IANAL but the RAY BAUM’S act (yes, it's all caps because it's a silly initialism) only applies to location data that goes "with" a particular 911 call. Not your location before the call, nor your location after the call.
So if your cell-carrier is recording your location at all moments and persisting it indefinitely, no law was forcing them to do that, they are choosing to disrespect your privacy for their own profits or laziness.
Unfortunately, it's inconsistently deployed and not universally usable. This is likely the result of a lack of a sufficiently-staffed regulatory body auditing for compliance and correctness because it doesn't work everywhere with all phones on all carriers even when there is the technical ability, e.g., phone has a fix. It hasn't delivered completely on its promise because it's an under-funded, under-audited mandate that needs serious carrots and sticks to ensure it's reliable.
Do we really believe that Congress authored a law to improve "safety" but that had enormous privacy implications, while accidentally forgetting to also deal with the other 99.999+% of the time that the average person's location data is not involved with an emergency? Why were the legislation (and debate) conspicuously silent on limiting (let alone criminalizing) use and retention of location data, let alone resale (e.g. to data brokers or private parties?)
To see this in practice, check out MVNOs offering prepaid mobile service. Some will disable certain features unless this physical E911 address is submitted by the customer.
What if there were a limitation on how that data can be used.