The CHARGE Act prohibits the importation into the United States of energy storage systems that include ‘‘remote monitoring capabilities’’ when those systems are manufactured with technology licensed or owned by entities organized under PRC law or otherwise under PRC/CCP control. The statutory definition is broad: an ‘‘energy storage system’’ covers any device, module, or product able to store electric current for later discharge, and ‘‘remote monitoring capability’’ is defined to include devices that observe, collect, analyze, and disrupt data of information technology, communications, or critical infrastructure systems.
Beyond the ban itself, the bill forces rapid implementation steps (directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue implementing regulations), creates criminal penalties tied to individual shipments, and requires Commerce in consultation with Energy and Homeland Security to report to specified congressional committees for up to six years. For professionals who manage battery procurement, customs compliance, or grid resilience, the CHARGE Act would turn broad national‑security concerns into near‑term operational obligations and litigation risk across the import pipeline.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes it unlawful to import energy storage systems containing remote monitoring capabilities when those systems are manufactured with PRC-owned or -licensed technology or by entities under PRC/CCP control. It directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to adopt implementing regulations quickly and gives Commerce, Energy, and DHS a reporting requirement to Congress, including a possible classified annex.
Who It Affects
Importers, customs brokers, logistics firms, manufacturers and suppliers of battery systems (from grid-scale to residential), and federal enforcement agencies will be directly affected. Downstream electricity providers and system integrators that rely on cross‑border components will face new procurement and compliance considerations.
Why It Matters
The measure turns a cybersecurity and foreign‑influence risk into a statutory trade ban with criminal exposure and agency enforcement duties, potentially disrupting existing supply chains and forcing U.S. agencies to build identification and interdiction capabilities for a product class that spans many forms and suppliers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The CHARGE Act targets a category of hardware — any device capable of storing electric current — and ties its admissibility to two criteria: whether it contains the broad notion of a ‘‘remote monitoring capability’’ and whether it was manufactured with PRC‑owned or -licensed technology or by entities under PRC/CCP control. Those two thresholds are expressed as categorical triggers for an import ban rather than case‑by‑case discretionary controls, which means compliance turns on proving provenance and functional capability before goods cross the border.
To operationalize the ban, the bill requires CBP to promulgate implementing regulations on a rapid timetable and to develop mechanisms to identify covered products. That task will require tracing complex supply chains (components, firmware, design IP) and developing product screening rules or lists.
CBP also must review the scope of restrictions within 180 days of enactment and then annually consider additional limits, giving the agency an ongoing rulemaking and intelligence‑gathering role.The bill makes violations criminal, exposing importers or other persons who ‘‘knowingly’’ bring prohibited systems into the country to prison and fines assessed per shipment. It also puts Commerce, in consultation with Energy and DHS, on the hook to produce an initial report to multiple congressional committees within six months; that reporting obligation expires after six years but may include classified material on scope and risk.
Together, the enforcement, reporting, and regulatory mandates pressure federal agencies to build new technical, legal, and forensic processes for identifying covered systems while placing commercial actors between accelerated compliance deadlines and severe penalties.
The Five Things You Need to Know
CBP must issue regulations to implement the ban within 60 days of the Act’s enactment, requiring rapid rulemaking and product‑identification systems.
CBP must perform an initial review of additional restrictions within 180 days and then conduct annual reviews thereafter.
The bill criminalizes knowing violations with penalties up to 5 years’ imprisonment and fines up to $250,000 per shipment containing prohibited articles.
Commerce must deliver a report to designated congressional committees within 180 days, may include a classified annex, and the reporting requirement terminates six years after enactment.
The statutory definitions are expansive: ‘‘energy storage system’’ covers any device that can store electric current, and ‘‘remote monitoring capability’’ is defined to include devices able to observe, collect, analyze, and disrupt data in IT, communications, or critical‑infrastructure systems.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s public name — the Countering Harmful Adversarial Rechargeable and Generative Energy Act (CHARGE Act). This is purely stylistic but establishes the label legislative and agency guidance will use during implementation.
Findings — national‑security rationale
Sets out Congress’s national‑security concerns about PRC access to U.S. electric infrastructure and frames the statute as preventive. Findings are not law but signal to agencies and courts the legislative purpose to be weighed in rulemaking, enforcement discretion, and possible judicial review.
