The Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2025 inserts a new limitation into Clean Air Act section 202(a)(2): any regulation under that section issued on or after January 1, 2021 may not mandate use of a specific technology and may not "result in limited availability of new motor vehicles based on the type of new motor vehicle engine." The bill also directs the EPA to promulgate any revisions necessary to conform existing regulations to this new rule within 24 months of enactment.
Practically, the bill forces EPA to write emission standards that are explicitly technology-neutral and to avoid regulatory designs that have the effect of constraining the market availability of vehicles by engine type (for example, internal combustion, hybrid, battery-electric, or fuel-cell). That shifts a meaningful portion of judgment about how to drive reductions in tailpipe pollution from regulatory design to other tools, and it creates concrete compliance and litigation questions for regulators and manufacturers alike.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends section 202(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act to add two specific prohibitions: regulations under that provision may not (1) mandate any particular technology and (2) produce limited availability of new vehicles by engine type. It applies to rules proposed or prescribed on or after January 1, 2021.
Who It Affects
The primary duty falls on the Environmental Protection Agency, which must revise regulations within 24 months to conform. Vehicle manufacturers, dealer networks, and regulators designing emission standards will see the greatest operational impact because regulatory design choices that favor particular powertrains would be off-limits.
Why It Matters
This is a structural change to how EPA can set tailpipe rules: it replaces broader regulatory discretion with a statutory constraint that prioritizes technology neutrality and market availability. For compliance officers and counsel it creates new legal thresholds and factual inquiries — e.g., what counts as a technology mandate or as limiting availability — that will shape future rulemaking and litigation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the Clean Air Act’s rulemaking language for new motor vehicle emissions to add an explicit ban on two things. First, the EPA may not write or revise any tailpipe regulation that requires a specific technology.
Second, the EPA may not adopt regulations that have the effect of limiting the availability of new motor vehicles according to the type of engine they use. The text ties these prohibitions to rules proposed or issued on or after January 1, 2021.
Mechanically, the change is inserted as a new subparagraph to section 202(a)(2), converting that paragraph into a two-part rule: the existing standard-setting authority stays in place but now sits alongside a statutorily mandated technology-neutral constraint. The bill then obliges the EPA to identify and promulgate whatever regulatory revisions are necessary to bring its existing and future rules into compliance within a 24-month window after the law’s enactment.Although brief, the statute reorients regulatory decision-making.
Rather than permitting regulatory designs that, in effect, steer the market toward particular powertrains (for example, through credits, model-year phase-ins, or compliance flexibilities that favor one engine architecture), the EPA must craft standards that reduce emissions without compelling or indirectly excluding certain engine types. That raises immediate questions for the agency about permissible compliance mechanisms, the evidentiary standard for showing a rule “results in limited availability,” and how to rewrite pending or recently finalized rules to meet the statute’s constraints.The bill does not create a new private right of action, specify penalties, or define key terms such as "mandate," "specific technology," "limited availability," or "type of…engine." Implementation will therefore rely on the EPA’s forthcoming rule revisions and, almost certainly, litigation to settle interpretive boundaries.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds section 202(a)(2)(B) to the Clean Air Act, creating two categorical prohibitions on tailpipe regulations.
It applies retroactively to any regulation proposed or prescribed on or after January 1, 2021.
Regulators may not 'mandate the use of any specific technology' when setting emissions rules under §202.
Regulations may not 'result in limited availability of new motor vehicles based on the type of new motor vehicle engine.', The EPA must promulgate any necessary revisions to conform existing regulations to the new statutory language within 24 months of enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s official name: 'Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2025.' This is purely nominative but signals the bill’s policy focus on preserving consumer access to different vehicle engine types.
Substantive amendment to Clean Air Act §202(a)(2)
Transforms the existing paragraph into a two-part structure by inserting a new subparagraph (B). The new language imposes two bright-line prohibitions on EPA rulemaking under section 202: disallowing mandatory technology prescriptions and disallowing regulations that have the effect of constraining new-vehicle availability by engine type. Practically, that restricts use of regulatory levers that would tie compliance to a particular hardware solution or that would make certain engine types economically or practically unavailable.
EPA rulemaking obligation and timeline
Directs the EPA Administrator to publish any regulatory revisions needed to conform existing rules with the new statutory constraints within 24 months after enactment. That creates a hard deadline for the agency to revisit prior standards and for drafting new rules that explicitly avoid technology mandates or measures that limit engine-type availability.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Consumers seeking internal-combustion or non-electric powertrains — preserves market access by prohibiting rules that would effectively bar those engine types.
- Automakers that still depend on or plan to sell traditional internal-combustion or diverse powertrain lineups — reduces risk that regulation will force rapid elimination of certain engine types.
- Independent and franchise dealers that rely on a mix of powertrain inventories — lowers the chance that inventory choices will be constrained by federal standards favoring one technology.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental Protection Agency — must reassess and rewrite applicable motor vehicle emission regulations within 24 months, consuming agency rulemaking resources and legal staff time.
- Manufacturers seeking to accelerate deployment of a particular low-emission technology — lose a potential regulatory lever that could be used to steer market adoption and may face more complex compliance pathways.
- Regulatory programs that relied on technology-specific incentives or credit structures — will need redesign, potentially creating transition costs and administrative complexity during the conformity process.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill frames a classic regulatory trade-off: protect consumer choice across engine types and avoid technology mandates, or preserve regulatory flexibility to steer the market toward lower-emission powertrains that may be necessary to meet public-health and climate goals. Narrowing EPA’s toolbox reduces the risk of excluding certain technologies but also removes a direct lever for accelerating technology transitions — and it leaves ambiguous how regulators should balance performance outcomes with technology neutrality.
The bill’s operative phrases are short but legally porous. It bans regulations that "mandate the use of any specific technology" and those that "result in limited availability" of vehicles by engine type, but it does not define what constitutes a mandate, what counts as a technology, or how to measure "limited availability." These gaps create predictable litigable questions: is a credit multiplier for zero-emission vehicles a forbidden mandate or a permissible performance-based incentive?
Does a regulation that makes certain models uneconomic qualify as limiting availability, or must the rule explicitly prohibit production of a class of engines? Courts will likely be asked to interpret these thresholds unless the EPA supplies detailed regulatory definitions.
The retroactive hook — covering rules proposed or prescribed on or after January 1, 2021 — potentially sweeps in recent standards and pending rulemakings, forcing near-term reconsideration. That invites operational disruption: manufacturers and states that began compliance planning under earlier rule designs may need to change course.
The 24-month revision deadline pressures the EPA to act quickly, increasing the chance of legal challenges both to the substance of revised rules and to the adequacy of the agency’s administrative record. Finally, the statute focuses on federal rulemaking and says nothing about state programs (for example, California waivers or state adoption of California standards), leaving open how federal-state interactions will play out in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.