Right To Repair Bill Comes Before Congress Yet Again

Read the full story on The Auto Wire
For years, certain forces in the auto industry have been toiling away to get some sort of Right to Repair law passed on the federal level. While that hasn't happened yet, there's another shot with the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act before Congress again. This is the sort of law enthusiasts, most people in the industry, and average car owners should be pushing to pass.What the REPAIR Act would do is allow private car owners and small shops to keep repairing vehicles by guaranteeing they have access to maintenance and repair info. For a long time, different automakers have been trying to argue that giving access to that information constitutes a safety risk, copyright violation, or anything else they can dream up.
That would mean with newer cars everyone would possibly have to go to dealerships or maybe some really big repair shops instead of wherever they'd like to have their vehicle fixed. With less competition, prices for repairs and even basic maintenance would undoubtedly skyrocket.
This bill is sponsored by two Republicans and two Democrats, so it has bipartisan support. Whether or not it has enough to pass the House and Senate is another question. If everyone voices enough support, it probably would.
The bill would also block automakers from stopping aftermarket parts companies from making cheaper components. More expensive parts and higher rates at repair shops would be crippling for a lot of vehicle owners, especially with how inflation has already hit families in the gut.
To allow all shops the ability to repair any vehicle, automakers would be required by law to have a standardized access platform for car-generated data. Such a thing still doesn't exist and it's becoming a problem.
It seems like every so often the push for a Right to Repair bill comes up, yet nothing ever comes of it. That's a source of frustration for enthusiasts, DIYers, small shops, etc. After all, without such a law, the risk of being forced to go to a big corporate repair facility, like a dealer service department, and shell out big money for things that should be easy to fix at home is sadly high.
Image via cottonbro studio/Pexels
Join our Newsletter, subscribe to our YouTube page, and follow us on Facebook.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

32 minutes ago

• Forbes

Will The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Reform Duty Drawbacks?

