New Federal E-Bike Legislation March 2026

[stompandgo]

I think that the only saving grace for MA not doing bans so far is that they shelled out for a massive voucher program the past two years that subsidized e-bike sales for low income residents that had no other means of transportation. Thousands were sold on my tax dollars dime. It cost the shop money in the end.

It would be quite embarrassing if they were banned from the safest places to ride them.

That said, the politicians in this state are some of the stupidest in the nation. No decision they make would surprise me.

 

[Ken M]

There was once a law that cars were required to have a flagger walk 1/8 mile ahead of the automobile to warn people of the approaching vehicle

That was a "use" law - an example of when a state does something stupid like the 3-class legislation (this was not a "use" law). For interstate commerce we need federal definitions for what is legal for sale in all 50 states (HR727 did that for low power electric bikes but also established that they were just another type of bike...not a motor vehicle so long as compliant). These are two mutually exclusive things that is causing much of the confusion. HR727 (what defines a "low speed electric bike" for the CPSC) is very basic and established that under motor power alone the speed was limited to 20mph (that did not mean that level of assist could not continue to avoid the cut-off that the EU pushed). It did not distinguish between pedal assist or throttle because they guy that wrote it was smart enough to know that would have zero merit (no safety merit, no real performance merit).

You have been dealing with state "use" regulations. Somehow states are thinking a Surron with pedals is a compliant ebike and they are not. When they think that they want to ban them but they are not even compliant LSEBs so a separate product all together anyway.

 

[Chargeride]

Theres an awful lot of misinformation, misconceptions and purposeful ignorance.
The only thing preventing complete lockdown is climate change.
Its not a good look to be clamping down on zero emission ,personal low speed transport.
Speed is relative, I have got used to 16mph, and tbh in such a small country as mine its a good idea to slow to see its endless hidden history.

Millions of people, myself included walk around the countryside at 3mph, an ebike is powered to 5X that speed.

10X downhill

 

[Ken M]

10X downhill

Yes....10X downhill is easy to do without a motor or even pedaling which is why the 28-30mph top assist makes a little sense as an ebike would not really exceed a speed commonly achieved on traditional bikes. Going downhill is also when a lot of accidents happen...maybe the largest %.

 

[David42000]

Because what we have doesn't work. It has no teeth, it is unenforceable and it was written 24 years ago for a couple thousand brushed hub motor ebikes, with 24V sealed lead acid batteries.

Have a heart, if not common sense. The new law will not eliminate your 20mph throttle ebike. The new law will eliminate the sale of emotos.

These stories are an everyday occurrence. We can either have reasonable laws or they will ban ebikes entirely.

Yearly deaths from bicycles: 1000+
Yearly deaths from e-bikes/e-motos: 93.
Why isn't the news about all the bicycle deaths? Becasue that is old hat and no-one is going to tune in to hear about the Bicycle "crisis." Somethinbg new, dangerous and scary! Oh my! I'll help the local station out with their ratings, for sure!
This is irrational animus toward a new technology.

 

[David42000]

Honestly not nearly as bad as it could be, given lawmakers general lack of knowledge about technical details. Some sort of legal backlash has been inevitable for a while now (at least IMO) given the proliferation of emotos. For the most part its just nationalizing the 3 class system that is the current standard in a lot of states (including mine) so it doesn't look to change much to people in those states. The provision that has the most potential to upend the market is point 4 in the draft bill, which prohibits the sale of any ebike that can be configured to increase max speed or motor power beyond the federal definition, at least if its labeled or marketed as an ebike. Will be interesting to see how the emoto sellers work around that if it comes into effect.

PFB is right that there is a patchwork of laws. There is not a near-nationwide "standard." There are 1000+ bicycle deaths per year and only 93 deaths per year on e-bikes. "e-motos" is an ill-defined category. There is no crisis here, but because bikes are old hat an electric bicycles are a relatively new technology, electric bike stories get the clicks and the T.V. ratings stories about bike deaths don't.

Back in 2014 there were basically two buckets: States that conformed with federal law at a 1000 watt (continuous) cap (slightly less stringent, perhaps, for more efficient motors) and states that refused, and classified e-bikes as motor vehicles instead. All PFB did was create a different, and more confusing, patchwork.