Substantive import prohibition
Imposes a categorical ban on importing energy storage systems that (1) contain ‘‘remote monitoring capabilities’’ and (2) were manufactured with PRC‑owned/licensed technology or by entities under PRC/CCP control. The provision operates as an absolute bar unless future regulations carve out exceptions; it does not create an administrative licensing pathway within the statutory text.
CBP rulemaking and periodic review
Directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue implementing regulations within 60 days and to create mechanisms to identify covered products. It also requires an initial CBP review within 180 days and annual reassessments, creating a persistent administrative duty for CBP to expand or refine enforcement criteria as threats evolve. That timeline compresses standard customs rulemaking and forces CBP to develop supply‑chain tracing, technical screening, or product lists quickly.
Penalties and Commerce reporting
Establishes criminal penalties for knowing violations (up to 5 years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fines per shipment) and requires Commerce, consulting with Energy and DHS, to report to specified House and Senate committees within 180 days; reports may include classified annexes and the reporting requirement sunsets after six years. These measures combine prosecutorial teeth with a congressional oversight stream intended to inform future policy or enforcement changes.
Key definitions
Defines ‘‘energy storage system’’ broadly (any device that stores electric current) and ‘‘remote monitoring capability’’ as any device capable of observing, collecting, analyzing, and disrupting data of IT, communications, or critical infrastructure systems. The definitions anchor the ban but leave interpretive questions about scope, component versus system coverage, and firmware‑level capabilities to implementing agencies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal national‑security agencies and intelligence community — the bill mandates reporting and CBP action that can surface PRC‑linked systems and provide oversight material for classified assessments.
- U.S. grid operators and critical‑infrastructure owners — by reducing one vector of foreign access the statute aims to lower a particular systemic risk, potentially simplifying risk assessments for operators.
- Domestic battery and energy‑storage manufacturers — the ban creates market protection from PRC competitors for covered product categories and may spur procurement favoring U.S. or allied suppliers.
- Cybersecurity and forensic service providers — demand will rise for product‑level audits, firmware analysis, and supply‑chain provenance work as private and public actors seek to certify non‑PRC exposure.
Who Bears the Cost
- Importers, customs brokers, and distributors of battery/electrical storage products — they face immediate compliance duties, potential criminal exposure per shipment, and the need to prove provenance upstream in complex supply chains.
- U.S. businesses that rely on lower‑cost PRC components — utilities, integrators, and installers may confront higher procurement costs, lead‑time risk, or supply interruptions where alternative suppliers are limited.
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection — the agency must draft rapid regulations, build technical screening capacity, and perform ongoing annual reviews with limited statutory guidance on implementation criteria.
- Manufacturers and OEMs who use mixed international supply chains — products assembled outside the PRC but incorporating PRC‑licensed tech or firmware may fall within the ban, complicating classification and compliance for firms with global sourcing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing an urgent national‑security objective — removing a perceived avenue for foreign surveillance or interference — against the practical costs of a broad, quickly implemented import ban: supply‑chain disruption, enforcement complexity, potential overreach into benign technologies, and legal friction with trade and customs norms. Security demands decisive action; administering that action without collapsing legitimate trade or miscriminalizing standard commercial practices is the hard choice the bill forces.
The statute’s effectiveness hinges on two hard technical tasks: reliably identifying ‘‘remote monitoring capabilities’’ in a wide array of products and proving the involvement of PRC‑owned or PRC‑licensed technology in manufacturing. ‘‘Remote monitoring capability’’ as defined sweeps broadly and could capture innocuous telemetry or standard communications used for diagnostics, warranty services, or grid management unless CBP and Commerce adopt nuanced technical criteria. Determining whether a product is ‘‘manufactured with technology licensed or owned by’’ a PRC entity may require forensic IP tracing and supplier attestations that are time‑consuming and costly, and could produce inconsistent enforcement across similar goods.
Criminal penalties assessed per shipment are a blunt instrument that raises enforcement and proportionality concerns; prosecutorial discretion and judicial review will become focal points if importers face steep fines and prison exposure for mistakes in provenance tracing. The requirement for a rapid 60‑day CBP regulation invites speed over deliberation, increasing the risk of overly broad product classifications that disrupt legitimate commerce.
Finally, the bill leaves open the interaction with existing export‑control and sanctions regimes and potential international trade disputes, especially if component‑level bans or pre‑emptive seizures of multinational goods occur without clear exemptions or transition pathways for affected industries.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.