Bureau of Consumer Protection To read this article with full citations, please visit As global trade tensions swirl around us, it's a good time to highlight one of the seldom discussed features of the U.S. trade environment: duty drawbacks. Many of the tariffs charged on imported goods don't stick; they're subsequently refunded to the importer. This occurs through a process known as duty drawback, and Congress is poised to change how it works. It's tempting to describe duty drawbacks as the best kept secret in U.S. trade law, except that there's nothing clandestine about the practice. Federal law has permitted drawbacks, in one form or another, since the late 18th century. U.S. importers have been systematically claiming tariff refunds for about as long as the United States has existed. Recent developments have made drawbacks especially relevant. Most obvious are the tariff hikes that have occurred since President Trump took office in January. The higher any tax rate, the more important it becomes that taxpayers avail themselves of whatever relief is legally available. 3D illustration of a rubber stamp with the word tariff stamped on paper background. Concept of taxes ... More or duties on imported goods. The opportunity presented by duty drawbacks also limits the fiscal utility of tariffs as a major revenue source. If you still fantasize about tariff receipts financing massive income tax cuts, think again. Yes, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency collects a lot of tariffs, but an impressive share of those dollars find their way straight back into importers' pockets — up to 99 percent of the tariffs (and excise taxes) paid on relevant export sales. Here's a simplified synopsis of the duty drawback calculation for a hypothetical U.S. trading company: As you can see, the bottom-line tax savings are significant, and directly proportional to the firm's export activity. A decade ago, Congress modernized the claim process for drawbacks through the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA). Among other things, the statute required that claims be filed electronically through CBP's online portal. The good news was that taxpayers could obtain tariff refunds in as little as 30 days under CBP's accelerated payment program. The bad news was that oodles of documentation had to be in perfect order, or the claim would be summarily rejected. Since the enactment of TFTEA, drawback optimization has become an area of specialization for many law, accounting, and consultancy firms, and business is booming. Critics are now asking whether drawbacks have gone too far. If the whole purpose of tariffs is to bolster domestic manufacturing by making foreign-produced goods more expensive, is the government undercutting its own trade policy by rebating up to 99 percent of the tariffs? That's how the trade issue melds with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the chosen vehicle for extending key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The bill cleared the House of Representatives, by a single vote, on May 22. It's now being considered by the Senate. GOP leaders remain hopeful the bill can be ready for Trump's signature by the July 4 holiday, though several hurdles remain. There's buzz in Washington around how many trillions of dollars the 1,000-page OBBBA would add to the federal budget deficit, and whether it will lead to cuts in Medicaid coverage. The bill's magnitude seems to have played a role in the disintegrating relationship between Trump and Elon Musk, who remains the world's richest man despite seeing his net worth plunge in recent days. Musk has complained that the OBBBA will entirely negate the cost-saving efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency, in which he played a formative role. TOPSHOT - (FILES) US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk (R) speak in the Oval Office before ... More departing the White House in Washington, DC, on the way to Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida on March 14, 2025. Trump and Musk's unlikely political marriage exploded in a fiery public divorce on June 5, 2025. The President Trump said in a televised Oval Office diatribe that he was "very disappointed" after his former aide and top donor criticized his "big, beautiful" spending bill before Congress. The pair then hurled insults at each other on social media — with Musk even posting, without proof, that Trump was referenced in government documents on disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. (Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP) (Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images) Musk's objections do not include the proposal to scale back drawbacks, which is scored as a modest revenue raiser ($12.1 billion over 10 years). The provision can be found at section 112032 of the bill ('Limitation on drawback of taxes paid with respect to substituted merchandise'), which primarily deals with a scenario known as the 'double-drawback loophole.' We seldom use the term 'loophole' in these pages, because it's not especially informative. The advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste doesn't hesitate to use it when describing the availability of double-drawbacks. Readers are encouraged to form their own conclusions as to whether the current treatment of drawbacks is overly generous. This article provides insights on how drawbacks operate, and why a federal court invalidated previous efforts to reign in the practice. Time will tell whether the OBBBA succeeds where Treasury regulations failed. Entries and Exits Duty drawbacks outwardly resemble a generic export subsidy, though the details are a bit more complicated. The idea is that a reclamation mechanism should be afforded for tariffs paid on imported goods that don't make it to market, for one reason or another. If we accept tariffs as the literal