Like I have said previously, I recognize the reasons you support 3 class and agree to an extent. Something similar would be good, if it weren't vague and keeping the only part of 15 USC 2085 (Ken's HB 727) that is, in fact outdated. That's the "less than 750 watts" part, because the market was not saturated with 750 watt motors at that time. Dr. Currie did not consider 750 watt motors and reject them in favor of a cutoff at "less than 750 watts." The proliferation of the 750 watt motor was a reaction to the law, rather than the law being a reaction to 750 watt motors. He was an electric light vehicle enthusiast and wanted people out of their cars as solutions to smog and traffic density.

For years we have glossed over the one watt difference as insignificant. What happens when heavy enforcement falls on Group 2 and Group 3 states when there is not just federal "less than" law AND a bright line emoto cutoff law at "More than 750 watts?" All of a sudden that one watt is incredibly important.

This is the current patchwork problem: People in 17 states will suddenly have illegal 750 watt bikes with stickers on them saying so. Will they rush out and buy new "compliant" e-bikes boosting the profits of the compnaies that control the PFB board? Or will they walk away in disgust at the shell game? THAT is what will happen, if SAFE SPEEDS and E-moto bills pass.

It wasn't very long ago that PFB assured us they were only clarifying the law, and they also said numerous times they had no interest in regulating "e-motos," which we may all have different mental concepts of. I'm certainly never going to consider a one watt discrepancy to be the difference between a bicycle and a motorcycle.

Grouping	Description	States
Group 1: "Less Than" (Blind)	Adopted PFB "less than" (and nearly all 3 class) language verbatim; 750W sticker is prima facie non-compliant.	AL, AZ, AR, CT, FL, ID, IL, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OH, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY
Group 2: "No More Than"	Inclusive ceiling; "no more than" 750W. This reflects legislative consideration of the popularity of 750 watt motors.	CA, CO, DE, GA, HI, MA, MI, MN, NV, NC, OK, PA, SC, UT, WA
Group 3: "Averaging"	Vague "averaging" power definitions;	IN, NE
Group 4: Outliers	Rely on legacy/mechanical definitions; One (Oregon) is the most compliant with fed. law of all the states in this group. w/ a 1000 watt ceiling AK and KY have no special e-bike law at all.	AK, KY, MT, OR, RI

PFB caused this. They could have avoided it by recognizing that the 750 watt motor came into being as an industry and consumer favorite as a result of 15 USC 2085. Read correctly, Dr. Currie left wiggle room (becasue no two bikes are ever exactly alike) for manufacturer testing between 1 h.p. (745.7 mechanical watts) and "less than" 750 mechanical watts. He didn't eliminate 750 watts precisely because he thought the 750 watt motor was too powerful. The 750 watt motor wasn't a thing yet. PFB kept the "less than 750 watts" and divorced it from the standard "1 h.p." that indicates the ~750 is mechanical. Recognition of the mechanical standard results in 900-1000 watts continuous electrical necessary to produce ~1 h.p. at the shaft. A large number of states used to have a 1000 watt law in recognition of the federal standard. The rest had failed to reclassify e-bikes as bicycles. PFB could have targeted only those states like Alaska and now like New Jersey that kept calling electric bikes motor vehicles in defiance of federal law and had them conform with the state level standard of 1000 watts continuous. Instead they substituted something much vaguer and entirely different.

You don't accidentally do something like this. It is very purposeful. It's activist creep and market manipulation.

You note correctly that we are an unpopular group politically and have no clout. Once this plan is completed, and the e-bike returns to a niche market for the wealthy and the hard core enthusiast, you'll find that even less clout is much worse than the clout possible now if we all focus on saving the e-bike instead of squabbling over 3 class or 15 USC 2085. When 15 USC 2085 is gone, we are in a deep pile of nasty stuff.

 

[RunForTheHills]

Yearly deaths from bicycles: 1000+
Yearly deaths from e-bikes/e-motos: 93.
Why isn't the news about all the bicycle deaths? Becasue that is old hat and no-one is going to tune in to hear about the Bicycle "crisis." Somethinbg new, dangerous and scary! Oh my! I'll help the local station out with their ratings, for sure!
This is irrational animus toward a new technology.

Because approximately 96% of all fatal bicycle accidents in the United States involve a collision with an automobile or other motor vehicle. Cars are the cause of most bicycle fatalities and nobody wants to ban cars.

 

[David42000]

Because approximately 96% of all fatal bicycle accidents in the United States involve a collision with an automobile or other motor vehicle. Cars are the cause of most bicycle fatalities and nobody wants to ban cars.

Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that this is whipped up hysteria. They won't ban cars, you're right. But there is a lot of incremental stuff that will wind up as registration, like collecting the accident statistics without fault or millions of miles driven like real traffic science demands. THEN the next step is require odometers and registration because registration is the data collection point.

 

[Ken M]

Well, it’s certainly time for an update. Like many things, though, I wonder if federal legislation will have teeth at the state level.

Anyway, I hope the rules become CLEAR and ENFORCEABLE as those are my criteria. I think questions of technology (like power, etc.) should be avoided, but I know they’ll complicate things. The rules should be speed based. Just my opinion.

The CPSC / Federal regulations are supposed to establish what is legal for sale in all 50 states. Almost everyone gets confused on this fact. The states are supposed to regulate "use" of what the feds have established as a compliant "low speed electric bicycle" defined by HR727. I get a ton of heat on this forum every time I point this out but it's the way the regulations are supposed to work. The 3-class system that People for Bikes pushed at the state level was a huge mistake but it was pushed by the auto industry to keep ebikes from being considered as transportation substitutes for cars.

 

[RunForTheHills]

Except that it doesn't keep ebikes from being considered as transportation substitutes for cars. Poor bicycle infrastructure and cultural mindsets do that. And the further you get from dense urban areas, the less practical bicycles become for transportation.

 

[Ken M]

Like I have said previously, I recognize the reasons you support 3 class and agree to an extent. Something similar would be good, if it weren't vague and keeping the only part of 15 USC 2085 (Ken's HB 727) that is, in fact outdated. That's the "less than 750 watts" part, because the market was not saturated with 750 watt motors at that time. Dr. Currie did not consider 750 watt motors and reject them in favor of a cutoff at "less than 750 watts." The proliferation of the 750 watt motor was a reaction to the law, rather than the law being a reaction to 750 watt motors. He was an electric light vehicle enthusiast and wanted people out of their cars as solutions to smog and traffic density.

We all need to understand what Dr. Currie really did with his multi-year effort to get HR727 passed. He move the legal purview for ebikes from the NHTSA (if a bike had a motor there were viewed the same as a motorcycle) to the CPSC, thus ebikes went into the 15 USC 2085 safety standards as a non-motorized bike. The NHTSA was explicit that "motor alone" speed could not exceed 20mph so Dr. Currie created some confusing text in HR727 that didn't establish a motor assist cut-off at 20mph but allowed the assist to sustain a 170lb rider on a level surface at 20mph to continue beyond 20mph. While no one interprets it that way, that is exactly what he intended (I've talked with the lawyer that worked with him all those years). The less than 750 is always interpreted as a power limit for the motor but it's only a motor rating which was very intentional as well. Dr. Currie wanted to allow peak power to be higher below 20mph which makes GREAT SENSE for cargo bikes and to ensure enough power to sustain 20mph up hills (about 1600W is required to sustain a 200lb rider up a 6 degree slope hill at 20mph). For an ebike to be a viable transportation solution this is important...it's not for ebikes to be good for recreation/leisure/fitness which is what most people think ebikes are supposed to be used for.

The biggest problem is the fact that people and lawmakers don't grasp that the CPSC is about interstate commerce - to define a product that can be sold in all 50 states. The states are supposed to only establish the "used" regulations for that product. People for Bikes certainly did not understand this when they took lobby money from the auto industry to push the 3 class legislation. The HR727 definition was intended to make a compliant "low speed electric bicycle" to be "use" regulated the same a bicycles have been regulated for 100 years. It made perfect sense and was simple!!!

 

[Ken M]

When 15 USC 2085 is gone, we are in a deep pile of nasty stuff.

Yes ... the original definition of a low speed electric bicycles in HR727 must be protected or we are in a deep pile of nasty regulatory capture to keep ebikes as only good for recreation/leisure/fitness solutions and not effective transportation solution as Dr. Currie intended. I get hammered for saying People for Bikes started this mess but they did. Why they don't ever address it publicly says a lot.

 

[BlackHand]

The idea that Bosch is trying to deter people from riding ebikes so they can sell more car parts is ludicrous on its face.

Bosch dominates the ebike market in Europe, where ebikes ARE considered a viable everyday transportation option. And the European car market is about the same size as the US car market.

