The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has announced a second application window for its E-Bike Incentive Project on April 29. There will be some changes to make the process smoother this time around. Here’s what you need to know about the application process.
What has changed
In the first application window, nearly 100,000 people logged on for a chance to be awarded a voucher toward the purchase of an e-bike. Users waited online until the first 1,500 people in line completed their applications, and then were told that applications were closed.
The new process will give applicants more time to log on and more clarity about their place in line. People who want an e-bike voucher can enter an online waiting room at the E-Bike Incentives Project website between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on April 29.
At 6:00 pm, the waiting room will close and everyone present will be placed in a queue to apply. The order will be determined by randomizing software, not by the time applicants entered the waiting room. You’ll be able to see your place in line and decide if it makes sense to wait. CARB will distribute 1,000 vouchers through the portal in this window. If you’re within the first 2,000 people on the list, it probably makes sense to stick around, in case spots open up if anyone drops off ahead of you.
If you’re not able to apply online because you have difficulty using a computer, you can also apply by mail by contacting the administrator. Mail applications will be randomized in the same way as those through the online portal, giving all applicants the same chance of being able to submit an application.
What hasn’t changed
The basics of the e-bike voucher program remain the same. Only those making 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL) or below are eligible for a California voucher. The base voucher amount is $1,750; people living in disadvantaged census tracts and those with incomes at or below 225% of the FPL get an additional $250, for a total voucher amount of $2,000.
In the last application window, the most common issue was that people applied whose income was too high to qualify for the program. That slowed down voucher distribution for those who qualified and cost the program administrative time. The more CARB is forced to spend on administration, the less funding it has for vouchers. If your income from all sources is above 300% of FPL, please don’t apply. You can review the amount of income needed to qualify on a table on the EBIP website here. There are many local e-bike incentive programs with different requirements; we encourage you to look for one of those.
What else to know about California e-bike incentives
In addition to distributing 1,000 vouchers through the online portal, the program is working with community-based organizations (CBOs) throughout the state to connect the populations they serve with e-bike vouchers. CBOs will help CARB identify people who can benefit from this low-cost transportation, as well as provide wrap-around services to help them ride safely and keep their bikes in good working order.
CBOs will be working with their existing populations. Reaching out to a CBO if you’re not already working with the organization will not help you get a voucher.
The administrator has worked to streamline the application process, but it will still take several weeks to verify applications and provide vouchers. As always, patience is a virtue with the California E-Bike Incentives Project.
If you’d like to know more, CalBike hosted a webinar to explain the process and answer questions. You can view the recording.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/e-bike-slider-v2.jpg4301500Kendra Ramseyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKendra Ramsey2025-04-15 14:03:532025-05-13 15:24:53What to Know About the Next California E-Bike Voucher Application Window
CalBike has 14 bills on its legislative watchlist this year, and almost half of them (six) are e-bike regulations. As we have documented repeatedly over the past couple of years, the swift rise in the popularity of e-bikes has led to an equally swift backlash. Local leaders have conflated legal e-bikes with illegal e-motorcycles improperly sold as e-bikes, imposed e-bike restrictions after car drivers killed people riding e-bikes, and generally painted e-bikes as the biggest menace on the roads today. So it’s no surprise that state lawmakers have taken notice, crafting a raft of bills designed to “fix” the “problem.” We would prefer to have just one e-bike bill that could garner bipartisan support; perhaps by the end of the session, legislators will have homed in on an approach to e-bike regulation that all stakeholders can agree on.
We aren’t supporting or opposing any of the e-bike bills at this time, but it’s worth taking a deeper dive into what we might call the E-Bike Slate to understand what regulations and threats to e-bike riding might be coming.
E-bike classification
The e-bike bills introduced this session fall into three categories: e-bike classification, rider regulation, and huh?(more on that third one in a minute). Classification is the most popular category, covering four of the six e-bike bills.
The popularity of e-bikes has led to new companies (and some familiar brands) marketing two-wheeled vehicles that may sort of meet the definition of an e-bike under California law but also violate it. Many of these bikes are sold as Class 2 e-bikes, which have a boost of up to 20 mph either through pedal assist or throttle. However, they can switch to different modes, including Class 3 and “off-road” with impermissibly high speeds, taking them out of compliance with e-bike classification.
Class 2 e-bikes don’t have age restrictions in state law; Class 3 e-bikes can only be operated by people 16 years and older, and all riders must wear helmets. The off-road speeds these bikes are capable of are often much faster than any e-bike is legally allowed to go. So, cleaning up the gray areas in e-bike classification is a good idea. We don’t feel that any of these bills, as currently drafted, fit the bill. But we’re working hard to change that.
One of the classification bills (AB 545, Davies) follows a similar bill from 2024 that clarified California’s e-bike classification system. This bill further defines e-bikes as having fully operable pedals and a motor of 750 watts or less. The purpose of this measure isn’t clear since the vehicle code section that outlines Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes starts with the sentence, “An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power.”
