Compared to Europe’s strictly regulated electric bicycle market, the US has fewer restrictions on e-bikes. Bosch, one of the leading electric bicycle drive system manufacturers in Europe, hopes to see that change through the implementation of tighter safety regulations.
The US market isn’t quite the wild west, but it’s much closer to that end of the spectrum than Europe’s tightly-regulated electric bike market.
Hundreds of large and small e-bike companies and e-bike drive system manufacturers compete for their own sliver of the growing pie that is the US e-bike market, whereas the European market is dominated by a few larger players.
Bosch is perhaps the biggest, with its complete e-bike drive systems found on many of the most popular e-bikes in Europe.
Claudia Wasko, the general manager of Bosch E-bike Systems Americas, recently spoke to Bicycle Retailerabout Bosch’s desire to see increased federal oversight of electric bicycles in the US.
Wasko explained that Europe uses several standards for e-bikes and their batteries, including EN 15194 that covers common hazards and hazardous events related to e-bikes.
In the US on the other hand – the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) – only recommends voluntary standards from organizations including ASTM, ANSI and UL, but the CPSC does not use Europe’s EN standards.
As Wasko explained, Bosch would like to see that changed so that the CPSC also covered e-bike safety standards in a more effective way, similar to the manner they have approached other products like hoverboards:
With e-bikes becoming more important in the U.S., Bosch would appreciate the CPSC becoming more involved in the topic of e-bike safety standards.
In 2018, the agency issued a letter that “urged” manufacturers and distributors of self-balancing scooters (hoverboards) to sell only products that comply with voluntary safety standards like UL 2272, which is a standard for electrical systems for personal e-mobility devices. Bosch would appreciate a similar approach for e-bikes.
Bosch also supports US e-bike safety regulations covering the entire e-bike system as opposed to just an individual part like the battery.
Most e-bikes sold in the US market use a combination of e-bike drive components from various suppliers; the motor might come from one supplier, while the battery and controller come from other suppliers. In Europe, it is more common for e-bikes to use a single unified supplier like Bosch to produce all components of the e-bike drive system.
Standards such as UL 2849 exist to cover broader e-bike systems including the drivetrain, battery, and charger. It’s a standard that Bosch would like to see applied to e-bikes in the US.
As Wasko continued:
UL 2849 has robust functional safety requirements for battery packs and battery management systems, and it also addresses risks associated with the other components of an e-bike system. Certification includes a detailed evaluation and testing of the drive unit, display unit, interconnecting cables and connectors, electrical accessories, battery system and charger system combinations.
Standards such as UL 2849 are essential to ensure safety through the thousands of cycles of charges and discharges. Testing and validating the safety of battery packs and battery management systems is needed to minimize the risk of fire and electric shock.
Getting certified to this system standard requires an investment of both time and money. Consequently, only a limited number of suppliers has taken these efforts.
The expense of these broader certifications makes it harder for new and smaller electric bicycle companies and component suppliers to compete against established industry giants like Bosch.
This would result in e-bike manufacturers having fewer choices for drivetrain components, with the remaining options likely consisting of larger companies like Bosch that can afford the certifications.
That’s a point that Wasko also made clear, though pointed to the safety benefits as Bosch’s rational for supporting complete system certification:
A system certification could decrease sourcing options for bicycle manufacturers who prefer to purchase e-bike components separately. But brands could undertake the efforts to comply with UL 2849. From the Bosch perspective, only complete-system standards can ensure the highest level of safety.
When discussing the difference between the EU and US markets for e-bikes, Wasko described the US e-bike market as lacking maturity compared to Europe’s e-bike market. In the US, it is common to order e-bikes online from direct-to-consumer companies. In Europe, most e-bikes are sold in bike shops that serve as middlemen between manufacturers and customers.
For many reasons including their perception, e-bikes in the U.S. have not reached the maturity level of the European market. The electrification rate in the U.S. is around 8%, compared to an average of 23% in Europe, with established countries reaching even 40-50%.
Electrek’s Take
The issue of increased e-bike regulations in the US is a touchy one.
American e-bike riders enjoy the benefits of looser restrictions that allow higher speeds and power levels. In Europe, it’s common for e-bike riders in bike lanes to be passed by pedal cyclists that traveling much faster than the e-bike’s 25 km/h (15 mph) speed limit.
In the US, e-bikes are often used on larger roads and outside of bike lanes, where higher power and speed limits help e-bikes keep up with US traffic levels.
Even if the issues of speed and power are put aside, safety regulations still create a massive point of contention. Few would object to the importance of safety regulations, but those that unfairly prevent smaller e-bike companies from competing or are crafted to benefit certain suppliers of complete e-bike systems could quickly draw accusations of bias.
While complete e-bike system regulations could certainly increase the safety of e-bikes, focusing on specific components – such as batteries – might be the most prudent choice in the short term. Batteries provide the most risk of any component on an e-bike, so they seem like the right place to start. And UL-rated batteries can of course be purchased by any manufacturer.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:
You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
You lose the adaptive air suspension
No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
Textile seats instead of vegan leather
Fewer speakers
No rear screen for the backseat
No power outlets in the bed
The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.
But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.
Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:
When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.
Tesla describes the product:
Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.
For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.
Electrek’s Take
I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.
Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.
I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.
It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.
It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.
After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.
Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.
Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.
Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.
Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.
That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.
Why carbon prices matter
The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.
Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.
Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.
For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.
But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.
Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth
Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”
Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.
The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.
While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said:
While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.
One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.
And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.
Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).
The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.
Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
Advertisement – scroll for more content
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.