Just look at their annual report: if anything the ebike division is overrepresented in the publication based on the relatively small $$ of the conglomerate's revenues. They clearly view electrification as the future and their mobility products as a core part of the company's future.

If you want to criticize Bosch for trying to shape regulations to make it easier for them to penetrate the US market and harder for Chinese brands, that's fine. But please stop the foolishness that they were protecting their spark plug sales or whatever.

 

[Ken M]

The idea that Bosch is trying to deter people from riding ebikes so they can sell more car parts is ludicrous on its face.

Really. Bosch was/is the largest auto parts producer in the world with over $100 billion is total sales, with over half coming from the auto parts. The ebike motor division was not even $1 billion at the time they provided $3 million to People for Bikes to promote the 3-class system. Given that almost all the ebike component sales went into recreation/leisure/fitness ebikes it would make sense they would prefer that this model remain consistent (they certainly did want a large % of car drivers to begin using ebikes for mobility / transportation). Sure they wanted to grow the ebike business but not at the expense of auto part sales. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to grasp that HR727 provides a viable mobility solution for ebikes so pushing the 3-class system to the states was a way they could have more control of future legislation (like the new push for license, registration, and insurance on any ebike with assist past 20mph). It's not evil....it's business. Next you'll tell me there is no such thing as planned obsolescence.

 

[Ken M]

If you want to criticize Bosch for trying to shape regulations to make it easier for them to penetrate the US market

Every Bosch drive ebike is/was 100% compliant with HR727 so NOTHING was restricting their penetration of the US ebike market....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They knew HR727 provided a more capable mobility solution than they were currently producing or wanted produced by other companies such that their ebike can auto segments could be negatively impacted.

 

[David42000]

We all need to understand what Dr. Currie really did with his multi-year effort to get HR727 passed. He move the legal purview for ebikes from the NHTSA (if a bike had a motor there were viewed the same as a motorcycle) to the CPSC, thus ebikes went into the 15 USC 2085 safety standards as a non-motorized bike. The NHTSA was explicit that "motor alone" speed could not exceed 20mph so Dr. Currie created some confusing text in HR727 that didn't establish a motor assist cut-off at 20mph but allowed the assist to sustain a 170lb rider on a level surface at 20mph to continue beyond 20mph. While no one interprets it that way, that is exactly what he intended (I've talked with the lawyer that worked with him all those years). The less than 750 is always interpreted as a power limit for the motor but it's only a motor rating which was very intentional as well. Dr. Currie wanted to allow peak power to be higher below 20mph which makes GREAT SENSE for cargo bikes and to ensure enough power to sustain 20mph up hills (about 1600W is required to sustain a 200lb rider up a 6 degree slope hill at 20mph). For an ebike to be a viable transportation solution this is important...it's not for ebikes to be good for recreation/leisure/fitness which is what most people think ebikes are supposed to be used for.

The biggest problem is the fact that people and lawmakers don't grasp that the CPSC is about interstate commerce - to define a product that can be sold in all 50 states. The states are supposed to only establish the "used" regulations for that product. People for Bikes certainly did not understand this when they took lobby money from the auto industry to push the 3 class legislation. The HR727 definition was intended to make a compliant "low speed electric bicycle" to be "use" regulated the same a bicycles have been regulated for 100 years. It made perfect sense and was simple!!!

I absolutely understand the engineering benchmark involved and that it is not a speed limit or required power cutoff. I've never been posting here for years, though I joined in 2020. The ONLY reason I keep reading is becasue of your posts. I feel compelled to speak out now because it is a crucial time--the Safe Speeds Act must be stopped. I'm a paralegal and also grasp the implications of interstate commerce. The facts here seem to point to an antitrust problem. I understand that state jurisdiction over use concerns conduct, and in this case, they cannot treat the federal definition e-bike as anything other than a bicycle. The idea that the first thing to do at the state level is redefine it more stringently and then treat them differently than bicycles is mind boggling.

 

[David42000]

Every Bosch drive ebike is/was 100% compliant with HR727 so NOTHING was restricting their penetration of the US ebike market....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They knew HR727 provided a more capable mobility solution than they were currently producing or wanted produced by other companies such that their ebike can auto segments could be negatively impacted.

Agreed. 3 class is about stifling open source and the popular 750 watt motor.