The other three classification bills seek to clarify the distinction between legitimate e-bikes, which can’t have an electric assist above 20 or 28 mph, depending on the class, and the many two-wheeled vehicles marketed as e-bikes that can go much faster than that.
SB 586 (Jones) creates a new classification for two-wheeled electric vehicles: eMotos. This new category wouldn’t need to register with the DMV like a motorcycle or moped but also wouldn’t be street legal and wouldn’t have operable pedals. In discussions, there’s broad agreement that many of the vehicles marketed as e-bikes aren’t truly street legal. However, we’re not sure this bill will solve the problem.
CalBike is most hopeful for SB 455 (Blakespear). The bill strengthens existing e-bike regulations and would penalize manufacturers and dealers selling high-speed motorized bikes to underage riders as e-bikes. This would solve one of the biggest problems caused by gray areas in e-bike classification and protect young riders. We are hoping to co-sponsor this bill as we work with the author and various stakeholders through issues with how best to disentangle legal e-bikes from vehicles that shouldn’t be marketed as e-bikes. It’s an example of the complexities of crafting laws that protect the public while not stepping on people’s rights and consumer choice.
AB 875 (Muratsuchi) takes a different approach to motorized cycles illegally marketed as e-bikes: encourage police to confiscate them. We never support laws that ask law enforcement to make judgments and mete out punishments on the fly, and we don’t think this is the right approach to solving the e-bike classification problem. Besides, police officers already have legal justification to impound illegal devices, so we sense this bill would not add much to existing local enforcement efforts.
Who should ride an e-bike?
A focus of much of the concern about e-bike safety has been young riders. Class 3 e-bikes, which have a top pedal-assisted speed of 28 mph, are already limited to riders 16 and above, but Class 1 and 2 e-bikes have no age limits.
Last year, California passed a bill allowing San Diego communities to pilot and study e-bike regulations, including limiting ridership by age. AB 965 (Dixon) would bring a similar pilot to Orange County. The bill would allow Orange County cities to limit Class 1 and 2 e-bikes to riders age 12 and over for a pilot period ending in 2030.
While we think bicycling is excellent transportation for young people, especially where communities have built the safe, protected bikeways CalBike advocates for. We are neutral on this bill and open to evaluating age-based restrictions on electric bikes based on the information collected during this pilot.
Do we really need this?
We’re not sure what the thought is behind AB 544 (Davies). Current law requires all bicycles to have a red rear reflector and more reflectors on the wheels, pedals, and frame. This bill would require e-bikes to have a rear red reflector or light that’s on at all times, visible from 500 feet. That’s one and a half football fields. How big would a reflector, or even a light, need to be to be visible from that distance? Would a light have to be the size of a car light?
While CalBike supports visibility, this measure seems impractical and unnecessary. It also puts the onus for visibility on bike riders, absolving car drivers from responsibility for being aware of other road users and sharing the road responsibly.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/e-bike-father-with-kids-scaled.jpeg17072560Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2025-04-10 17:02:562025-04-10 17:02:57E-Bikes on the Agenda for California Legislature in 2025
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a work group meeting on March 5, 2025, to get feedback on proposed changes for the next application window of the E-Bike Incentive Project. Around 270 people attended the meeting, showing that interest in the program remains strong. Here is a summary of the proposed changes.
Current status of the program
CARB presented the current status of the program, including eligibility, specifications for eligible e-bikes, and the amount of the vouchers. Throughout the work group, questions and comments were a mix of concerns and issues with applying for vouchers and suggestions about proposed changes.
In the first application window, on December 18, 2024, there were 37,000 people in the waiting room by the time the portal opened at 6:00 p.m. Applicants in the work group reported being confused about the process and the difference between the waiting room and being in queue to apply.
By 6:42 p.m. on December 18, the first 1,500 people had completed their applications and the portal closed. At that point, there were nearly 100,000 people in line hoping to get e-bike vouchers. In the weeks after the launch, CARB and the program administrator fielded 20,000 inquiries about the program.
As of March 5, almost all of the first 1,500 applications have been reviewed, and 800 people have redeemed vouchers to buy e-bikes, amounting to a disbursement of approximately $1 million. CARB reported that 97% of applicants so far fall into the high-priority categories because they make less than 225% of the federal poverty level, live in an environmentally disadvantaged community, or live in a low-income census tract.
Proposed improvements for the next application window
Attendees had numerous complaints about the chaotic application process in the first window. People would like to be able to set up an account ahead of time and upload their paperwork. Unfortunately, according to Shaun Ransom, the CARB staffer in charge of the E-Bike Incentive Project, the cost to create all those accounts is prohibitive because interest is so high.
Several people, including those representing community-based organizations (CBOs) partnering with the project complained that the short notice for the first application window (less than two weeks) didn’t give them or their communities enough time to prepare. CARB promised to give 30 days notice of future application opportunities and send multiple emails to alert people to get ready.
