People for Bikes: Progress on Ebike Laws in the US

[None]

How Ted Cruz is preventing safer e-bike batteries in the US

It’s a widely held opinion that improving safety in lithium-ion batteries used for electric bikes and e-scooters is generally considered...

electrek.co

 

[Dewey]

I do not understand what you mean by current ebikes will no longer be ebikes? Can you help me undertsand that? Thanks

I did not say that. The point Matt is making is how the bill wording appears to impose a hard peak power limit of 750w for an Ebike to be considered an electric bicycle in California after January 2025 but most Class 1-3 e-bikes sold in the US exceed that peak power limit. The implications are most e-bikes currently owned in California would be reclassified into the moped category with all the accompanying retrograde baleful implications for rider safety.

 

[JRA]

"reclassified into the moped category with all the accompanying retrograde baleful implications for rider safety."

MoPed's require DOT approved rims/tires, full lighting consisting of head. tail, turn signals and brake, horn and mirrors, an automatic transmission and a VIN # and need to be registered and insured. These features would be very costly to apply to what we consider to be an eBike here in 2024. There are MoPeds available on the market today that appear to not fully meet the guidelines and many are just heavy, cheap, Asian crap that they are being marketed as eBikes. The more expensive ones all advertise speeds up to 60+mph which is twice the Federal regulation for top speed. I'm sure there are some that legally meet the requirements but a cursory google search didn't show any I could see.

It will be interesting to see how the Genie gets put back into the bottle.

 

[Dewey]

If not a moped then the Motor Driven Cycle definition would need to be changed in California as currently worded it describes a bike with a gas engine. But either way you and Matt are right, it’s not practical to reclassify e-bikes as not e-bikes. Also by removing from e-bikes the current right to use safe bicycle infrastructure, reclassification is an invitation to road violence. What a mess.

 

[m@Robertson]

But my question is: 1) Is there a CA website that highlights just pending bills re: Ebikes?

Yes but you will have to google for it. The CA government has a web site that lists all pending legislation routinely. It is not going to provide Cliff's Notes though. You will have to dig thru it or just become generally aware of the legislative climate by staying current with industry sources who produce content in the industry..

2) could you clarify what you mean by "no longer ebikes-- see 312.5(d)(2).?

You have to read that section of the bill. @Dewey linked it in Post 225.

312.5(a) establishes the hard top limit of 750w output so that wipes out most of the ebikes sold in CA and the USA.
312.5(d) lists what is NOT an electric bicycle
312.5(d)(2) closes its sentence with an 'or' that expressly cites and excludes any bicycle whose power exceeds 750w

And to reiterate: The layman generally does not understand that volts times amps equals watts, so almost EVERY ebike has power that exceeds 750w. That is not a hot rodded ebike. They all do that. 750w was never a set peak maximum amount. By way of example an ebike with a 48v battery (extremely common) and a 13a peak controller (which is weaker than almost every ebike sold today by anyone) is legal. But one with a 14a controller is illegal. Typical mainstream ebike controllers even from the big name brands are in the 20-25a range.

The legislator who drafted the bill didn't understand these technical underpinnings when they decided to make 750w a hard limit. Only the federal CPSC-sourced limit did this by making 750w a grey area on purpose.

 

[m@Robertson]

Also by removing from e-bikes the current right to use safe bicycle infrastructure, reclassification is an invitation to road violence. What a mess.

It also completely obliterates the progressive agenda goal of weaning people off cars wherever possible and onto cleaner energy. In one fell swoop it renders bikes non-viable means of alternative transportation. One more reason I see this bill getting vetoed.

 

[Dewey]

It also completely obliterates the progressive agenda goal of weaning people off cars wherever possible and onto cleaner energy. In one fell swoop it renders bikes non-viable means of alternative transportation.

I don't believe this was the intention of the bill's writers. California Senator Dave Min who sponsored SB 1271 cited Streetsforall as having written the bill, and that group supports ebike vouchers. When you search for 1271 in the transcripts of the Hearings for this session, the bill was presented in the CA State House as having among the following aims:

• Require e-bike Li-Ion batteries sold in CA must have EN or UL electrical safety certificate of compliance.
• Remove Class 3 ebikes with a throttle from the CA definition of electric bicycle, the argument was made that the presence of a throttle means the Class is "switchable" from Class 2, presumably the intention being that removing the throttle from Class 3 ebikes would satisfy.

