HJRES-210-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Vince Fong (R-CA)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify an EPA decision published on October 20, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 72461) that approved California's authority to enforce its own emission standards for ocean-going vessels while docked at port ("at-berth"). If enacted, the EPA's approval would have no legal force or effect, and California could not enforce those standards under the federal waiver.
Who benefits
Shipping companies and cargo vessel operators that call at California ports (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland), who would avoid compliance costs for at-berth emission controls. Port-dependent industries such as importers, exporters, and freight logistics companies that could face lower shipping costs. Consumers who might indirectly benefit if reduced compliance costs lower the price of imported goods. States and industries that oppose California setting de facto national standards through its unique waiver authority.
Who is hurt
Residents of communities near California's major ports — particularly in Los Angeles and Long Beach — who are disproportionately low-income and communities of color and who would lose the air quality protections the at-berth rules were designed to provide. California state government, which would lose the ability to enforce rules it developed and that the EPA had already approved. Clean air and public health advocates. Manufacturers of shore power and emission-control technology who had anticipated demand from port compliance requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that ocean-going vessels operating in international commerce are subject to federal and international maritime jurisdiction, and that allowing California to impose its own dockside emission standards creates a patchwork regulatory regime that disrupts interstate and international trade. They contend that the shipping industry faces significant compliance costs — including retrofitting vessels with shore power connections — that are passed on to consumers and businesses, and that Congress, not a single state agency, should set emission policy for vessels engaged in global commerce.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that California's at-berth rule addresses a documented public health crisis: diesel particulate pollution from idling ships is linked to elevated cancer and respiratory disease rates in port-adjacent communities. They contend that the Clean Air Act explicitly grants California the right to seek waivers for its own vehicle and engine emission standards — a legal framework upheld for decades — and that the EPA's approval followed a thorough administrative process. Nullifying the rule via the CRA would strip a state of a congressionally granted tool to protect its residents from localized pollution.
Constitutional context
The Clean Air Act's California waiver provision (Section 209) is grounded in Congress's Commerce Clause authority and represents a deliberate statutory exception allowing California to set stricter standards. The major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the end of Chevron deference under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) mean that courts would independently scrutinize whether EPA's waiver approval for ocean-going vessels — a category with strong federal and international maritime dimensions — falls within the agency's clearly authorized statutory scope.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to nullify the EPA's administrative decision; under the CRA, if enacted, the rule cannot be reissued in substantially the same form without new congressional authorization, limiting future executive branch action in this specific area.
Historical precedent
Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to nullify EPA rules before, most notably in 2017 when it overturned the Stream Protection Rule; however, no prior CRA resolution has specifically targeted a California Clean Air Act waiver approval.