Some commenters thought the windows were or should be a lottery. The first come, first served model disadvantages people with slower internet speeds or less access to technology. CARB’s proposal for the next application window is to add a randomizer, making selection more like a lottery. Applicants would have a half hour window during which they could enter a waiting room. After 30 minutes, the waiting room would close and the randomizing software would choose 1,500 people at random. Those people would get a link to enter the application portal. Those not chosen would be notified immediately and wouldn’t need to wait in line.
Administering a program with such overwhelming demand presents technical challenges. Despite rumors and reports to the contrary, the first window went relatively smoothly and avoided crashing the servers. CARB’s proposed changes should make the process clearer for applicants and fairer for those who need more time to log on to the website.
A greater role for community organizations
The CBO network working with the E-Bike Incentive Project raises awareness of the program among underserved communities and helps members of those communities navigate the application process and buy an e-bike. However, CBO representatives reported having little to do after the first launch because few or none of the people they serve were able to secure vouchers. CARB presented a proposal to administer 500 vouchers directly through CBOs to allow them to connect people with the greatest need of inexpensive, sustainable transportation to the incentive program.
CalBike has advocated for direct distribution through CBOs. It gives people who might have a hard time applying online because of issues with internet access, language barriers, disabilities, or other barriers a chance to benefit from the program. CBOs can identify people who are likely to get the most use from an e-bike and provide after-purchase support with group rides and in-person safety classes.
However, the current CARB proposal is to distribute 500 vouchers through CBOs and 1,000 through the online portal during the next application window. We believe the pace of distribution is too slow, particularly given the enormity of the need. We will urge CARB to make the CBO distribution additive to the total vouchers available in the window, rather than subtractive, and distribute 2,000 vouchers during the next application cycle.
Program administrator applications opening
CARB awarded the contract to administer the initial $10 million approved by the legislature to Pedal Ahead. The agency later added another $3 million to the program and allocated an additional $18 million in a subsequent budget. The additional $3 million was initially added to the first $10 million contract but may now be shifted to the second tranche of funding, increasing that to $21 million.
Applications to administer the second tranche of funding will open and close in the second quarter of 2025. CARB plans to announce the third-party administrator for the next round of e-bike incentives in the third quarter of this year.
A recording of the work group will be available in two weeks, and we’ll add it to this post. In the meantime, here are the slides.
On December 3, around 100 advocates and supporters joined CalBike on Zoom for a recap of a momentous 2024, a celebration of 30 years of bike advocacy, and a look forward to CalBike’s 2025 agenda. In breakout sessions, participants shared more ideas and enthusiasm for some of CalBike’s top priorities, including bicycle highways and shared streets legislation. You can view the whole webinar at the bottom of this post.
CalBike’s 2025 priorities
We outlined CalBike’s 2025 priorities, which will build on successes from 2024, most notably passing the Complete Streets Bill, SB 960. We are looking for partners in Sacramento to move our legislative agenda forward and working with staffers and agency stakeholders to move our budget priorities forward and implement the Complete Streets Law.
Here are some of the key elements of CalBike’s 2025 agenda.
Bicycle highways
We plan to recommend a pilot program establishing networks of bicycle highways that are numbered and signed. The goal is to test the concept in two major metropolitan regions. The bike highways would serve trips of five miles or more, and support higher speed travel of up to 25 miles per hour. The highways would connect to other regional routes, creating links between communities and making biking an even more convenient and safe way to get around.
Shared Streets
The Open Streets and Slow Streets movements gained momentum during the pandemic. Demand for safe spaces where people of all ages can comfortably play, ride a bike, roll, and walk continues to grow, building on ideas such as School Streets.
Shared Streets would create a new roadway classification where vulnerable road users would have the right of way at all locations, not just at intersections and crosswalks. Popular in Europe, Shared Streets are slow-speed facilities that truly prioritize travel by bike and foot. They are safe and vibrant spaces built around people-powered movement.
Quick-build pilot
A perfect companion to Shared Streets is a Bikeway Quick-Build Pilot Program. The program would expedite the development and implementation of safe, protected bikeways on the state highway system, much of which runs through our towns and cities. It would also give planners and road users the opportunity to live with safer streets and iterate the design process, leading to robust community support for building more permanent facilities.
CalBike’s concept would require Caltrans to develop guidelines for implementing bikeway quick-build projects, which would be both faster and less expensive to build than hardscape changes. Quick-build would be a catalyst for the development of facilities to improve safety for people on bikes, who continue to be injured and killed on unsafe roadways while long-term planning is done.
Bike Omnibus
In 2022, Assemblymember Laura Friedman’s OmniBike Bill made several significant changes to the California Vehicle Code as it applied to biking and walking. The commonsense changes in that bill make our streets more bike-friendly, and we’d like to run another bill to build in more change to the code for people who get around by bike.
The bill would:
Clarify hand signaling: Bicyclists would not be required to provide a signal if “circumstances require that both hands be used to safely control or operate the bicycle.”
