Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/389
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

ID: G000555

Follow the money

The bill

Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act

S. 389, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Vehicles & Batteries.

The sponsor

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$97,000 raised

25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 658-660 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 133.

July 28, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

The "Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act" (S 389) is a masterclass in regulatory doublespeak. Behind the façade of "consumer safety," this bill is actually a cleverly crafted attempt to appease the lobbying efforts of the lithium-ion battery industry.

New regulations being created or modified? Oh, yes. The bill adopts voluntary standards from ANSI/CAN/UL (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) and makes them mandatory for consumer products. But don't worry, it's not like this will stifle innovation or create unnecessary compliance burdens on small businesses. Perish the thought.

Affected industries and sectors? You bet. The lithium-ion battery industry is thrilled to have their voluntary standards codified into law, ensuring a nice profit boost from the increased regulatory burden on competitors. Meanwhile, micromobility product manufacturers are stuck with the bill for implementing these new standards. Joy.

Compliance requirements and timelines? Ah, the fun part! Companies have 180 days to implement these new standards, which is plenty of time to rewrite their entire manufacturing process... or just pay a fine. The Commission will graciously allow revisions to the voluntary standards, as long as they're notified, of course.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? Don't worry; the Commission has got this covered. They'll be keeping tabs on fires, explosions, and other hazards related to lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility products. And if a company is found non-compliant? Well, there might be some fines or... something. The bill doesn't specify, but I'm sure it'll be a sternly worded letter.

Economic and operational impacts? Ha! Who needs economic analysis when you have feel-good legislation like this? Let's just assume that the increased regulatory burden will magically create jobs and stimulate innovation. After all, what could possibly go wrong?

In conclusion, S 389 is a textbook example of regulatory capture, where industry interests are cleverly disguised as "consumer safety" concerns. It's a masterclass in legislative sleight-of-hand, designed to benefit special interests at the expense of small businesses and consumers.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of Regulatory Hypocrisy Syndrome (RHS), characterized by an excessive reliance on doublespeak, crony capitalism, and a complete disregard for economic reality. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for bureaucratic nonsense.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality Regulations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$97,000
18 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$10,600
Committees
$0
Individuals
$86,400

No PAC contributions found

1
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
2 transactions
$6,600
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$3,000
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
STRICKLER, DANIEL B. JR.
2 transactions
$12,000
2
ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.
2 transactions
$11,600
3
VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II
2 transactions
$11,600
4
BEAMON, MARTINE
2 transactions
$11,600
5
COAD, CHRISTOPHER T.
2 transactions
$6,600
6
KANDHARI, JITANIA
1 transaction
$3,300
7
KRISHNAN, ASHWIN
1 transaction
$3,300
8
LEPRINO, TERRY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
NIKOLAYEVSKY, ANNA
1 transaction
$3,300
10
ARMSTRONG, BRIAN
1 transaction
$3,300
11
ARON, ABBE KAHN
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BLUHM, ANDREW G.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
BRADBURY, DARCY
1 transaction
$3,300
14
CHRISTOPH, ROGER
1 transaction
$3,300
15
COHEN, MICHELE R.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

26

1
FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC
PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA
$5,000
Apr 12, 2023
2
THE COGGIN GROUP
OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN
$2,900
Mar 9, 2023
3
THE COGGIN GROUP
OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN
$2,500
Mar 9, 2023
4
DOSS BROTHERS FARM
OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN
$1,000
Apr 17, 2024
5
DOSS BROTHERS FARM
OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN
$1,000
Mar 18, 2024
6
BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC
OrganizationARLINGTON, VA
$500
Mar 17, 2023
7
KING, RODNEY W.
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN
$13,200
Apr 4, 2024
8
BEAN, BILL G.
HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC. • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN
$10,000
May 1, 2024
9
SMITH, THOMAS
PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC. • INVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$10,000
May 13, 2024
10
GAMBLE, KATHRYN
UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$9,900
Jul 15, 2024

Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]

ID: F000463

Top Contributors

27

1
REPUBLICAN MAIN STREET PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,000
Jun 19, 2023
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
3
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$2,500
Nov 1, 2024
4
JTM CONSULTING LLC
OrganizationSAN ANTONIO, TX
$1,000
Mar 17, 2023
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 7, 2023
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Apr 29, 2024
7
ERROTABERE RANCHES
OrganizationRIVERDALE, CA
$500
May 10, 2024
8
BRAUER, BLACKFORD
HUNTER ENGINEERING • PRESIDENT
IndividualBRIDGETON, MO
$6,600
Sep 27, 2023
9
ERGEN, CANTEY
DISH NETWORK • SENIOR ADVISOR
IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
10
ERGEN, CHARLES
DISH NETWORK • CHAIRMAN
IndividualENGLEWOOD, CO
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023

Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY]

ID: S000148

Top Contributors

24

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Mar 21, 2024
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 2, 2023
4
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$550
Sep 27, 2023
5
MARES, JAN
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,500
Dec 6, 2024
6
MEZZALINGUA, JOHN
JMA • CEO
IndividualSKANEATELES, NY
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
7
RIKLIS, MARCIA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualEAST HAMPTON, NY
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
8
EISENSTADT, STEVEN
CUMBERLAND PACKING CORP. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
9
MEZZALINGUA, JOHN
JMA • CEO
IndividualSKANEATELES, NY
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
10
EISENSTADT, STEVEN
CUMBERLAND PACKING CORP. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023

Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ]

ID: K000394

Top Contributors

29

1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$6,600
Sep 11, 2024
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
3
JSTREETPAC
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Feb 15, 2024
4
JSTREETPAC
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Feb 15, 2024
5
JSTREETPAC
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jan 11, 2024
6
COUNCIL FOR A LIVABLE WORLD
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Oct 11, 2023
7
GIVE CHANCES
OrganizationNORTHVALE, NJ
$300
Jul 10, 2023
8
GIVE CHANCES
OrganizationNORTHVALE, NJ
$300
Apr 26, 2023
9
JSTREETPAC
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$250
Feb 15, 2024
10
KIM, ANTHONY
CENTERVIEW PARTNERS • FINANCE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 30, 2023

Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN]

ID: Y000064

Top Contributors

20

1
HESS, DANIEL L.
CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIES CORP. • PRESIDENT/ OWNER
IndividualZIONSVILLE, IN
$10,000
Jul 1, 2024
2
SHUBLAK, MARK I.
ICE MILLER LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$6,600
Oct 20, 2023
3
MCLEAN, SUZZY
SAGESURE • INSURANCE
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$6,600
Oct 23, 2024
4
MCLEAN, TERRENCE
SAGESURE • INSURANCE
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$6,600
Oct 23, 2024
5
BESSENT, SCOTT K.
KEY SQUARE GROUP • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
IndividualCHARLESTON, SC
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024
6
PATRICELLI, ROBERT E.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSIMSBURY, CT
$6,600
Mar 1, 2024
7
ANDREESSEN, MARC L.
ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • CO-FOUNDER
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024
8
BRALY, DOUGLAS A. MR.
SELF EMPLOYED • ACCOUNTANT
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$6,600
Sep 4, 2024
9
DIXON, CHRISTOPHER
ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • GENERAL PARTNER
IndividualPALO ALTO, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024
10
HESS, LEANNA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualZIONSVILLE, IN
$6,600
Aug 19, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 40 nodes and 54 connections

Total contributions: $54

Top Donors - Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

  • Section 2(a) adopts ANSI/CAN/UL 2271-Standard for Batteries for Use in Light Electric Vehicle Applications as a consumer product safety standard, which benefits EV manufacturers by establishing uniform safety requirements that can increase consumer confidence and reduce liability risks.

  • Section 2(a) adopts ANSI/CAN/UL 2272-Standard for Electrical Systems for Personal E-Mobility Devices, which includes e-scooters and similar devices often sold via e-commerce platforms, benefiting retailers by providing clear safety standards that can reduce returns and increase sales.

  • +Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.70

    Section 2(a) adopts ANSI/CAN/UL 2849-Standard for Safety for Electrical Systems for eBikes, which benefits tech platforms that integrate e-bike sharing or delivery services (e.g., Uber, Lyft, DoorDash) by standardizing safety requirements and potentially expanding market adoption.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Transportation

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses safety standards for lithium-ion batteries in micromobility devices, while the Project 2025 DOT section focuses on fuel economy standards, EV mandates, and opposition to Biden administration policies; the connection is limited to tangential topics of transportation and battery technology."

Key themes:transportationlithium-ion batterieselectric vehiclessafety standardsmicromobility

— 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions — 627 — Department of Transportation limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA. Congress chose to assign the power to set fuel economy standards to DOT rather than EPA. This was not only because DOT understands the technologies and economics of the auto industry, but also because NHTSA is the nation’s leading motor vehicle safety regulator, and Congress sought to ensure that fuel economy requirements would not adversely affect highway safety. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has flouted these statutory limitations in nearly every respect. The predictable result is higher expected transportation costs for Americans. l In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers. l Moreover, and contrary to Congress’s design, the Biden EPA has been given preeminence in the regulation of fuel economy through the setting of carbon dioxide emissions limits for new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Because carbon dioxide emissions levels correspond to mileage in automobiles powered by fossil fuels, these EPA rules are de facto fuel economy requirements that apply independently of NHTSA’s standards. l The Biden Administration has also granted California a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that permits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue its own fuel economy directives, notwithstanding EPCA’s prohibition on state standards. Under this waiver, CARB has ordered automakers to phase out the sale of ICE-powered automobiles in California and transition to the production of zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation. As a result of these regulatory actions, automobiles will be significantly more expensive to produce, there will be fewer affordable new vehicle options for Amer- ican families, and fewer new vehicles will be sold in the U.S. That will do more than

Department of Transportation

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on CPSC safety standards for lithium-ion batteries in micromobility devices, while the Project 2025 DOT section emphasizes automated vehicle regulation, spectrum allocation, and CAFE standards; they share only a general concern for safety and innovation in transportation technologies."

Key themes:safety standardsinnovationmicromobilityconsumer protection

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 57%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on CPSC safety standards for lithium-ion batteries in micromobility devices, while the Project 2025 EPA section centers on limiting EPA authority, GHG reporting, mobile source emissions, and air permitting reforms; the only tangential link is through batteries' role in electric vehicles and emissions considerations."

Key themes:lithium-ion batterieselectric vehiclesemissionsregulatory oversight

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills