INFLUENCING E-BIKE LEGISLATION: IS THE INDUSTRY DOING THE RIGHT THING?
By Steve Bina
I’ll start this by stating I’m not big believer in too much government regulation. As a rule, I’m a little more conservative than a lot of my friends. Still, there are some government regulations that make sense, such as speed limits. (For the record, I don’t always stay within the prescribed limits.) I’ve driven the unlimited speed autobahn in Germany numerous times and can attest that you really need to pay attention to your driving. It’s organized chaos many times at triple-digit speeds, so speed limits here make a lot of sense.
With this in mind, I came across a press release recently from the self-proclaimed bicycle industry’s trade association. This organization was touting that they had killed dozens of harmful bills related to bicycle legislation. As I read through the press release, I wondered about what regulations were stopped and why. In addition, there was the assertion that this association “… every year … saves the industry tens of millions of dollars stopping legislation …” so I thought I’d take a look at that, too.
One of the things claimed to have been stopped was a bill in Illinois that would have required lithium-ion batteries on e-bikes and the electrical systems to be certified to UL 2849. This is a certification that would not be necessary for regular bicycles, but with the proliferation of e-bikes, it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable objective. UL is a widely recognized and respected company that has provided guidance for electrical components in consumer goods for decades.
The U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) received reports in 2021 and 2022 from 39 states of at least 208 fires from overheating events associated with electric bicycles and personal e-mobility devices. In 2022, the CPSC issued a letter to the manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers of electric bicycles and personal e-mobility devices urging these products to be “designed, manufactured and certified” to the appropriate UL standard as “manufacturing these products in compliance with the applicable UL standards significantly reduces the risk of injuries and deaths from micromobility device fires.”
New York City recently enacted laws that required UL certification for e-bikes being sold and/or leased in the city. A primary reason for the legislation was the number of deaths occurring as a result of lithium-ion battery fires. In 2023, at least 18 people were killed in New York City from these fires. After the law was put in place, that number dropped to six in 2024, and so far in 2025, there has been just a single fatality. The property damage has also declined significantly as a result.
Given this, why would an industry trade association want to stop such legislation? Like many things, answers come when you follow the money. Part of the certification to UL standards is a requirement of a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) to visit and certify manufacturing locations four times a year to ensure compliance with the UL standard. None of that is free. However, I believe the trade association’s cost calculations are skewed. The press release claims the cost would be between $400 and $900 per battery. That may be accurate as far as it goes, but as it reads, one might conclude that every battery on every e-bike would incur that cost. In fact, if the same battery is used on multiple models of an e-bike, a single certification would suffice.
The same applies to full system certification on multiple models of an e-bike. That was estimated between $2,000 and $5,000 per bike. Certification would not be required for each individual SKU. If an e-bike model came in different colors (different SKUs), a single certification would apply. If that model came in different frame sizes but using the same components, an “adaptation” would be needed, which would be significantly less expensive than a complete recertification. As with the batteries, a certification would be valid across a model line, and the amount would not be required for each individual bike.
On a table included in the association’s press release, it states that the impact on the industry should this legislation be passed would be “shut out of the Illinois market.” That sounds a little excessive since this kind of regulation has already been implemented in New York City, where e-bikes continue to sell well. To me, the way the press release reads suggests that passage of this legislation would increase the price of any e-bike sold in Illinois by at least $2,000, which certainly would not be the case. I’m quite sure that any Illinois resident who wants to buy an e-bike will be able to buy an e-bike.
The proposed Illinois legislation is written to provide a grace period to allow the sell-through of current inventory that may not have the UL certification. The requirement for UL certification would begin on January 1, 2028, so as not to make current inventory illegal.
One argument that’s been raised against mandatory UL certification is that numerous brands are selling their e-bikes in Europe and are compliant with the EU standard EN 15194. It is understandable that manufacturers would want to avoid the time and expense, if possible, of having to certify the same products to a similar standard.
However, EN 15194 is deficient in a couple of key areas relative to e-bike products sold in America. The EN standard is valid for motors limited to 250 watts of power, while e-bikes sold in America are allowed to use motors rated up to 750 watts, and most are. The EN standard limits the maximum speed to 25 kph (15.5 mph) with a motor cutoff at that maximum speed, while almost all e-bikes sold in America are capable of at least 20 mph. The EN standard specifically bans throttles. There is no such prohibition in the UL standard, and many e-bikes sold in America have a throttle. Simply put, any product that claims to be compliant with EN 15194 and therefore is also compliant with UL2849 but has a 750-watt motor, can go 20 mph (or faster), and allows the throttle to be used without pedaling is NOT compliant with UL 2849.
There is another thing that makes stopping this legislation problematic. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) requires any product that has electrical components to be UL certified to be stored, stocked, sold, or serviced in any warehouse or retail establishment. Don’t believe me? Next time you’re in a Walmart or Target store, check out the housewares aisle. Check the packaging for toasters, blenders, coffee makers, and any product you plug in. All will have a UL seal or the name of a NRTL that has certified the product. Electric bicycles are also such a product. OSHA doesn’t recommend the products be certified. As mentioned above, OSHA requires UL certification. Not doing so would put the warehouse and or retailer in violation of federal regulation.
I have to wonder: why would an industry trade association be against legislation that makes a product safer to the retailer and the consumer, and has been shown to save lives? Why would an industry trade association be proud of stopping legislation that puts its members in violation of federal regulation? Why would an industry association claim a European certification is comparable to UL certification when it factually is not?
Another piece of legislation the association claims to have stopped is a proposed California law that would have made Class 3 throttle bikes “illegal.” I believe using the word “illegal” is an overstatement, intentionally used to justify stopping the proposed legislation.
In fact, the three-class system used to define attributes of e-bikes is a misnomer. CPSC only recognizes the first two classes of e-bikes as bicycles. An e-bike that has a motor in excess of 750 watts, is capable of speeds greater than 20 mph, and may or may not have a throttle, is considered out-of-class, that is, not an electric bicycle. Being out of class is not illegal, but it also is not a bicycle as defined by CPSC. If a Class 3 product isn’t an e-bike but a more powerful and faster two-wheeled conveyance, then it would come under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
The proposed California legislation doesn’t make Class 3 e-bikes illegal. It just redefines them as “…mopeds or low-powered mopeds” and requires a permanent labeling to that effect. Like the proposed Illinois legislation mentioned above, there is a defined grace period to allow for current inventory to work through the sales chain. The labeling requirement would have to be in place by July 1, 2026.
The reasoning given by the trade association for stopping this proposed legislation is that it had the potential to expose the industry to millions of dollars of possible liability. The June 2024 edition of Bicycle Retailer published a guest editorial written by Bob Mittelstaedt, warning of the potential liability of selling a Class 3 product without telling the buyer of the greater power and speed. In California, there has already been a lawsuit filed because of injuries suffered by a rider of a Class 3 product without being told of the added power or speed potential.
Maybe I’m naïve, but I believe making sure the customer knows what they are buying and its capabilities would make the seller less likely to be exposed to such litigation. Thus, like the proposed Illinois legislation, I don’t understand why the industry’s trade association would be against making sure consumers know what they are buying.
I also don’t understand the estimate of saving millions in legal expenses and supply chain changes. As mentioned above, I would think making the customer aware of the added power and speed would make litigation less likely. People who buy a Corvette know what they’re getting, but the person buying a Blazer with a Corvette engine doesn’t.
At the beginning, I said I’m not always in favor of additional government regulations, yet sometimes commonsense regulations work. When certain factions try and thwart those regulations, I just have to shake my head in disbelief.
Contact Steve Bina: steve@humanpoweredsolutions.com