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon: this would clarify that a person riding a bicycle would have the rights and responsibilities of a pedestrian at a PHB or HAWK beacon but shall yield to pedestrians upon and along a crosswalk.
More daylighting: Prohibit extra-tall vehicles from parking for an additional specified distance from a marked or unmarked crosswalk to improve visibility for vulnerable road users at the crossing.
The Bicycle Safety Stop
We continue to seek the introduction and passage of this commonsense regulation, which allows people on bikes to treat stop signs as yields. Similar laws have existed for more than 40 years in other states with no adverse outcomes, and the Safety Stop helps bike riders and car drivers share the road more and makes bike riding safer. Whether or not we’re able to run a bill in 2025, CalBike will keep campaigning for this law.
A new bikeway classification
Many California cities have created bike boulevards — traffic-calmed streets where people on bikes are safe to take the lane. Currently, bike boulevards are classified as a subset of Class III bikeways, on which people in cars and people on bikes share a lane. However, bike boulevards are distinct from Class III bikeways, many of which consist of sharrows on high-speed routes. It’s time to create a separate classification for these low-volume streets, many of which have diverters to prevent non-local car traffic and prioritize bicycle through traffic. Bike boulevards would become Class 5 bikeways.
E-Bike Policy
E-bike safety is a hot topic and we are having ongoing conversations with our local partners and legislators alike on issues surrounding e-bikes. There were several pilot bills in different parts of the state in 2024, as well as local ordinances cracking down on e-bikes. Some key topics include clarification of illegal electric motorcycles, which may be marketed as e-bikes but have significant differences including not having operable pedals, operating at much higher speeds, and/or being able to be modified or switched between modes to go faster than the top speed allowed for e-bikes. We recently crafted a coalition letter on the topic and will keep working to ensure that e-bikes continue to be a safe and viable form of transportation in California.
We are also talking with legislators about more money for active transportation infrastructure in next year’s budget and working with Caltrans to ensure it fully implements the new Complete Streets law. CalBike had a big year in 2024 and we’ll continue to push for a California full of bikes in 2025.
Watch the Agenda Reveal, including a look back at CalBike’s 30-year history of bicycle advocacy.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Auckland-NW-Cycleway-at-Unitec-scaled.jpg17072560Kendra Ramseyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKendra Ramsey2024-12-11 19:42:112024-12-11 19:45:42CalBike’s Agenda for 2025
CalBike, along with 30 other bicycle and active transportation advocacy groups, released a letter today calling on our elected leaders to better regulate illegal electric motorcycles, which have top speeds above what’s allowed for electric bicycles. These e-motorcycles may be marketed as e-bikes, but they don’t meet California’s definition of an e-bike. Confusion between these illegal e-motorcycles and e-bikes has led several California cities to incorrectly regulate the use of legitimate e-bikes, which has the potential to harm all bike riders without improving safety.
Note: This information was compiled in August of 2023 and updated in June 2024. California laws and regulations are subject to change. Please consult the California Vehicle Code (CVC) sections governing e-bikes for the most up-to-date information.
Some of the recent furor over the increased presence of e-bikes on California streets has centered on mobility devices sold as e-bikes that may push the boundaries of what counts as an electric bicycle in the state of California. So here’s a look at e-bike classification, an emerging class of two-wheeled vehicles called ZEMs, and the gray area in between.
E-bikes and the law
As legally defined vehicles, e-bikes are subject to several laws in California (and even some federal regulations as well). Under California law, an e-bike is essentially treated the same as a standard bicycle—with a few exceptions. E-bikes are to be operated like conventional bicycles in California and are not considered motor vehicles under the California Vehicle Code.
As such, e-bikes in California are exempted from various laws and requirements that apply to motorcycles and automobiles. For example, e-bike operators need not have or use:
Operator’s licenses
State or local registration
Motor vehicle insurance
License plates
So what is an e-bike?
California’s e-bike classifications
The California vehicle code defines e-bikes as: “[A] bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.” It further breaks e-bikes into three categories, following a classification system created by PeopleForBikes that has been adopted in 40 states.
Class 1: Provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 20 mph
Class 2: Operates via pedal-assist or throttle and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 20 mph
Class 3: Provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 28 mph
Because there is some variation in e-bike classification from state to state, an e-bike manufacturer may not specify an e-bike’s class on their website. You can determine the class by comparing the bike’s specifications to the information above or asking at the bike shop where you buy your e-bike.
Who can operate an e-bike in California?
There are no age restrictions on Class 1 and 2 e-bikes. Riders must be at least 16 to operate a Class 3 e-bike, and all Class 3 riders must wear helmets. All riders under 18 must wear a helmet on any type of bike, motorized or not.
Who can carry passengers on an e-bike?
All e-bikes set up to accommodate passengers are permitted to carry a passenger. Riders and passengers under 18 must wear a helmet. Passengers of all ages on Class 3 e-bikes must wear helmets.
Which e-bikes are pedal assist only?
Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes provide a boost from the motor only when the rider pedals. If the rider stops pedaling, the motor cuts out and the bike loses momentum.
What’s the top speed of a throttle e-bike?
Class 2 e-bikes, which have a throttle that allows the motor to power the bike without the rider pedaling, have a maximum motor speed of 20 mph.
Can e-bikes go faster than their assist limits?
E-bikes provide a boost up to their speed limits (20 and 28 mph). A rider may go faster than that by pedaling harder, but the motor won’t give any additional propulsion over those speeds.
What’s a zero-emission motorcycle (ZEM)?
Electric motorcycles, classified as zero-emission motorcycles (ZEMs) by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), can include anything from a moped or motorized scooter to a full-sized motorcycle. A ZEM may have a powerful enough engine to travel at freeway speeds, but not all do.
Unlike e-bikes, ZEMs must be registered with the DMV and are not allowed to ride in bike lanes. ZEMs do not have pedals and operate solely on motor power.
CARB is working on creating incentives for ZEMs as part of California’s transition to clean transportation.
Where can I ride?
The law prevents cities from restricting access to e-bike riders in places like bicycle paths or trails, bikeways, and bicycle lanes.
People may ride e-bikes on roadways but are subject to the California Vehicle Code (CVC)—which covers basic rules of the road, like going with the flow of traffic and obeying lights and signs.
Local authorities could still block access to e-bikes on certain equestrian trails or hiking and recreational trails. The Department of Parks and Recreation may prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on any bicycle path or trail within the department’s jurisdiction.
New e-bike regulations in the works
Several laws relating to e-bikes are moving through the California legislature and, in addition, local jurisdictions are creating local restrictions on where people can ride e-bikes. You can find a list of Orange County local regulations in this spreadsheet and we recently wrote a summary of e-bike bills. Join CalBike’s mailing list to stay up to date on the latest developments.
Two-wheeled EVs in the gray area
Some electric, two-wheeled vehicles fall into a gray area between e-bikes and ZEMs. These bikes can be manufactured and sold in California but may not be street-legal under California e-bike regulations.
For example, at least one manufacturer markets their products as e-bikes but sells bikes with an “off-road” setting with a top speed listed as “28+ mph,” implying that the motor is capable of providing a boost above California’s top e-bike speed of 28 mph. Another brand doesn’t list the top speed or e-bike class on its website.
It’s unclear whether bikes like these qualify as e-bikes under California law, which states, in part: “On and after January 1, 2017, manufacturers and distributors of electric bicycles shall apply a label that is permanently affixed, in a prominent location, to each electric bicycle. The label shall contain the classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage of the electric bicycle, and shall be printed in Arial font in at least 9-point type.”
It may not look like a bike
E-bikes evolved from traditional bikes, so many e-bikes resemble standard bikes modified to include a motor and battery. However, some new e-bike models are moving away from traditional bicycle design. They may have fat tires and frames that resemble small motorbikes more than standard bicycles. As long as they have operable pedals and fall within California’s e-bike classification system, these e-bikes are bicycles and may use bike lanes.
What is not an e-bike?
According to the California DMV, two categories of classification exist between e-bikes and motorcycles.
A motor-driven cycle is “a motorcycle with less than a 150 cc motor size.” These bikes are not allowed to operate on controlled-access freeways or highways.
A motorized bicycle or moped is “a two or three-wheeled device, capable of no more than 30 miles per hour (mph) on level ground.” The vehicle code further defines this type of bike as “having fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy.” The DMV notes that these vehicles may use bike lanes, if authorized by local ordinance.
Both motor-driven cycles and mopeds must be registered with the DMV (e-bikes are not required to register), and riders need a motorcycle license to operate them.
Some of the bikes that fall into the gray area may be more properly classified as mopeds or motorcycles (if their motors go faster than 30 mph) than e-bikes.
CalBike is committed to working on legislation to clarify the role and place of bikes in our communities. We also continue to advocate for more funding to build bikeways that are comfortable for all riders, on e-bikes or standard bikes. And, in the future, maybe we’ll need to build bicycle fast lanes!
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Yuba_bikes_spicy_curry_blue_sideboards_bread_basket_deck_couple_mucem_woman_hands_in_the_air-copy-scaled.jpeg17072560Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2024-06-21 16:51:152024-08-06 13:26:14What Is an E-Bike? A Guide to California E-Bike Classifications.
As e-bikes grow more popular, a spate of bills and regulations have cropped up at the state and local levels. CalBike is following several measures in the California legislature that relate to e-bikes. We’re also keeping an eye on new local measures that restrict e-bike use, mostly in Southern California.
Here’s a complete recap of the state legislation we’re watching and a very incomplete accounting of local proposed e-bike restrictions.
CalBike supports: E-bike battery safety
The E-Bike Battery Safety Bill (SB 1271, Min) would require all electric bikes sold in California to meet certain minimum safety standards and be certified by an accredited testing laboratory. We support this bill, which passed in the Senate and was just approved by the Assembly Transportation Committee. The next step is the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management.