price to be paid for allowing foreign-made goods to access domestic markets, then it follows that some kind of refund ought to be granted in those instances when an imported article enters the country but never gets as far as retail shelves. Drawbacks aren't limited to import duties. The treatment extends to domestic excise taxes and other fees. The key to understanding the drawback is that after physical importation, something happens that causes the imported good to be unavailable for purchase by U.S. consumers. That typically occurs when the item in question is exported. As the product's entry into the United States justifies the initial tariff, its exit justifies the drawback. The concept can be illustrated through a set of examples. Let's assume the U.S. importer is a Midwestern company engaged in the production of high-end racing bicycles. It contracts with a foreign manufacturer, based in Switzerland, that produces ceramic-coated ball bearings. Over the course of a year, the U.S. company imports thousands of pounds of these bearings, paying a tariff each time a batch of them is loaded off a container ship. The bearings are used in the construction of premium wheelsets that adorn the company's finished bicycles. For the sake of simplification, let's say one-third of the resulting bicycles are sold domestically, with the remaining two-thirds exported for final purchase by foreign buyers. It follows that 66.67 percent of the customs duty initially paid on the ball bearings is eligible for drawbacks, corresponding to tariffs on imported goods that eventually exit the domestic market. There is no drawback for tariffs on goods used in manufacturing that resulted in domestic sales. This pattern is described as the 'manufacturing' drawback, because the imported article functions as a commercial input. Note how the combination of importation plus domestic manufacturing is not sufficient to justify the drawback; there must be the additional element of nonavailability for domestic consumption. Our second example involves slightly different facts. We have the same U.S. bicycle manufacturer that imports ball bearings from Switzerland. Here, however, the company opts to inventory one-third of its supply, choosing not to use the bearings in the production of bicycle wheelsets. Instead, it plans to sell the bearings (unprocessed) to third parties at a markup. The third-party purchasers are located overseas, meaning the Swiss-made bearings are exported after spending a few weeks in the United States as commercial inventory. When the dust settles, one-third of the imported bearings are used in the production of bicycles sold domestically, while another one-third of the supply is used to produce bicycles that are exported. The remaining supply (the final third) is exported in an unprocessed form. Again, the result is that 66.67 percent of the tariffs paid are eligible for a duty drawback. That portion of the rebate that applies to the exported bearings is characterized as the 'unused merchandise' drawback. Substituted Merchandise About 20 years ago, Congress expanded the use of duty drawbacks through the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 (MTTCA). The law made it easier for U.S. companies to substitute one imported good for another while still claiming the drawback, provided both items shared the same code under the U.S. harmonized tariff schedule (HTS). The practice of import substitution was common in the alcoholic beverage sector, where imports are subject to heavy excise taxes as well as tariffs. For example, a company might import 100 bottles of wine which is consumed domestically, while exporting 100 bottles of a similarly priced different wine with an identical HTS code. Through the permissive treatment of substituted merchandise, the company could claim a drawback of taxes paid on the imported wine, despite the fact it was never exported. A subsequent law, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, limited duty drawbacks for wine. The substituted wines had to be of the same color variety, irrespective of HTS codes. Accordingly, a wine merchant could substitute a pinot grigio for a chardonnay and successfully claim a duty drawback for the tariffs and excise taxes paid on the import. In addition to the color requirement, the statute denied the drawback when the price variation between the two wines exceeded 50 percent. This gave rise to an interesting opportunity — analogous to a double dip. The conventional wisdom is that it's appropriate to allow drawbacks for substituted goods because both items would have incurred equivalent economic burdens. That reasoning is challenged when we consider the role of bonded warehouses. Normally, imports are subject to tariffs upon 'entry' into the United States. An exception applies for imports immediately placed in bonded warehouses upon their arrival. If such items are subsequently exported, directly from the bonded warehouse, they avoid most U.S. tariffs and excise taxes. Arguably, a double benefit occurs when U.S. companies export goods from bonded warehouse and then claim a drawback relating to substitute merchandise. The first benefit accrues when tariffs and excise taxes are relieved under the bonded warehouse exemption, the second benefit accrues when the drawback is granted on a substitution basis. TFTEA had the effect of expanding the number of industries that could take advantage of double-drawbacks. Big tobacco was a natural fit, given that tobacco (like booze) is subject to significant excise taxes. At the same time, large tobacco firms were shifting much of their agricultural production outside the United States to benefit from reduced labor costs and regulatory burdens, knowing they could transport their output to U.S.