 

[Ken M]

I absolutely understand the engineering benchmark involved and that it is not a speed limit or required power cutoff. I've never been posting here for years, though I joined in 2020. The ONLY reason I keep reading is becasue of your posts. I feel compelled to speak out now because it is a crucial time--the Safe Speeds Act must be stopped. I'm a paralegal and also grasp the implications of interstate commerce. The facts here seem to point to an antitrust problem. I understand that state jurisdiction over use concerns conduct, and in this case, they cannot treat the federal definition e-bike as anything other than a bicycle. The idea that the first thing to do at the state level is redefine it more stringently and then treat them differently than bicycles is mind boggling.

Wow...thanks. Many years ago I predicted all this regulatory mess would happen. It's not all because of the 3-class legislation but it added to the confusion. The more serious problem is essentially e-motors (some of which have "functional pedals") being marketed and sold as ebikes even if capable of speeds greatly exceeding anything intended by HR727. Since you are paralegal you should read the preemption filing I did the the CPSC. I'm just an engineer but after a long phone call with their representatives they thought I was a lawyer. I just informed them I was concerned with what was going to happen if they didn't pre-empt the state 3 class legislation because it violated the EXPRESSED pre-emptive clause in HR727. The side-stepped a decision by saying a "low speed electric bicycle" was not the same product as most ebikes being sold in the states. That would only make sense if each state was managing the safety requirements for those products and they don't. I actual predicted to a friend that is exactly what they would do because the 3-class legislation had already been adopted by over 30 states and that would have been a huge decision by the CPSC (I would have loved to have been successful).

I had no clue how rare an express pre-emptive clause was in product definition under CPSC legal purview - less than 10 times in over 15,000 products. People for Bikes and Bosch have lawyers and had to know about this clause but they knew the states would be confused on where product definitions end and "use" legislation begins.

I'm considering submitting a revised petition to the CPSC which this time they may act on. Everyone, including me, is concerned about safety (the new battery requirements were important) but HR727 was not a dangerous definition such that compliant ebikes should have been use regulated by the states as just a bike. The maximum full power motor alone assist limit was 20mph and beyond that it was limited such that few would achieve speeds over 28mph with added human effort (obviously unless riding downhill where the drive assist isn't needed anyway).

Let me know if you would like to engage on the petition and maybe we can bounce ideas off each other. We need ebikes for urban mobility.

 

[David42000]

Wow...thanks. Many years ago I predicted all this regulatory mess would happen. It's not all because of the 3-class legislation but it added to the confusion. The more serious problem is essentially e-motors (some of which have "functional pedals") being marketed and sold as ebikes even if capable of speeds greatly exceeding anything intended by HR727. Since you are paralegal you should read the preemption filing I did the the CPSC. I'm just an engineer but after a long phone call with their representatives they thought I was a lawyer. I just informed them I was concerned with what was going to happen if they didn't pre-empt the state 3 class legislation because it violated the EXPRESSED pre-emptive clause in HR727. The side-stepped a decision by saying a "low speed electric bicycle" was not the same product as most ebikes being sold in the states. That would only make sense if each state was managing the safety requirements for those products and they don't. I actual predicted to a friend that is exactly what they would do because the 3-class legislation had already been adopted by over 30 states and that would have been a huge decision by the CPSC (I would have loved to have been successful).

I had no clue how rare an express pre-emptive clause was in product definition under CPSC legal purview - less than 10 times in over 15,000 products. People for Bikes and Bosch have lawyers and had to know about this clause but they knew the states would be confused on where product definitions end and "use" legislation begins.

I'm considering submitting a revised petition to the CPSC which this time they may act on. Everyone, including me, is concerned about safety (the new battery requirements were important) but HR727 was not a dangerous definition such that compliant ebikes should have been use regulated by the states as just a bike. The maximum full power motor alone assist limit was 20mph and beyond that it was limited such that few would achieve speeds over 28mph with added human effort (obviously unless riding downhill where the drive assist isn't needed anyway).

Let me know if you would like to engage on the petition and maybe we can bounce ideas off each other. We need ebikes for urban mobility.

Yeah I have been predicting it too. Get me a copy of your old petition and I'll give it a look.

I'd like to call your attention to the problem in the Safe Speeds Act involving statistic collecting. Without a millions of miles traveled baseline, any data will be relatively meaningless and could only be used to whip up hysteria. If there's been a 1000 fold increase in miles traveled, a 300 percent rise in electric bike fatalities would mean they are much safer than anything else.

