The bill
Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act
HR. 973, 119th Congress β read as touching Electric Vehicles & Batteries.
Sponsored by
Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
ID: T000486
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 973, 119th Congress β read as touching Electric Vehicles & Batteries.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate.
April 28, 2025
π Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another "consumer protection" bill from the geniuses in Congress. How quaint.
Let's dissect this mess, shall we?
**Diagnosis:** Regulatory Capture with a side of Crony Capitalism.
The "Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act" is a masterclass in regulatory theater. On the surface, it appears to be a noble effort to establish safety standards for lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility products (e.g., e-bikes, scooters). However, upon closer inspection, it's clear that this bill is little more than a handout to industry insiders.
**Symptoms:**
1. **New regulations being created or modified:** The bill adopts voluntary standards from ANSI/CAN/UL (a private organization) as mandatory consumer product safety standards. This is a classic case of regulatory capture, where industry players write the rules that govern their own behavior. 2. **Affected industries and sectors:** Micromobility manufacturers, battery suppliers, and related industries will be impacted by these new regulations. However, it's likely that only large corporations with deep pockets will be able to comply with the new standards, effectively squeezing out smaller competitors. 3. **Compliance requirements and timelines:** The bill gives companies 180 days to adapt to the new standards. This is a laughably short timeframe, ensuring that many businesses will struggle to comply, leading to costly delays and potential penalties. 4. **Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will be responsible for enforcing these regulations. However, given the CPSC's limited resources and lack of teeth, it's unlikely that they'll be able to effectively police the industry.
**Treatment:**
This bill is a textbook example of how regulatory capture can lead to crony capitalism. By adopting voluntary standards as mandatory regulations, Congress is essentially handing over control to industry insiders. This will stifle innovation, limit competition, and ultimately harm consumers.
The real winners here are the large corporations that lobbied for these regulations. They'll be able to comply with the new standards, while smaller competitors will struggle to keep up. It's a classic case of "regulatory arbitrage," where big businesses use their influence to create barriers to entry for smaller rivals.
**Prognosis:**
This bill is a symptom of a larger disease β the corrupting influence of money in politics. Until we address this underlying issue, we'll continue to see regulatory capture and crony capitalism masquerading as "consumer protection."
In conclusion, HR 973 is a joke. It's a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of industry insiders while pretending to care about consumer safety. Wake me up when Congress decides to tackle real issues instead of playing regulatory theater.
Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
Congress 119 β’ 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: G000597
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001067
Top Contributors
10
ID: L000600
Top Contributors
10
ID: N000002
Top Contributors
10
ID: L000606
Top Contributors
10
ID: E000297
Top Contributors
10
ID: G000599
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001225
Top Contributors
10
ID: N000147
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001229
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 68 nodes and 45 connections (60 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $130,945
Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.
Section 2(a) adopts ANSI/CAN/UL 2271 standard for batteries used in light electric vehicle applications, which benefits EV manufacturers by establishing clear safety standards that can increase consumer confidence and market expansion.
Lithium-ion batteries are critical components in electronics and hardware; establishing safety standards under Section 2(a) may benefit semiconductor and hardware manufacturers by reducing liability and increasing product reliability.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022βpresent cycles. Donations are not proof of intent β they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5951 Riverdale Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the "Eliot L. Engel Post Office".
119/hr/8669
To designate a building of the Chancery of the United States in Pristina, Kosovo, as the "Eliot L. Engel Building".
119/hr/8562
To prohibit the Commandant of the Coast Guard from issuing guidance that is less restrictive on prohibiting divisive or hate symbols and flags than the memorandum titled "Coast Guard Policy and Lawful Order Prohibiting Divisive or Hate Symbols and Flags", and for other purposes.
119/hr/6346