Battery safety is critical for e-bikes since people often park their bikes inside homes or garages and bring the batteries inside to charge. Poorly manufactured lithium-ion batteries can overheat during charging and start fires. New York City, where delivery drivers often ride hundreds of miles and rely on jury-rigged aftermarket batteries for extra power, has seen several devastating fires. Senator Dave Min’s bill will prevent California from experiencing the same problem and push the market toward safety-tested batteries.
CalBike supports: E-bike modification
The E-Bike Modification Bill (AB 1774, Dixon) would make it illegal to tamper with an e-bike to make it give an electric boost faster than 28 mph, which is the top boosted e-bike speed allowed in California. Current law says that all e-bikes must be labeled as Class I, II, or III, depending on the top speed (20 or 28 mph) and whether it has a throttle.
If someone modifies an e-bike so it operates as a different class, the label must be changed to reflect the new classification. This bill is aimed at some vehicles sold as e-bikes in California that can be modified to get around speed limiters on the motor or have “off-road” modes that go faster than 28 mph. CalBike supports this bill.
CalBike is watching: Local e-bike restrictions
Two bills advancing through the legislative process would create pilot projects for greater restrictions on e-bike use. AB 1778 (Connolly) would extend the restrictions that currently apply to Class III e-bikes, which can go up to 28 mph with pedal assist, to Class II e-bikes, which have a top speed of 20 mph with a throttle as well as pedal assist. The pilot in Marin County would prohibit people under age 16 from riding a Class II bike and require helmets for all users, should a city pass a local ordinance.
We initially opposed Assemblymember Tasha Boerner’s AB 2234 when it proposed statewide e-bike licensing. However, the bill has been amended and is now a local pilot in San Diego County that allows local jurisdictions to prohibit people under 12 from operating Class I or II e-bikes. People under 16 are already prohibited from riding Class III bikes. The pilot would continue through 2029 with a reporting requirement to assess its effect on safety.
Died in committee: Banning e-bikes on boardwalks
Southern California beach towns have a good problem: their lovely oceanfront pathways and boardwalks are too popular. More people than ever are coming out to walk or bike on off-road paths, and the crowded conditions have led to conflicts between pedestrians and bike riders.
Unfortunately, the most logical solution, to create more space for active transportation and recreation, is time-consuming and costly. So, many officials have turned toward e-bike restrictions as the solution (more about that below). Assemblymember Diane Dixon’s AB 1773 would have added boardwalks to the list of facilities where e-bikes may be banned. The measure died quickly in the Assembly Transportation Committee, but local officials are coming up with creative ways to restrict e-bikes.
Local e-bike restrictions
It’s almost summer, so it’s time for the seasonal freakout over e-bikes in Southern California. Orange County recently passed new regulations, some of which needlessly duplicate state laws (bike riders under 18 must wear helmets, no one under 16 can ride a Class III e-bike).
But the regulations go beyond state law in limiting e-bikes to no more than 28 mph on county highways (riders could exceed that speed through pedal power, and some even ride faster than that on road bikes). They also prohibit bike riders from being more than two abreast, which sounds like a buzzkill for group rides, and, confusingly, prohibit passengers except small children in child seats or people on a tandem.
The Orange County regulations seem to be designed to preserve road space for motor vehicles rather than ensure the safety of people on bikes. Riding in a group is safer than riding alone. Passengers haven’t been the cause of any e-bike crashes CalBike is aware of, and many e-bikes are designed to accommodate an adult passenger.
Hermosa Beach has banned e-bikes from the Greenbelt in response to an incident where a group of teens riding e-bikes threw fireworks into a crowd on the Hermosa Beach Pier. The actions were illegal and dangerous, but it was the people on the bikes, not the e-bikes, that launched the fireworks. Would the city have banned cars from the area if someone had thrown fireworks out a car window? Of course not.
CalBike’s Andrew Wright, who rides in this area, noted, “This path is the safest bike route in the Beach Cities corridor. Forcing riders onto perilous roads like Sepulveda Blvd or Highland Ave — already treacherous and congested — poses an unacceptable risk, particularly for children enjoying a summer ride.”
Orange County and Hermosa Beach are just two examples of scapegoating e-bikes. There may be real problems that need to be addressed, but restricting people from enjoying bike rides or getting where they need to go without a car is not the solution.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/e-bike-slider-v2.jpg4301500Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2024-06-18 18:58:142024-06-21 17:02:29E-Bike Bills and Regulations Update
On May 1, 2024, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held what we hope is the last work group meeting about the California E-Bike Incentive Project before a launch date is announced and the first application window opens. The meeting was dominated by bike manufacturers and retailers and largely centered around the new program requirement that all eligible e-bikes have UL- or EN-certified batteries.
From the meeting, combined with a session on the program’s soft launch and follow-up questions to the program administrator and CARB, the shape of the program is beginning to emerge. Here’s what we know now.
