Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The bill repeals the EPA’s April 18, 2024 final rule titled “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light‑Duty and Medium‑Duty Vehicles.” It amends Clean Air Act §202(a)(2) to prohibit EPA tailpipe regulations from mandating specific technologies or causing limited availability of new vehicles based on engine type, and requires the EPA to revise regulations within 24 months to conform to that prohibition.
Climate and air-quality goals versus preserving consumer choice
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies a substantive change to environmental regulatory law—nullifying a named EPA final rule and amending the Clean Air Act to prohibit technology mandates and restrictions on vehicle availability by engine type—and assigns the EPA Administrator responsibility to promulgate conforming regulations within 24 months.
The bill repeals the EPA’s April 18, 2024 final rule titled “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light‑Duty and Medium‑Duty Vehicles.” It amends Clean Air Act §202(a)(2) to prohibit EPA tailpipe regulations from mandating specific technologies or causing limited availability of new vehicles based on engine type, and requires the EPA to revise regulations within 24 months to conform to that prohibition.
Content is partisan and directly limits longstanding EPA authority; lacks compromise features and faces high Senate hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies a substantive change to environmental regulatory law—nullifying a named EPA final rule and amending the Clean Air Act to prohibit technology mandates and restrictions on vehicle availability by engine type—and assigns the EPA Administrator responsibility to promulgate conforming regulations within 24 months. The bill provides direct, simple mechanisms to effect those changes but contains drafting omissions that introduce ambiguity, does not address key definitions or edge cases, and lacks fiscal and oversight detail.
Climate and air-quality goals versus preserving consumer choice
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Climate and air-quality goals versus preserving consumer choice
Likely opposes the bill as undermining emissions and climate policy.
Sees repeal and the new ban on technology-specific rules as weakening pollution controls and future EV deployment.
Views the bill as a balanced attempt at tech-neutral regulation but worries it may blunt emissions progress.
Wants clear emissions outcomes and cost analyses before support.
Likely supports the bill as protecting consumer choice and preventing regulatory technology mandates.
Sees repeal as correcting federal overreach into auto markets.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is partisan and directly limits longstanding EPA authority; lacks compromise features and faces high Senate hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Climate and air-quality goals versus preserving consumer choice
Content is partisan and directly limits longstanding EPA authority; lacks compromise features and faces high Senate hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies a substantive change to environmental regulatory law—nullifying a named EPA final rule and amending the Clean Air Act to prohibit technology mandat…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.