# EU battery passport 2027: the latest updates, and the BatteryPass-Ready v2.0 schema tested on public data

Source: https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/batterypass-ready-schema-test-2027
Last verified: 2 November 2026
Summary: **Short answer:** EU battery passports become mandatory on 18 February 2027 for [industrial batteries over 2 kWh, electric vehicle batteries and light means of transport batteries](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries). The date hasn't moved. The BatteryPass-Ready data model, the most widely used open schema for the passport, moved to version 2.0 on 27 August 2026. We ran a passport resolver against it, field by field, using public maker documents anyone can check. Below is what's changed, what the test showed and what makers still need to prepare.

- EU battery passports become mandatory on **18 February 2027** for industrial batteries over 2 kWh, electric vehicle batteries and light means of transport batteries.
- Public documents answered a real share of it, mostly identity and basic product data. They were never going to answer all of it.
- Adding the kinds of records a maker already keeps closed most of the rest in our tests.

## What's changed recently in the EU battery passport rules?

The passport start date is unchanged: **18 February 2027** under Article 77 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1542. Several things around it have moved in the last year:

- **BatteryPass-Ready data model v2.0 (27 August 2026).** The data attribute longlist and data model were updated to reflect the final CEN/CENELEC JTC 24 standards published in June 2026 (see [EN 18060:2025 and the EU battery passport](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/en-18060-2025)), the implementing act on the EU registry, version 2.0 of the EU guidance document that lists data points by battery category (see [the 71 battery passport data points](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/71-data-points)) and draft implementing acts on access to restricted passport data and on recycled content. It replaces v1.3 from March 2026. [Source: BatteryPass-Ready](https://thebatterypass.eu/news/now-published-data-attribute-longlist-v2-0-and-data-model-v2-0/)
- **Battery due diligence postponed.** Regulation (EU) 2025/1561 moved the due diligence obligations under Article 48 from 18 August 2025 to 18 August 2027. The passport date was not changed.
- **Registry.** Passport identifiers are to be registered in the EU digital product passport registry, with implementing rules adopted for it.
- **Restricted data and recycled content.** Draft implementing acts set out [who may see restricted passport data](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/access-rights) and how recycled content is calculated and verified. Both are drafts, so expect further change.
If you're working to an older version of the schema or guidance, check your field list against v2.0 now. Our schema checks used the v2.0 schema files.

No code? [Request access](https://activatedigital.ai/about#contact)

## What we tested, and why on public data

We wanted to answer one question. Can a resolver work through the BatteryPass-Ready schema field by field and say, for each field, where the value should come from and whether it was found?

We ran the test on public maker data on purpose. Not because a maker should build a passport that way. A maker will build it from its own records, and under Article 77(4) it is responsible for the passport being accurate. We used public data because it is the only data anyone can check. If we had tested on files sent to us privately, we couldn't publish the results and nobody could repeat the test. With public documents, anyone can take the same datasheets, the same schema and our method and see whether they get the same answer.

So this is an open test of the approach, not a claim that public data is enough. Here's what it showed.

## What did the test find?

Our working assessment is that industrial battery passports are close to **100% solvable in principle**, provided the responsible parties supply the evidence and lifecycle data when it exists. Public data and our database gave a starting point of **about 40%**, and with standard industry documents added our latest test filled **around 85%** of the required rows.

- Every field we tested could be traced to a type of evidence: a public document, a record the maker holds, a business decision or a reading from the battery in use.
- Public documents answered a real share of it, mostly identity and basic product data. They were never going to answer all of it.
- Adding the kinds of records a maker already keeps closed most of the rest in our tests.
- What remains open is mostly ownership, not technology: who confirms the operator details, who holds the batch record, who supplies readings once the battery is working.
- Running the schema end to end also showed a few places where the schema itself could be tightened. We've shared those with its authors.

## What do battery makers already publish?

We reviewed public documents for 20 real industrial batteries over 2 kWh: datasheets, manuals and safety information. The strongest public starting point was product identity: who made the battery, how the model is identified and its chemistry.

Technical specifications helped too, but coverage varied. A document could give capacity or nominal voltage without the test conditions another requirement needs. A product family table could hold useful numbers without making clear which value belongs to the battery in question.