Support for battery certification
The recently added requirement that bikes eligible for vouchers have batteries certified to UL or EN (European) standards sparked passionate responses on both sides. While many of the speakers at the work group, including a number of bike retailers, were supportive, some bike manufacturers were upset by the change so close to implementation.
Two manufacturers noted the high cost and long timeline to get UL certification. One said his company had taken other steps to comply with the program requirements so its bikes could qualify for vouchers and was angry the new requirement meant his brand wouldn’t be able to participate in the program.
It seems that battery certification is baked in, especially with SB 1271 working its way through the legislature. The bill, which CalBike supports, will require all e-bikes sold in California to have certified batteries. Low-quality or after-market batteries have caused several structure fires in New York because they can overheat and catch fire during charging, so the requirement for higher-quality batteries will help ensure e-bike safety.
Higher incentive amounts
The work group introduced a proposal to raise the incentive amounts. The previous incentive structure was a $1,000 base incentive with $250 extra for people making 225% of the federal poverty level or less or living in an environmentally burdened community and another $750 additional for people buying cargo or adaptive bikes.
CARB proposed changing this to two voucher amounts: a $1,750 base incentive for standard, cargo, or adaptive bikes and $2,000 for those qualifying as priority applicants under the categories above. The change was prompted by the higher cost of e-bikes with certified batteries. CARB noted that the soft launch had shown that it was hard for retailers and the program administrator to determine whether to call an e-bike standard or cargo, since many models have modifications to carry cargo or passengers.
People can also use the vouchers to pay for sales taxes and items such as locks, racks, and helmets. CARB stated that accessories would need to be purchased at the same time as the bike and from the same retailer.
Most speakers voiced support for the increased incentive amounts, though there was some concern it might mean fewer people would get vouchers. CARB estimates the program will still distribute around 15,000 vouchers with the current $31 million funding available since many people would have qualified for higher incentive amounts under the original incentive structure.
Timing and demand
CARB unveiled a proposed launch plan that includes six release windows of 2,500 vouchers each, starting in Q2 of 2024—so before the end of June—and extending through August 2025. The application portal will close after the first 2,500 applicants in each launch window; there will be no waiting list. If not all 2,500 vouchers are used within the allowed window of 45 days with an option to extend for an additional 45 days, the extra funds will roll into the next window.
CalBike strongly urged CARB to double the number of incentives released in each window and distribute all $31 million in available funding in 2024. The program is already very delayed in its launch, and demand is extremely high. The first-come-first-served model CARB is following will lead to a mad dash to get onto the website at the moment it opens, and we expect 2,500 applications to come in within a very short time.
For a state the size of California, $30 million is a reasonable annual amount to distribute in e-bike incentives, and CalBike will advocate for continuing funding for this in-demand program. We will be reaching out to CARB to follow up on the timing of voucher distribution.
A presentation on the soft launch at the recent California Bicycle Summit demonstrated the great need for this program. A pilot in San Diego that was run entirely through a local community-based organization distributing paper applications got 150 applications for the 30 vouchers it had to distribute. That’s a 5-to-1 ratio of applicants to incentives; we believe the ratio could be higher for the statewide launch, especially if CARB limits each window to 2,500.
How you can prepare for the statewide E-Bike Incentive Project
If you’d like to apply for an e-bike incentive, now is the time to start gathering paperwork to verify your income qualification using documentation from this list. People who don’t file taxes can use other documents to prove income eligibility. You can also find an approved retailer near you and research e-bikes.
And, sometime soon, you should be able to create a profile on the program website. At the moment, only bike retailers can create a profile, but the administrator has told us applicants will be able to create a profile ahead of time to save time when submitting an application once the portal opens. We encourage everyone interested in getting a voucher to create a profile ahead of time.
For more on the current status of the program, see Streetsblog’s recap of the work group meeting.
CalBike will continue to advocate for more funding and more e-bike vouchers, and we’ll be asking for your help to gather data and pressure legislators to fully fund this essential program.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/e-bike-father-with-kids-scaled.jpeg17072560Laura McCamyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngLaura McCamy2024-05-07 11:56:292024-05-07 17:26:06Final E-Bike Incentive Work Group Reveals New Details About the Program
On March 14, 2024, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a public work group to discuss the current status of the E-Bike Incentive Project and get feedback on two possible implementation schedules.
Status and launch window for statewide e-bike incentives
CARB reported that the soft launch is underway at the moment and going well. Incentives for the soft launch, which is meant to test the systems for administering the program, are only available to applicants identified by selected community based organizations (CBOs); no applications are open to the public yet. They expect to distribute about 100 vouchers through the soft launch.
The launch is planned for the spring of this year. We’ve heard that before, but based on the work group and other discussions with CARB and the project administrator, we believe it will happen soon. At the work group, CARB said the incentive availability timeline would be announced in April.
Currently, the program is working on expanding the list of eligible e-bikes and onboarding more CBOs to assist with outreach. Several speakers at the meeting expressed interest in their organization becoming a participating CBO.