Given SB 1271 also has the backing of CalBike, who mention only the battery safety aspects of the bill in their legislative roundup, I suppose CA legislators might have felt if this is what the bike lobby is presenting as a political solution to two ebike problems: battery fires, and tighten the definition of an electric bicycle to exclude Class 3 ebikes with throttles, then it must be OK. It's unclear to me who in the Governors office might read through and vet the bill text, presenting one last chance to head off the unintended consequences of California adopting a hard 750w peak power limit.

 

[BikeOn]

It also completely obliterates the progressive agenda goal of weaning people off cars wherever possible and onto cleaner energy. In one fell swoop it renders bikes non-viable means of alternative transportation. One more reason I see this bill getting vetoed.

Yes but you will have to google for it. The CA government has a web site that lists all pending legislation routinely. It is not going to provide Cliff's Notes though. You will have to dig thru it or just become generally aware of the legislative climate by staying current with industry sources who produce content in the industry..

You have to read that section of the bill. @Dewey linked it in Post 225.

312.5(a) establishes the hard top limit of 750w output so that wipes out most of the ebikes sold in CA and the USA.
312.5(d) lists what is NOT an electric bicycle
312.5(d)(2) closes its sentence with an 'or' that expressly cites and excludes any bicycle whose power exceeds 750w

And to reiterate: The layman generally does not understand that volts times amps equals watts, so almost much EVERY ebike has power that exceeds 750w. That is not a hot rodded ebike. They all do that. 750w was never a set peak maximum amount. By way of example an ebike with a 48v battery (extremely common) and a 13a peak controller (which is weaker than almost every ebike sold today by anyone) is legal. But one with a 14a controller is illegal. Typical mainstream ebike controllers even from the big name brands are in the 20-25a range.

The legislator who drafted the bill didn't understand these technical underpinnings when they decided to make 750w a hard limit. Only the federal CPSC-sourced limit did this by making 750w a grey area on purpose.

thanks for your reply. I did read the bill and all the amendments before posting my question. I Will f/u later w response. Appreciate your input. Curious as to where you get stats on current CA sales? Or is that just based on observation? ( which is reasonable)

 

[BlackHand]

Yes but you will have to google for it. The CA government has a web site that lists all pending legislation routinely. It is not going to provide Cliff's Notes though. You will have to dig thru it or just become generally aware of the legislative climate by staying current with industry sources who produce content in the industry..

You have to read that section of the bill. @Dewey linked it in Post 225.

312.5(a) establishes the hard top limit of 750w output so that wipes out most of the ebikes sold in CA and the USA.
312.5(d) lists what is NOT an electric bicycle
312.5(d)(2) closes its sentence with an 'or' that expressly cites and excludes any bicycle whose power exceeds 750w

And to reiterate: The layman generally does not understand that volts times amps equals watts, so almost much EVERY ebike has power that exceeds 750w. That is not a hot rodded ebike. They all do that. 750w was never a set peak maximum amount. By way of example an ebike with a 48v battery (extremely common) and a 13a peak controller (which is weaker than almost every ebike sold today by anyone) is legal. But one with a 14a controller is illegal. Typical mainstream ebike controllers even from the big name brands are in the 20-25a range.

The legislator who drafted the bill didn't understand these technical underpinnings when they decided to make 750w a hard limit. Only the federal CPSC-sourced limit did this by making 750w a grey area on purpose.

Interesting to note that sometime between June and when the bill got sent to the governor, they removed 'continuous mechanical' from the 750w language in the bill. I thought you were overreacting until I read the final version - the older drafts made much more sense, leaving room for higher peak and electrical power.

 

[m@Robertson]

Interesting to note that sometime between June and when the bill got sent to the governor, they removed 'continuous mechanical' from the 750w language in the bill. I thought you were overreacting until I read the final version - the older drafts made much more sense, leaving room for higher peak and electrical power.

Yes. As has been noted above, this bill originally was all about mandating ebike battery safety. It got rewritten and added-to later on to become the monster that it now is. The industry and bike-lobby support it got was back when it was a battery safety bill.

...Curious as to where you get stats on current CA sales? Or is that just based on observation? ( which is reasonable)

No stats. But I am very familiar with the subject and the industry. I know how ebikes work, what makes them tick at the fundamental level as a builder and as someone who closely watches the products and the industry. Its like knowing cars need gasoline. Duh you would say because you have enough background knowledge accumulated over time to know that. The power requirements and what you find in commercially produced bikes are similarly basic fundamentals.