-based bond warehouses and avoid both tariffs and excise taxes. Drawbacks in Court In the years following the enactment of TFTEA, the Treasury Department sought to close the perceived loophole. The statutory authorization for drawbacks provides as follows: With respect to imported merchandise on which was paid any duty, tax, or fee imposed under Federal law upon entry or importation . . . that . . . notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the exportation or destruction of such other merchandise an amount calculated pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (l) shall be refunded as drawback. In principle, the double benefit illustrated above could be disallowed by an ensuing limitation, 'Merchandise that is exported or destroyed to satisfy any claim for drawback shall not be the basis of any other claim for drawback.' Mindful of the apparent ambiguity in the statute, Treasury and the CBP promulgated regulations in 2018 that relied on a muscular interpretation of section 1313(v). The objective was to prevent double recoveries of tariffs and excise taxes. The regulation made two key changes to the drawback regime. First, it altered the definition of drawback and drawback claim to include a 'refund or remission of other excise taxes pursuant to other provisions of law.' Under the revised definition, the export of merchandise without payment of an excise tax counts as a claim for drawback. Second, the regulation limited drawbacks to the amount of taxes paid and not previously refunded. It was significant in that it prevented domestically produced exports from qualifying for a claim for substitution drawbacks. For instance, under the regulations, the export of a California-produced red wine could not provide the basis for a drawback, in relation to the importation of French red wine that drew both tariffs and excise taxes. That's because the exported California wine would have incurred no tariff or excise tax, although it would have been subject to excise taxes if it were directed towards domestic consumption. Essentially, the regulation narrowed the scope of permissible substituted merchandise for drawback purposes. The regulations were promptly challenged in court. The National Association of Manufacturers, joined by the Beer Institute, filed a complaint before the U.S. Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs argued that the statutory language addressing substitution drawbacks (19 U.S.C. section 1313(j)(2)), effectively blocks the government's interpretation of the limitation provision (19 U.S.C. section 1313(v)). section 1313(j)(2) provides that the drawback shall be refunded 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' The plaintiffs separately argued that the regulation includes a prohibition not expressly contemplated in section 1313(v) — that is, the general prohibition of a substitution drawback for excise taxes paid on imports where the substituted exports were exempt from excise tax. In short, the plaintiffs argued the regulations were attempting to revert to the treatment of excise taxes under the pre-2004 statutory scheme, which Congress had by then rejected. The trade court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor under a basic Chevron analysis, finding the statutory language was not ambiguous. The government appealed to the federal circuit, which upheld the trade court's decision on the same grounds. Both courts reflected on a key piece of legislative history: On multiple occasions, CBP officials informed lawmakers of the double-drawback, yet Congress did nothing to fix it. A Trade War on Tobacco? As things stand today, duty drawbacks remain a vital feature of the U.S. import and export environment. The use of substitution drawbacks is common, especially in the alcohol and tobacco sectors, as authorized first by the MTTCA and later expanded on by the TFTEA. The double-drawback is alive, for now. OBBBA, as approved by the House, would not halt the practice. Instead, it would narrow the scope of drawbacks for the tobacco industry as of mid-2026. Tobacco, of course, is among the nation's most export-dependent agricultural sectors. A section-by-section breakdown of OBBBA released by House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith offers the following detail on the drawback provision: Sec. 112032. Limitation on drawback of taxes paid with respect to substituted merchandise. Current Law: Under current law, importers can claim a refund of excise taxes on imported tobacco products upon exportation of substitutable goods, even if excise tax was never paid on those substitute goods. Provision: This provision limits the drawback of excise tax for tobacco products to scenarios in which excise tax has been paid on the exported goods that are used as the basis for the drawback claim. Note that the House-approved provision is silent about drawbacks involving tariffs; it's limited to excise taxes. It also says nothing about bonded warehouses or substituted merchandise. Most remarkably, it only mentions drawbacks related to tobacco products. The Joint Committee on Taxation's revenue estimate ($12 billion) would be much higher if the provision were expanded to include excise taxes on alcoholic beverages. Congressional Republicans are keen to pass OBBBA through reconciliation as soon as possible — and Trump is keen to sign it into law. Its enactment would represent the major legislative achievement of his second term. If it clears the Senate, it will do so over the strenuous objections of the tobacco lobby, which has come to rely on drawbacks. Eliminating a double recovery is fine, but that's not what OBBBA offers. One prefers that reforms be implemented as neutrally as possible. Why single out tobacco and leave other export sectors unscathed? And why not seek a more principled approach to determining what should count as substituted merchandise for drawback purposes. On the whole, the attempted regulatory fix from Trump's first term was better tailored to solving the problem at hand.