The pattern across passport sections was more useful than any ranking of makers.

| Passport section | What the public documents offered | What still needed attention |
|---|---|---|
| Identity and product data | Manufacturer and model information were widely available | Manufacturing location and production date were much less visible |
| Performance and durability | Capacity, voltage and some lifetime information gave a starting point | Test conditions, resistance and efficiency later in life were less consistently documented |
| Materials and composition | Chemistry was commonly stated and some safety documents listed substances | Detailed composition needed more specific evidence |
| Circularity and dismantling | Manuals sometimes covered dismantling, disposal or recycling | Spares contacts and evidence for some circularity values were less visible |
| Safety | Some documents described extinguishing agents and handling precautions | Each statement still had to match the battery and the information requested |
| Labels and declarations | Some public sets included declarations or marking information | A general document did not necessarily establish the required declaration or marking |
| Data from use | Documents described a model's rated or starting performance | They could not show the later history or condition of an individual battery |

These are findings about the documents in our sample. A missing public document doesn't mean a maker lacks the information internally. Nor should every part of a passport be open to every visitor: the regulation gives some data to the public and some only to people with a legitimate interest. See [who can see battery passport data, and which parts](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/access-rights).

## Who is public battery data useful for?

For a maker, public documents are a quick inventory: what's already written down, and what has to come from inside the business. For others in the chain, public data is the only starting point they have:

- **Importers and distributors** who place batteries on the EU market but don't hold the maker's production records.
- **Retailers and marketplace sellers** who need to know what a passport will contain before they list a product.
- **Buyers** checking a supplier's readiness before they sign.
For all of them, knowing which facts are public and which must be requested is the first practical step.

## Why isn't a datasheet enough for a battery passport?

A datasheet is written to help someone choose and use a product. A passport brings together facts from across the product's life, so the evidence naturally sits in several places.

Production holds the batch record. Engineering holds material specifications. The test team holds the report behind a performance claim. Whoever owns product documentation holds the declaration and label artwork. Service records show what happened after the battery went into use.

The scope of each record matters. A document revision date isn't a manufacture date. An office address isn't the factory location. A result for one variant doesn't automatically apply to another in the same range.

For more on these distinctions, see [where battery passport data comes from](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/data-origins).

## What changes when a maker's own records are added?

To see how much the records a maker already keeps would add, we built test packs containing the kinds of documents used in industry: manufacturing information, composition details, performance evidence and safety or end-of-life information. We wrote these packs ourselves to represent real records. They weren't supplied or endorsed by any manufacturer.

Across five test batteries, with the packs available, 224 of 260 required rows were marked ready or proposed, about 86%. That's coverage, not accuracy: a proposed value still needs review. Checked against the values we had placed in the packs, 178 of 200 held rows matched, 89%. The run also found real errors and some blank proposals, which we've since worked on.

The conclusion is specific. Adding the records a maker normally holds brings most of the passport into reach. It doesn't tell us what happens with every maker's real technical file. That's the next test, and it needs a maker willing to run it with us.

## What did testing the BatteryPass-Ready schema teach us?

Running a full schema end to end is the quickest way to find where a standard and real data don't yet meet. We found a few such places, and we see them as opportunities rather than faults. BatteryPass-Ready is an open, evolving standard, and this kind of feedback is how it improves.

The clearest example is starting values. A new battery's passport is expected to carry its capacity, resistance and state of health as it left the line. Those values live in end-of-line test records, not datasheets, and a passport built without them doesn't validate. That's correct behaviour, but it means a maker's production test data has to be part of the plan from day one, not added later.

Other findings were about how the schema handles values that legitimately don't exist yet for a new battery, and how a passport records a change after it is first published. We've shared the detail, with suggested changes, directly with the schema's authors so it can feed into a future version.

## What's still missing once the documents are in?

The remainder isn't one pile of missing PDFs.

Some information belongs to the responsible business. The operator placing the battery on the market can't safely be inferred from the manufacturer's name on a datasheet. The business has to confirm its own role and details.

Some belongs to production. Where a model is made at more than one site, a general description can't say where a particular batch was made. The record has to follow the battery.

Some belongs to the battery in use. A model's expected lifetime isn't an individual battery's history. Rated capacity isn't capacity after use. Starting values have to stay distinguishable from later readings, and each later reading needs its date and its source. A battery that is reused, repurposed or remanufactured needs a new passport linked to the original: see [battery passport after reuse, repurposing or remanufacturing](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/second-life).

And some gaps were our own: information present in a pack that our engine left unresolved or read wrongly. Those are ours to fix, and we report them as such rather than blaming missing maker data.