Program clarifications from the Q & A section of the meeting included:
Eligibility for the program, which is limited to people with income at or below 300% of the federal poverty level, will be determined by your last year’s tax return.
Each person can only get one voucher, but there’s no limit by household as long as applicants are over 18.
The California vouchers are stackable with local e-bike incentive programs. For example, if you got a $1,000 voucher through the California program and a $500 incentive from your local utility, you could apply both toward the purchase of one bike, giving you $1,500 toward your purchase. Some local organizations reported that they are designing their programs to coincide with the statewide launch, so recipients can stack vouchers.
The most exciting piece of new information at the work group was the confirmation that a total of $31 million will be available for the E-Bike Incentive Project in 2024. That’s the original $10 million allocation from the legislature, plus $3 million CARB added, plus $18 million CARB put in its current budget as part of its clean transportation programs. That should be enough to fund around 15,000 incentives. It’s still not enough to meet the likely demand, but it’s considerably more than the original budget.
Voucher distribution: one window or three?
The purpose of the work group was to get feedback on how best to offer the vouchers. CARB floated two plans: make all funds available on the launch date or roll out the vouchers in three stages, one in each of the remaining quarters of 2024.
An advantage of a phased rollout would be allowing more time for the populations this program wants to reach to find out about the incentives. Additionally, people who have a hard time accessing a computer or filling out paperwork would get more opportunities to apply. And the administrator and CARB would have more time to adjust the program between each application window.
The discussion got sidetracked into e-bike battery safety and whether the program should require eligible bikes to have batteries that meet UL or EU standards for lithium battery safety, so only a couple of speakers touched on the rollout options, and it’s not clear what CARB might choose. The agency is giving battery safety further consideration.
CalBike favors a phased rollout for voucher distribution. This has been found to increase equity in other programs, most notably the very successful Denver e-bike program.
For more on the statewide e-bike program and other e-bike incentives, visit our campaign page.
Watch a recording of the E-Bike Incentives Project Work Group
CalBike Opposes AB 2234 (Boerner) E-Bike Licensing Bill
SACRAMENTO – CalBike opposes AB 2234 (Boerner) as currently introduced. The bill would create an unnecessary new bureaucracy and mostly harm youth of color in California while not taking the steps necessary to make our streets safer for all users.
AB 2234 creates a requirement for all people riding an e-bike to carry a driver’s license or a state-issued ID card along with a waiver showing they had completed the California Highway Patrol (CHP) online e-bike course. This will criminalize people for not having or not carrying identification, a requirement likely to be disproportionately enforced against Black and Latino Californians.
Further, it’s not always possible to distinguish between an e-bike and a standard bicycle, so AB 2234 will lead to more unnecessary police stops and more harassment of people on bikes, especially young people of color.
“While e-bike safety education is an important issue worthy of statewide investment, this bill will create an unnecessary new bureaucracy and enforcement problem that will mostly impact Black and Brown youth in California,” says CalBike Policy Director Jared Sanchez. “California should implement policies to help more people choose bikes for their everyday transportation, but AB 2234 creates obstacles that will discourage people from riding a bike.”
Setting a minimum age for operating an e-bike will lead to further harassment, particularly of vulnerable youth, leaving it up to police officers to estimate their age, pull them over, and demand identification. Police encounters of this kind are often traumatic for youth and could have lasting effects.
In addition, the bill requires CHP to create a certificate for taking its online e-bike safety course, which is far from comprehensive. The waiver requirement in the bill will do little to educate bike riders but places an additional obstacle for people who want to use green transportation, or use them out of necessity.
California has a street safety crisis
More bike riders and pedestrians are being injured and killed on California’s roads, and this is a crisis our elected leaders should address. CalBike supports additional resources for bicycle education, particularly programs for primary school students. But mandating licenses for e-bikes won’t serve the goal of safety.
AB 2234 assumes that e-bike riders are the perpetrators rather than the victims of traffic violence. There are very few instances of people on any type of bike injuring or killing a pedestrian, but thousands of instances each year of people driving cars colliding with people riding bikes or walking. Better bike education couldn’t prevent most of these crashes. The real solution is more and safer bikeways, better road and intersection design, and addressing car bloat that reduces visibility and increases the lethality of motor vehicles.
Assemblymember Boerner was a driving force behind the creation of California’s statewide E-Bike Incentive Project, which will make e-bikes affordable to more Californians, especially people who are low-income and live in underserved areas. We’re disappointed she has introduced legislation that could reverse that important progress.
The bicycle is an efficient and essential tool to fight climate change, and e-bikes make bicycling accessible to a wider range of people. E-bike licensing requirements are unlikely to measurably reduce the prevalence of crashes, but they will reduce ridership just as California needs to employ every strategy to mitigate the climate crisis.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/GoSGV-e-bike-Stangle.jpg13081644Brian Smithhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngBrian Smith2024-02-15 12:21:022024-02-15 12:21:03CalBike Statement on E-Bike Licensing Bill, AB 2234
