The Freedom to Haul Act of 2025 stops the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing or enforcing the agency’s "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy‑Duty Vehicles—Phase 3" (89 Fed. Reg. 29440 (Apr. 22, 2024)).
It also amends Clean Air Act section 202(a)(2) to prohibit EPA tailpipe regulations from mandating specific technologies or from limiting the availability of new motor vehicles by engine type.
The bill forces the EPA to revise existing regulations within two years so they conform to the new prohibition, and it applies to regulations prescribed after January 1, 2021 and to regulations proposed after the bill’s enactment. For manufacturers, fleets, regulators, and states, the measure reshapes what the federal government can require about vehicle powertrains and places a statutory constraint on future emissions rules for motor vehicles.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars the EPA from implementing or enforcing its Phase 3 heavy‑duty greenhouse‑gas rule and amends the Clean Air Act to add a new limitation: EPA vehicle regulations may not mandate any specific technology or reduce the availability of new vehicles by engine type. It also requires the EPA to revise regulations within two years to ensure compliance with this new statutory prohibition.
Who It Affects
Heavy‑duty vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, fleet owners and operators (trucking, construction, agriculture), the EPA as the implementing agency, and states that adopt California-style standards or otherwise rely on federal tailpipe rules. Automotive technology developers focused on zero‑emission powertrains will also be affected because the bill restricts technology‑specific mandates.
Why It Matters
The bill imposes a substantive statutory limit on how the federal government can regulate tailpipe emissions, shifting the bounds of permissible performance standards and potentially blocking rules that effectively require EVs or other specific powertrains. That changes the legal baseline for vehicle regulatory design and for industry planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 2 of the bill directs the EPA not to implement or enforce the agency’s final Phase 3 heavy‑duty greenhouse gas rule published in the Federal Register (89 Fed. Reg. 29440).
That is a direct, statute‑level prohibition: the Administrator lacks authority under this Act to put that particular final rule into effect or to use it as the basis for enforcement actions.
Section 3 changes the Clean Air Act’s language in 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2) by inserting a new subparagraph that says vehicle emissions regulations — including amendments and rules issued after January 1, 2021 or proposed after this Act’s enactment — cannot mandate specific technologies and cannot result in limited availability of new motor vehicles by engine type. In practice, the amendment converts certain design outcomes (technology mandates and availability constraints) into statutory no‑goes for the EPA when it writes tailpipe rules.The bill also creates a concrete compliance deadline: the EPA must promulgate any regulatory revisions necessary to conform existing regulations to the new statutory language within two years of enactment.
That requires the agency to review current and pending vehicle rules, identify provisions that could be read as technology mandates or that could be interpreted to limit engine‑type availability, and issue revising rulemaking to align the regulatory text with the statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expressly prohibits the EPA from implementing or enforcing the specific final rule titled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy‑Duty Vehicles—Phase 3" (89 Fed. Reg. 29440 (Apr. 22, 2024)).
It amends Clean Air Act section 202(a)(2) to add a clause forbidding any vehicle emissions regulation from mandating a specific technology or from "result[ing] in limited availability of new motor vehicles based on the type of new motor vehicle engine.", The amendment applies to regulations prescribed after January 1, 2021 and to any regulation proposed after the Act’s enactment, expanding the statute’s reach backward and forward in time.
The EPA must promulgate revisions to affected regulations within two years of enactment to ensure they conform to the new prohibition against technology mandates and availability limits.
The statutory change converts a regulatory design constraint into a statutory limitation on EPA rulemaking authority rather than an interpretive guidance or agency policy change.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: "Freedom to Haul Act of 2025." This is a formal caption with no operative effect beyond identification.
Ban on implementing or enforcing Heavy‑Duty Phase 3 rule
Directs the EPA Administrator not to implement or enforce the Phase 3 heavy‑duty greenhouse gas final rule identified at 89 Fed. Reg. 29440. Practically, that prevents the agency from using that specific Federal Register final rule as the basis for compliance obligations or enforcement actions under federal law; it does not by itself rewrite the Clean Air Act but cuts off enforcement of that particular rule.
Amend Clean Air Act §202(a)(2) — ban technology mandates and availability limits
Modifies the statutory text of section 202(a)(2) by adding a new subparagraph that (i) bars EPA regulations from mandating any specific technology and (ii) bars regulations that would limit new vehicle availability based on engine type. The language explicitly covers regulations prescribed after Jan. 1, 2021 and any regulations proposed after enactment, which broadens the amendment’s operational scope to recent and forthcoming rulemaking.
Mandated regulatory revisions within two years
Requires the EPA to promulgate any regulatory revisions necessary to bring existing regulations into conformity with the new statutory language within two years. That creates a statutory deadline for agency rulemaking and forces the EPA to identify and amend any regulatory provisions that could be read as technology‑specific or that could be interpreted to constrain 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
- Trucking and heavy‑equipment fleet owners and operators — They retain broader choice over engine types and powertrains and avoid federally imposed requirements that could force early, concentrated conversion to particular technologies.
- Manufacturers of internal combustion engines and traditional drivetrains — The ban on technology mandates preserves market access for combustion‑engine vehicles and reduces regulatory risk to investments in those technologies.
- Aftermarket and independent repair shops — By protecting multiple engine types in the vehicle fleet, the bill preserves demand for repair, rebuild, and retrofit services for non‑EV powertrains.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental Protection Agency — The EPA must review existing and pending regulations and complete a rulemaking within two years to revise regulations, diverting agency resources and opening the agency to litigation over its conforming actions.
- States seeking stricter tailpipe standards (including California and adopting states) — The federal constraint may limit federal mechanisms that underpin or influence state approaches and could spark conflict over state authority to regulate emissions and vehicle availability.
- Manufacturers and developers focusing on zero‑emission vehicle (ZEV) technology — Companies whose business plans assume regulatory push toward specific ZEV deployment may face reduced regulatory leverage to drive market adoption, affecting investment returns and market strategy.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between preserving broad consumer and manufacturer access to all engine types (and preventing the federal government from steering markets toward particular powertrains) and preserving the EPA’s ability to use performance standards to drive emissions reductions; constraining technology mandates may protect choice but can constrain regulators’ most effective levers for meeting public‑health and climate objectives.
The bill converts what are often drafting or interpretive choices into statutory prohibitions — that raises implementation questions. "Mandate the use of any specific technology" is clear in principle but can be hard to apply: performance standards that effectively require a technology to meet a standard may be challenged as a forbidden mandate even if they are framed as technology‑neutral. Similarly, the phrase "result in limited availability of new motor vehicles based on the type of new motor vehicle engine" invites disputes over measurement: does it target absolute bans, timing of supply transitions, manufacturer model choices, or market‑driven availability shifts?
Agencies, industry, and courts will have to define metrics for "availability" and the causal link between a regulation and vehicle offerings.
The two‑year deadline forces the EPA to act quickly, but rapid rulemaking to conform regulations risks procedural or substantive legal challenges if stakeholders argue the agency exceeded its authority or failed to consider emissions impacts. The ban on enforcing a specific final rule (Phase 3) may itself become the subject of litigation — challengers could argue the statute improperly singles out a rule or conflicts with the Clean Air Act’s directive to regulate motor vehicle emissions.
Finally, the interplay with state authority — especially California’s waiver process and states that adopt California standards — is unresolved in the text and could produce preemption battles or parallel regulatory regimes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.