Recently, a new policy has been issued for electric vehicle batteries: "Electric vehicle batteries can only be replaced, not sold." It also clearly requires stores to notify consumers to take away the used batteries after replacing them.

In fact, the root cause of this problem is that dealers cannot store too many used batteries in their stores, and a new round of environmental inspections is in full swing. The ultimate goal is to cope with environmental inspections.

But here comes the problem. Waste batteries cannot be sold and thrown away. So how should consumers deal with them? If this continues, who will engage in the "old for new" activity?

On the other hand, used batteries are a very important market in the terminal battery replacement market. However, since environmental protection inspections were carried out on a large scale, the used battery recycling market has been the focus of inspection. Battery recyclers without recycling qualifications were forced to close their doors, and more workshops without environmental impact assessment procedures were closed, resulting in a large number of batteries that could not be recycled. As early as last year, a dealer was fined NT$100,000 for hoarding a large amount of used batteries.

In July this year, another dealer was forced by the local environmental protection department to suspend operations for rectification due to substandard environmental impact assessment procedures and insufficient environmental protection equipment. According to statistics, there are currently an estimated 800,000 to 1 million people engaged in electric vehicle maintenance in China. Provide replacement of batteries, controllers, chargers and consumables for 250 million electric vehicles across the country. This provides electric vehicle consumers with cheap and convenient maintenance.

However, since the release of the new policy, dealers in many areas have been afraid to store used batteries and there has been a sharp loss of personnel in the electric vehicle maintenance industry, which has brought extremely inconvenient consumption experience to consumers.

Isn’t the original intention of issuing new policies to provide consumers with a more complete consumption experience? Can policies that benefit the people still "benefit the people"? We hope that relevant departments will reflect on this and strive to provide consumers with a better consumption experience.