The Hill

38 minutes ago

• The Hill

Senate parliamentarian allows GOP to keep ban on state AI rules

The Senate parliamentarian concluded the controversial push to ban state regulation of artificial intelligence for the next 10 years can remain in President Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill. The decision, announced by lawmakers over the weekend, followed weeks of speculation from both parties over whether the provision would overcome the procedural hurdle known as the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian's decision will allow the provision to be voted on in the budget reconciliation process with a simple-majority vote. It comes after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, altered the language of the House's version in hopes of complying with the Byrd Rule, which prohibits 'extraneous matters' from being included in reconciliation packages. Under their proposal, states would be prohibited from regulating AI if they want access to federal funding from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. The House's version called for a blanket 10-year moratorium on state laws regulating AI models and systems, regardless of funding. Still, some GOP members remained skeptical it would pass the Byrd Rule. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said last week it was 'doubtful' the provision survives. The provision has further divided Republicans, while Democrats are largely against it. While many Republicans are concerned with overbearing regulation of the emerging tech, a few GOP members argue it goes against the party's traditional support of states' rights. Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) told The Hill they are against the provision, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he is willing to introduce an amendment to eliminate the provision during the Senate's marathon vota-a-rama if it is not taken out earlier. The provision received pushback from some Republicans in the House as well. A group of hard-line conservatives argued in a letter earlier this month to Senate Republicans that Congress is still 'actively investigating' AI and 'does not fully understand the implications' of the technology. This was shortly after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) confirmed she would be a 'no' on the bill if it comes back to the House with the provision included. 'I am 100 percent opposed, and I will not vote for any bill that destroys federalism and takes away states' rights, ability to regulate and make laws when it regards humans and AI,' the Georgia Republican told reporters. Several Republican state leaders and lawmakers are also pushing back.