## What should makers do before 18 February 2027?

Article 77 of the EU Batteries Regulation sets 18 February 2027 as the passport start date for covered batteries placed on the market or put into service, and the latest updates haven't changed it. That includes industrial batteries over 2 kWh, electric vehicle batteries and light means of transport batteries, whatever their capacity. Our study covered industrial batteries; don't assume the figures carry across to the other categories. See [Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, Article 77 and Annex XIII](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj/eng).

For a business preparing for that date, the passport is an evidence and ownership task as much as a publishing one. A useful order:

- Confirm the category and intended use of the battery.
- Collect its public documents and the internal records behind them, including end-of-line test results.
- Check which facts apply to the model, the batch and the individual battery.
- Give each open fact an owner and a specific evidence request.
- Review the resulting record, including proposed values and conflicts.
- Plan how readings from use will be added over the battery's life.
Our [battery passport 2027 readiness guide](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/2027-readiness) covers the wider preparation.

## How we ran the test, and its limits

The public-document study covered 20 real industrial batteries, mostly stationary storage, so the sample doesn't represent the whole industrial market. Documents were collected on 24 and 25 October 2026.

The study found supporting wording for 341 of 805 assessed values, about 42%. That's an upper bound: a keyword match can exist without the exact usable fact. Removing the weakest evidence group left 265 of 685, about 39%. An earlier run that actually filled values reached 206 of 805, about 26%. That gap is why we separate information found in documents from information successfully filled.

The public-document figures exclude operator information and values that only arise in use. The maker-pack test used a different required set and counts proposed values, so its result isn't directly comparable with the public figures. The maker-pack run, on 26 October, built records but didn't publish them. These are our own tests, not an independent assessment of any manufacturer and not a guarantee of a finished passport.

If you want to repeat the test, the public documents are the makers' own, and the schema is published by the BatteryPass-Ready project. We're happy to share our method in more detail.

## Frequently asked questions

### When does the EU battery passport become mandatory?

On 18 February 2027, for industrial batteries over 2 kWh, electric vehicle batteries and light means of transport batteries placed on the EU market or put into service. Recent updates postponed battery due diligence to 18 August 2027 but left the passport date unchanged.

### What's new in BatteryPass-Ready v2.0?

Published on 27 August 2026, v2.0 aligns the data attribute longlist and data model with the final CEN/CENELEC JTC 24 standards, the EU registry implementing act, version 2.0 of the EU guidance on data points by battery category and draft implementing acts on restricted data access and recycled content. It replaces v1.3.

### Can public data supply a whole battery passport?

No, and that wasn't the aim. Public documents were the test bench because anyone can check them. They gave a useful start, mostly identity and basic product data. Production records, test evidence and readings from use have to come from the business and the battery itself.

### Why test on public data at all?

Because it makes the result open. Anyone can rerun it, challenge it and compare it with their own. A test on private files can't be shared or checked.

### Does around 86% coverage mean a passport is ready to publish?

No. It includes proposed values that need review, it came from packs we wrote ourselves and the run found errors as well as open items. A business still has to check its own battery, evidence and requirements.

### What should I prepare for an industrial battery over 2 kWh?

Start with the exact model, its datasheet and manual, then gather the production, safety, composition and performance records your business already holds, especially end-of-line test results. Name an owner for each open fact and decide who will supply readings once the battery is in use.

No code? [Request access](https://activatedigital.ai/about#contact)

## Get a free passport check

Bring one battery model and the documents you already hold. We'll show what your evidence covers, what's still open and which records or decisions come next. [Request a free passport check](https://activatedigital.ai/about#contact).

## Keep exploring

The questions this page usually raises next.

- [Next questionHow Do You Prepare a Battery Passport for February 2027 While Rules Move?A dated September 2026 guide to Battery Passport readiness for 18 February 2027: what is fixed, what can be tested now and what…→](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/2027-readiness)
- [Next questionWhere Do Battery Passport Data Points Actually Come From?Battery Passport data comes from multiple evidence families, not one database.→](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/data-origins)
- [Next questionWhat Are the 71 Battery Passport Data Points, and Which Are Actually Required?The Commission's August 2026 guidance breaks the Batteries Regulation into 71 rows.→](https://activatedigital.ai/knowledge/digital-product-passport/batteries/71-data-points)

## Primary sources

- [Source: BatteryPass-Ready](https://thebatterypass.eu/news/now-published-data-attribute-longlist-v2-0-and-data-model-v2-0/)
- [Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, Article 77 and Annex XIII](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj/eng) EU law