Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends Clean Air Act section 209(b) to prohibit State standards that directly or indirectly limit the sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion engines. It adds a new subparagraph (D) banning waivers for state rules that would limit internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle sales, and prevents the EPA Administrator from retroactively treating post-enactment state amendments as covered by prior waivers.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-health harms versus conservative prioritizing consumer choice.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that explicitly curtails EPA waiver authority under the Clean Air Act by prohibiting waivers for State standards that limit the sale or use of new internal combustion engine vehicles and by directing revocation of certain waivers.
This bill amends Clean Air Act section 209(b) to prohibit State standards that directly or indirectly limit the sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion engines.
It adds a new subparagraph (D) banning waivers for state rules that would limit internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle sales, and prevents the EPA Administrator from retroactively treating post-enactment state amendments as covered by prior waivers.
The bill also directs the EPA to revoke any waiver issued between January 1, 2022 and enactment that does not comply with the new restriction.
Legally significant federal preemption on a high-salience issue; narrow text helps proponents but strong institutional, political, and legal resistance lowers odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that explicitly curtails EPA waiver authority under the Clean Air Act by prohibiting waivers for State standards that limit the sale or use of new internal combustion engine vehicles and by directing revocation of certain waivers. The bill supplies clear, short-form statutory text to accomplish that substantive policy change but leaves several practical and legal specifics unaddressed.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-health harms versus conservative prioritizing consumer choice.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-health harms versus conservative prioritizing consumer choice.
Likely strongly opposed.
They will view this as a federal preemption of state-led climate and air-quality policy and an obstacle to accelerating EV adoption.
They will emphasize public health and greenhouse gas reduction losses from blocking state standards.
Mixed view.
Appreciates uniformity and manufacturer certainty, but worries about blocking legitimate state environmental regulation.
Will want clearer definitions and measured tradeoffs.
Likely supportive.
Sees the bill as protecting consumer choice, preventing state mandates that force EV transitions, and limiting California-style regulatory reach.
Prefers federal limits on state waivers in this area.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Legally significant federal preemption on a high-salience issue; narrow text helps proponents but strong institutional, political, and legal resistance lowers odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-health harms versus conservative prioritizing consumer choice.
Legally significant federal preemption on a high-salience issue; narrow text helps proponents but strong institutional, political, and lega…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that explicitly curtails EPA waiver authority under the Clean Air Act by prohibiting waivers for State standards that limit the sale…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.