UL and BESSI will go out on a limb and suggest that the remaining hurdles will be discussed this afternoon. If they are not then I suggest we have bigger problems at play
We know very little about how EXRO plans to operate and manage this business but it's not as easy as some on this board would have you believe. A slam dunk it is not. A distraction it may become.
The Cell Driver is unique. Press releasing the current patent award pertaining thereto is no accident.
EXRO's primary advantage is in how they deal with end of life EV battery packs, particularly those that may contain or develop damaged cells. I understand this to be a very big deal, right?
However the repurposing of EV battery packs into ESS Systems requires they pass UL1974, in addition to UL1973, 2580 etc.
This standard deals with all of the safety isues related to incorporating used batteries in ESS
I am attaching a link to a video that covers this standard. It's quite stringent in terms of paperwork, storage and standards for each and every installation.
UL1974 So one question I would have is who within the EXRO channel partner program would be responsible for all of this activity. If it is to be Re:build, then they have to establish all of the protocols, standards and processes to satisfy this standard for every implementation.
I sure hope that responsibility doesn't fall to EXRO.
BESS with used batteries is a new field of endeavor (relatively speaking) and most of the UL 1974 compliance has little to do with the technology but everything to do with internal process management.
Auditing that process can only begin once it is in place.
EXRO further states that its Cell DRiver Product is agnostic in terms of the batteries to be used. This represents further complications and requirements unless EXRO is to standardize on one chemistry (at least in my opinion).
I look forward to some REAL information this afternoon.