But there is nothing in the bill to collect the data of miles traveled.

I see this as incremental creep toward either proprietary systems or registration and mandates for untamperable odometers.

Here's other stuff to take interest in:

Think You’re Defenseless Against the NJ E-Bike Law That Hits TODAY (July 19)? You’re Wrong. It’s Not Bulletproof—Not Even Pea-Shooter Proof.

The Law of e-bikes is an emerging field. A lot of attorneys haven't really thought it through. Today, July 19, 2026, New Jersey becomes the first state to utterly defy federal law requiring bicycles and electric bicycles be treated the same as a consumer product and has declared that electric...

forums.electricbikereview.com

No, Banning Bicycles and E-Bikes Alike is Not a Credible Fear

Here's another topic I think deserves it's own thread. Although Jabberwocky may disagree and say no-one here thinks governments might seek to ban bicycles altogether, it has occured to me even if I hallucinated those comments I thought I saw (and am not going to cite if you're that...

forums.electricbikereview.com

 

[David42000]

I had no clue how rare an express pre-emptive clause was in product definition under CPSC legal purview - less than 10 times in over 15,000 products. People for Bikes and Bosch have lawyers and had to know about this clause but they knew the states would be confused on where product definitions end and "use" legislation begins.

Speaking of lawyers working for PeopleForBikes:

Meet Matt Moore, PFB Attorney

In-house counsel Matt Moore serves as part of the public face of PFB’s "clarification" efforts. In a 2026 video, "E-Bikes vs. E-Motos: Legal Distinctions, Legislative Strategies, and Regulatory Actions," and only after receiving a question about the vagueness of having no hard standard tethered to ""less than 750 watts," Mr. Moore addresses the "Whatts" confusion at 51:00, stating:

"PeopleForBikes’ position is that 750 watts means continuous rated power. Uh that's how motor power, useful motor power is is measured. Uh, the federal definition is silent on that."
E-Bikes vs. E-motos: Legal Distinctions, Legislative Strategies, and Regulatory Actions
This is a question received precisely because no-one in 45 states knows what type of watts are being referred to in their state laws, laws which PFB said would clarify things and did not bother noting in their State law guides.

Also note at 5:29 Mr. Moore makes clear that “no more than” 750 watts is the upper ceiling for a 3 class e-bike, making no mention that it is simply not true in 28 states and is not their model language. PFB has repeatedly contradicted their "less than 750 watts" with inclusive "no more than 750 watts" statements and NEVER a public-facing "less than 750 watts." This cannot be incompetence. Combined with "More than 750 watt" "e-moto" legislation they are now pushing, it becomes really clear that they are setting a regulatory trap where they encourage competitor open source 750 watt motors. If this were really true, they would modify thei model language. This statement is proof that PFB is aware of their model language defect, even if it were an innocent oversight at the beginning. So, if "less than 750 watts" becomes federal law, and "more than 750 watts" is adopted as an e-moto cutoff, what happens to 750 watt bikes? It's a pretty bad look to push legislation for 12 years and only just now figure out how it is defective. Keep in mind this vbideo is about LEGAL DISTINCTIONS but the issue WAS NOT covered until the Q&A session at the end; in other words, if no-one had asked, PFB still would be silent. I am aware of no other occasion upon which PFB undertook to "clairfy" these questions. People who do not understand their own law or the law of the land are not experts in the field. Well, they are not honest experts anyway.

Mr. Moore’s statements are both legally and technically specious:

• Fabricated Federal Vagueness: Federal law is not "silent" on this; it uses the 1-horsepower mechanical standard (~746 mechanical watts) to define the threshold. Instead, it is PFB model language that is vague.
• Post-Hoc Definition: PFB spent 12 years lobbying for state laws that did not define "Whatts," only to "take a position" after the fact. Mr. Moore also claims an e-bike is legally defined as having "no more than" 750 watts, conveniently ignoring the 28 states where they successfully lobbied for "less than."
• Mechanical Ignorance: "Useful power" at the shaft is measured in mechanical watts, not "continuous" electrical watts. By conflating the two, PFB obscures the fact that their model language does not actually align with the federal mechanical standard and is encouraging an interpretation of continuous electrical watts. No proper judge obeying rule of law is going to adopt "continuous" watts becasue they do not act as super-legislatures adding or rejecting language to make a statute work.