You can learn the same thing for yourself, although in 2024 it will be a lot more difficult to dig out than it was in, say, 2020 when everyone was posting controller specs on their sales pages. All you have to do is ask what the peak and continuous ratings are for the controller on any given bike. Then, because you know V * A = W you can do the math for yourself very quickly. (you will need to know battery voltages too. "36v" batteries are actually 42v at a 100% charge. "48v" are really 54.6v. "52v" are in fact 58.8v.

Li-Ion Ebike Battery Charge Charts

Whats an 80% charge on a 48v battery? These charts give answers to questions like this on common ebike battery voltages: 36v, 48v, 52v, 60v and 72v.

talesontwowheels.com

 

[m@Robertson]

I don't believe this was the intention of the bill's writers.

It wasn't originally. As @BlackHand noted above, the bill changed over time to become something completely different than it was originally intended to be. When that hard 750w limit was introduced, it did garner some industry press which was where I first heard about it.

There is no room for interpretation anymore. Actually read the thing, particularly the sections I cite above, and you'll see it. And I can't take credit for figuring this out. It was spotted and reported on a few weeks ago. I think it came up in a thread here. Search on SB 1271 and I bet that thread comes up.

 

[markdwalden]

People for Bikes have stirred mountainous hills in advocacy campaigns for the standardization of e-bike laws across the U.S. about the classification of e-bikes and more ridership of shared paths. Most states had adopted Class 1 and 2 e-bikes to travel on shared-use trails, and advocacy efforts are still forth being pursued on including federal tax incentives to make e-bikes even cheaper. This often results in both safe and wider usage across the different parts of the country.

 

[Dewey]

On Friday 9/27/24 California Gov Newsom signed SB 1271

 

[Nvreloader]

Dewey
That SB 1271 of Calif, is going to put a crimp on a lot of Ebike sales and operations, both private and commercial operations as they list battery's also.
OUCH....
I hope that stays on their side of the line....

 

[Dewey]

Yes I think industry will be surprised by the revised wording. At least one brand recently blogged about a continuous power rating rather than a peak power limit

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

My California Assemblyperson — Tasha Boerner (D, 77th District) — is an ebike rider and supporter. Plan to call her office tomorrow to see what I can learn about SB 1271 as signed. Among other things, will explore the implications of the hard 750W electrical power limit for existing ebikes.

Last year, had 2 long, thoughtful discussions with her legislative staff by phone regarding her very reasonable ebike bill (AB 530?) aimed mainly at kids let loose on the world on ebikes without any knowledge of traffic laws or common-sense safety rules. Wish it had passed.

 

[Nvreloader]

The battery info is what is going to hurt, without a certified battery, you ain't riding very fast...imho

"Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease, an electric bicycle or powered mobility device, as defined, unless the storage battery for the electric bicycle or powered mobility device has been tested by an accredited testing laboratory for compliance with a specified standard.

Commencing January 1, 2026, the bill would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease a storage battery unless the battery meets specified requirements.

Commencing January 1, 2026, the bill would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease, an electric bicycle, powered mobility device, or storage battery unless the logo, wordmark, label, or name of an accredited testing laboratory and the applicable test standard used to show compliance is displayed, as specified.

Commencing January 1, 2026, the bill would prohibit a person from renting or offering for rental an electric bicycle, powered mobility device, charging system, or storage battery unless it has been tested for compliance with a specified standard.

Commencing January 1, 2026, the bill would require a manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer of an electric bicycle, powered mobility device, charging system, or storage battery subject to testing under these provisions to provide, upon request, a true and accurate copy of the test report for the product issued by the accredited testing laboratory."

 

[Dewey]

There are some brands currently supplying a UL 2271 tested & compliant battery for a bike that is not UL 2849 tested/compliant, but those brands will now need to also get the bikes tested. Direct to consumer battery suppliers including em3ev will now also need to get their batteries UL 2271 tested to sell in California or New York. The bill at least provides for an ISO accredited lab and not just US NTRL labs to do the testing.

 

[mschwett]

Yes I think industry will be surprised by the revised wording. At least one brand recently blogged about a continuous power rating rather than a peak power limit

i‘m curious what the objections are. limiting throttle to 20mph? or that by making throttled bikes class 2, they’ll be banned more places? or 750w (which is really more like 900+ since its mechanical power, not input/electrical.)

 

[6zfshdb]

As usual, legislation like SB 1271 fails to address minute technical details. Where possible, the industry will just "spin" the stats to comply. It will however, create a lot of business for the testing labs. In the short term, the bill will most certainly impact e-bike sales in the state of California. Since the bill doesn't affect existing bike owners, it might be a good time to invest in LBS just across the border.