HB3338, the “MARKET CHOICE Act,” would create a federal greenhouse gas emissions tax regime and use the resulting revenue to fund infrastructure, climate adaptation, and transition assistance. The bill adds a new subtitle to the Internal Revenue Code imposing taxes on emissions from combusted fossil fuels, certain industrial processes, and certain product uses, with a starting rate of $40 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2027 and annual increases thereafter. It also establishes border greenhouse gas adjustments for imports and exports of greenhouse-gas-intensive goods, with the stated goals of reducing carbon leakage and encouraging other countries to reduce emissions.
The bill directs most revenue into a new Rebuilding Infrastructure and Solutions for the Environment Trust Fund, or RISE Trust Fund, and then allocates that money to a wide range of programs. Major recipients include the Highway Trust Fund, airport and airway programs, weatherization, flood mitigation and adaptation projects, state grants for low-income households, worker assistance, carbon capture and storage research, battery storage, reforestation, conservation programs, and other energy and environmental initiatives. It also repeals federal motor vehicle and aviation fuel excise taxes, modifies certain coal tax credit provisions, and creates a National Climate Commission to set long-term emissions reduction goals and review federal climate policy.
The bill would significantly affect the Internal Revenue Code, the Clean Air Act, and several other federal statutes. It would add new tax provisions governing fossil fuels, industrial emissions, and product-based emissions; create customs-related border adjustment rules; and limit certain Clean Air Act greenhouse gas regulations once emissions are taxed under the bill, subject to specified exceptions. It also expressly states that it does not preempt state law, and it provides credits for state-level emissions payments that phase down over time. Affected parties would include fossil fuel producers, importers, industrial emitters, manufacturers of certain products, state governments, low-income households, energy workers, and federal agencies responsible for tax administration, environmental regulation, transportation, and labor programs.
Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded discussion or roll-call history to gauge direct sentiment. Based on the bill text itself, the measure appears designed as a bipartisan climate-and-infrastructure package, pairing a carbon tax with broad spending on infrastructure and transition assistance. The findings section explicitly references bipartisan support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through economically viable policies, and the sponsors include members from both parties. At the same time, the bill’s structure suggests it is intended to appeal to both climate advocates and infrastructure-focused lawmakers.
The main points of contention are likely to be the carbon tax itself, the border adjustment mechanism, and the bill’s interaction with environmental regulation. Opponents may object to the new federal tax burden on fossil fuels, industrial sectors, and imported goods, as well as the administrative complexity of calculating emissions and enforcing border adjustments. Others may focus on the Clean Air Act moratorium, which would restrict certain EPA greenhouse gas regulations after the tax takes effect, while supporters may view that as a tradeoff that provides regulatory certainty and avoids duplicative burdens. Additional debate may arise over the treatment of coal-related credits, the inclusion of nuclear and fossil-sector worker assistance, and whether the revenue distribution adequately offsets costs for households and affected industries.
The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to add a new federal greenhouse gas emissions tax framework, repeal federal motor vehicle and aviation fuel excise taxes, and revise certain coal tax credit rules. It would also amend the Clean Air Act to limit EPA greenhouse gas regulation in areas covered by the new tax, while preserving specified exceptions for vehicles, nonroad engines, aircraft, and certain facilities. In addition, it creates new federal grant and trust fund programs for infrastructure, climate resilience, low-income household assistance, worker transition aid, and climate-related research, while expressly preserving state authority by stating that the act does not preempt state law.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no direct recorded legislative sentiment from debate or floor action. From the bill text, the measure is framed in bipartisan terms and combines climate policy with infrastructure investment, suggesting an attempt to build cross-party appeal. The overall tone is policy-oriented and pragmatic, emphasizing emissions reduction, infrastructure funding, and transition assistance rather than purely regulatory climate action.
Likely areas of contention include the new carbon tax on fossil fuels and industrial emissions, the border adjustment system for imports and exports, and the bill’s effect on existing environmental regulation. Fossil fuel producers, energy-intensive manufacturers, and importers would likely oppose the added costs and compliance requirements, while climate advocates may support the emissions pricing but scrutinize the Clean Air Act moratorium as a constraint on EPA authority. There may also be disagreement over the allocation of revenues, especially the balance between infrastructure spending, household rebates or grants, and support for carbon capture, coal-related credits, and worker transition programs.