise that brings tech companies, small repair companies, environmental leaders and legislators to the table to find common ground and support the repair movement,” the company wrote in a press release. “This would be a win for consumers who are looking for affordable repair options, for the environment and for companies that want to invest in making their products more repairable and sustainable.”

Bumps in the road

That’s not to say right-to-repair has an open field among state legislatures. Out of more than 20 right-to-repair electronics bills introduced as of July, a dozen had failed in Illinois, New York, Rhode Island, Washington and elsewhere.

Corporate support has come with its bumps as well. In public comments on a right-to-repair petition to the Federal Trade Commission early this year, small repair business owners, industry associations or passionate individuals disagreed over whether the commission should set national right-to-repair rules.

The Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), an agricultural lobbying group, encapsulated the divide. The federation over the past year secured memorandums of understanding with John Deere and other manufacturers to make it easier for farmers to repair their equipment. It also opposed the FTC petition, saying an industry- and manufacturer-specific approach is best.

“When AFBF’s members charged the organization with outreach to equipment manufacturers on the right to repair, they expressed a preference for private sector, market-based solutions over legislation,” the group wrote to the commission. “AFBF’s members believe it is about sitting down at the table and sorting things out.”

Farm Action, another agricultural advocacy group, said it “wholly supports the petition,” pointing to the vastly increased complexity of combines and other machines. A federal rule could give explicit, consistent boundaries for what is and isn’t allowed, it said.

“Farmers know best how global equipment manufacturers like John Deere have obstructed their operations, coerced inflated repair costs from them and violated their consumer rights with the denial of basic information,” the group wrote.

In May, repair organization iFixit ended its Repair Hub partnership with Samsung after two years of effort, citing the OEM’s lack of commitment. As of June, iFixit was no longer Samsung’s designated third-party parts and tools distributor and would no longer collaborate with the company on new repair manuals.

“It’s with a heavy wrench that we have decided to end our partnership with Samsung,” iFixit said in a written statement, pointing to such problems as costly parts that are glued together. “Despite a huge amount of effort, Samsung’s approach to repairability does not align with our mission.”

Samsung didn’t return emailed requests for comment in May. In a written statement to news outlet The Verge, Samsung head of mobile customer care Mario Renato De Castro said, “We’re proud of the work we’ve done together with iFixit. We can’t comment further on partnership details at this time.”

The Verge also reported that Encompass’s SamsungParts.com became the company’s one-stop shop for self-repair.

Robert Coolidge, CEO of Encompass, in an August interview said his business is built around supplying replacement parts for consumer electronics. He saw right-to-repair laws as a benefit for consumers and manufacturers alike, given the right safety guardrails.

“Allowing consumers to repair their products gives them more brand confidence,” he said. “It puts the decision-making back to the consumer, which I think is super important.”

On the manufacturing side, self-awareness is needed “to understand truly it’s a benefit to their brand,” Coolidge added. “Manufacturers are sometimes very protective, but also are doing so because that’s the way they’ve been doing it forever.”

Encompass deals exclusively in OEM parts, and Coolidge said in his eyes, the most important aspects of right-to-repair laws are to “educate the consumer on the impact of having the right part from the manufacturer” and for consumers to know their own limitations when it comes to making repairs.

Coolidge also noted that manufacturers need to be involved in crafting legislation, because they are more qualified than lawmakers to understand which repairs are too risky to do at home and what segments are best suited to be covered by right-to-repair laws.

“Giving the consumer the right to fix what they buy, I think that’s important,” he said.

Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of The Repair Association, said that while safety is certainly a concern, there is a laundry list of other laws that govern the issue.

Under ownership law, the only party responsible for safety is the equipment owner, she said. OEMs also are required to build products that are safe to use, she said — including to repair.

In the past, groups such as CTIA, a trade association representing the wireless communications industry, and the Consumer Technology Association have proposed adding various guardrails, trainings and qualifications to right-to-repair legislation, Gordon-Byrne said, but those efforts have failed for the above reasons.

State-level details

Oregon’s new law requires consumer electronics and household appliance manufacturers to provide documentation, tools and parts for diagnosing, maintaining or repairing the equipment.

The parts pairing provision bans OEMs from preventing repairs using unapproved parts and from reducing “the functionality or performance of consumer electronic equipment.” The bill also notes that OEMs cannot “cause consumer electronic equipment to display misleading alerts or warnings, which the owner cannot immediately dismiss, about unidentified parts.”

The bill does not cover motor vehicles, off-road vehicles, farming equipment, medical devices, HVAC systems, solar panels or solar energy storage systems, video game consoles, electrical energy storage systems or electric toothbrushes.

The parts pairing restrictions will apply to electronics manufactured for the first time and first sold or used in the state after Jan. 1. The bill passed out of the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 25-5 in February, then passed out of the House on a 42-13 vote the next month.

In Colorado, this year’s legislation broadened the scope of the state’s right-to-repair law, which covers wheelchairs and farm equipment. The law covers all digital electronic equipment manufactured and first sold or used in Colorado on or after July 1, 2021, “that depends in whole or in part on digital electronics embedded in or attached to the product in order for the product to function as intended.” It excludes video game consoles, non-wheelchair medical equipment, motor vehicles, marine vessels and fire alarms.

“Imagine if every time your car broke down, the only option you had for repair was the dealer. That’s not a world any of us want to live in,” state Sen. Jeff Bridges, one of the bill’s sponsors, said during a committee hearing, according to Colorado Public Radio. CTIA spoke in opposition.

“The marketplace already provides a wide range of consumer choices for repair with varying levels of quality, price and convenience without the mandates imposed by this legislation,” said Michael Blank, the organization’s director of state legislative affairs.

Colorado’s law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2026.