Politico

41 minutes ago

• Politico

Rate cushion confusion

Good morning and welcome to the weekly Monday edition of the New York & New Jersey Energy newsletter. We'll take a look at the week ahead and look back on what you may have missed last week. MANY CUSHIONS — New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy's administration has created so many overlapping credits to deal with rising energy rates it's now hard to keep track of them and where the money is coming from. Some of the money is basically a loan from utility companies that customers have to pay back. Some of it comes from surcharges and fees that customers have already paid or will pay to the state but that some customers, particularly low- and moderate-income households, are getting back as targeted rate relief. Republicans have criticized Democrats for focusing on rate relief without tackling larger supply-demand issues that have driven up the prices in the first place. To clarify, here's each major bucket: $30 for two months, all residential customers: These are utility bill deferrals given by utility companies at the BPU's request. The credits will come off the July and August bills for all of the state's 3.9 million residential customers. The $60 must be paid back in $10 interest-free installments over the next six months, from September through February. $100 once, all residential customers: This comes out of the $430 million ratepayer relief package Gov. Phil Murphy and legislative Democrats announced just before the June primary election. The package includes monies from the state's Clean Energy Fund, the BPU's share of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative proceeds, and the Solar Alternative Compliance Payment account. The BPU still needs to approve the details of this one. About $150, low to moderate income customers: Another chunk of money that comes out of the $430 million package. About 280,000 customers are expected to receive a $25 per month bill credit paid for by state subsidies from August through February. $20 to $200 per month, low-income customers: This money comes from the universal service fund, which is funded by ratepayers, and is generally for households with income at or below 60 percent of the state median income. The BPU recently approved a plan to increase the minimum and maximum credit, which was $5 and $180 in past years, and is pushing to enroll far more people because 80 percent of people who are eligible are not enrolled. — Ry Rivard HEAT WATCH: New York and New Jersey along with a large swath of the country are bracing for a brutal heat wave to kick off summer — just in time for primary day in New York. Gov. Kathy Hochul declared a state of emergency in 32 counties, including New York City, after Saturday's thunderstorms and heavy rains knocked out power and drenched parts of upstate New York. Outages impacted more than 50,000 people, according to Hochul's office. Three people, including two children, were killed in Oneida County after a tree fell on their homes. New York's grid operator says the state has plenty of power to meet demand on the system during the heat wave. Some schools have announced modified schedules. Hundreds of cooling centers will be open in New York City as voters head to the polls. New Jersey's grid operator, PJM, issued an emergency alert saying it may require all generators to operate at maximum output capability. The projected demand for Monday, as of Sunday, was 160 GW. The 13-state grid's all-time, one-day highest power use was more than 165 GW in summer 2006. — Ry Rivard ICYMI: LOVETT TO HOCHUL: Former Daily News and New York Post scribe Ken Lovett is joining the Hochul administration. Lovett, a former Eichor Strategies consultant, will serve as a senior communications adviser for energy and environment — a crucial issue area for Hochul ahead of her reelection bid. The governor has discussed energy projects with President Donald Trump, conversations that have included a controversial pipeline and wind energy efforts. Lovett, a former senior adviser at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, will serve as a direct adviser to Hochul and communications director Anthony Hogrebe. 'Nobody knows state government better than Ken Lovett, and we're thrilled to have his experience and expertise as we continue to bring Governor Hochul's message to New Yorkers.' — Nick Reisman — Lovett authored an opinion piece a few months ago praising New York's progress toward renewables and supporting Hochul's exploration of nuclear energy. HAPPY MONDAY MORNING: Let us know if you have tips, story ideas or life advice. We're always here at mfrench@ and rrivard@ And if you like this letter, please tell a friend and/or loved one to sign up. Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories. Here's what we're watching this week: MONDAY— Gov. Kathy Hochul makes an announcement at the New York Power Authority's Niagara Power Project, 11 a.m. — Environmental activists hold a press conference and rally on the 'Formosa Four' protesters' case ahead of a court hearing, 8:15 a.m., the lawn of Livingston Town Hall and Municipal Court, 357 S. Livingston Ave., Livingston, New Jersey. — The New Jersey budget deal is expected to drop early this week, with a vote expected mid to late week ahead of the June 30 deadline. TUESDAY— NYSERDA's board has committee meetings, starting at 10 a.m. WEDNESDAY— The Long Island Power Authority board of trustees meets, 11 a.m., LIPA Office, 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., 4th Floor, Uniondale. — The New York State Energy Planning Board meets, 1 p.m., Albany Capital Center. — The Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site community advisory group meets, 1 p.m., Saratoga Town Hall, 12 Spring St., Schuylerville. AROUND NEW YORK — Republican Long Island lawmakers want to save the clean energy tax credits that Congress looks poised to kill. — Newsday details the lobbying efforts that defeated a plastics and packaging reduction measure in the final days of session. — Duane Lake residents still fighting to get inclusion in septic replacement program. Around New Jersey — New Jersey lawmakers scrutinize energy-hungry data centers. — More pollution expected from New Jersey sites. — Roselle Park employees fear retaliation as town shutters site of possible toxic exposure. What you may have missed PACKAGING FALLOUT — POLITICO's Marie J. French: State lawmakers whiffed on an aggressive measure to reduce plastic and packaging waste in New York on the final day of Albany's legislative session. The Assembly did not pass the sweeping proposal to mandate reductions in packaging by producers and charge them for disposal costs. Supporters had hailed it as the strongest proposal in the country while business opponents argued it would lead to higher consumer costs and the unavailability of some packaged food products. STORAGE BIDS — The BPU approved new subsidies for batteries at its board meeting. The subsidies are dubbed the Garden State Energy Storage Program. The bid period opens next week. According to the board order, the state will target procuring 'at least 1,000 MW of transmission-scale energy storage over the course of multiple solicitations.' The first solicitation aims to award 350-750 MW by Oct. 31, with a prequalification process commencing on June 25 and final bids due Aug. 20. The board will have one or more rounds of bidding in 2026. — Ry Rivard E-BIKE BATTERY RETURNS: The Assembly gave final passage to a measure expanding the state's battery recycling requirements to cover e-bike batteries. Problems with lithium-ion e-bike batteries have caused deadly fires in New York City, with some fires starting in the waste stream once those batteries are thrown out. This bill would address disposal, requiring manufacturers of the batteries to work with retailers to accept back depleted batteries. The Department of Environmental Conservation would consult with the New York City Fire Department and others before developing regulations. Firefighters have raised concerns about the measure, proposing restrictions on accepting batteries at residential and mixed-use locations, Republican lawmakers said during the debate on the bill. 'It endangers the lives of people living in those buildings,' said Republican Assemblymember Michael Durso. Assemblymember Deborah Glick, who sponsored the bill, said she hopes the consultation requirements address some of those concerns. She said the bill would improve safety overall by removing these batteries from the waste stream. 'We have no restrictions on the sale, the repair, or the charging in any of the locations currently,' Glick said. 'They're charging them now and there are no regulations, so it seems to me this is a fairly modest proposal.' — Marie J. French 100-FOOT RULE PASSES — POLITICO's Marie J. French: Property owners looking to hook up to the state's existing gas system would face higher costs under a bill headed to Gov. Kathy Hochul's desk. Lawmakers passed an incremental measure Monday aimed at reining in the expansion of gas service. The bill requires that residential customers pay the full cost of any new pipeline to connect to the gas system. Right now, utilities pay for up to 100 feet of new pipe and pass those expenses on to other ratepayers. 'If you are putting up a new home, you should pay for the connection. That's all this says,' said Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon, the sponsor of the bill. 'And the connection, by the way, should be paid for by the person who's putting it in, instead of your neighbors — which is not a good way to get off on the right foot with your neighbors.'