HJRES-212-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by August Pfluger (R-TX)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify an EPA rule published on March 14, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 14332) that restored California's waiver to enforce its own stricter motor vehicle emissions standards under the Advanced Clean Cars program. If enacted, the EPA rule would have no legal force or effect, meaning California could no longer rely on that waiver to enforce its stricter tailpipe emissions standards — including rules that move toward zero-emission vehicle requirements. Other states that had adopted California's standards under the Clean Air Act would also be affected.
Who benefits
Automakers that prefer a single national emissions standard over complying with California's stricter rules. Consumers in states that adopted California's standards who may have faced limited availability of non-electric vehicle models. Workers in internal combustion engine manufacturing and supply chains. States that opposed California's standards and sought uniform federal rules. Oil and gas producers whose market could be reduced by accelerated electric vehicle adoption.
Who is hurt
California and the roughly 17 other states that had adopted California's vehicle emissions standards, which would lose the legal basis for enforcing those rules. Environmental and public health advocates who argue stricter tailpipe standards reduce smog and particulate matter. Electric vehicle manufacturers and charging infrastructure companies that benefit from state-level zero-emission vehicle mandates. Residents of high-pollution urban areas in California and adopting states who may experience reduced air quality improvements. State governments that had built regulatory programs around the waiver.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a patchwork of state-level vehicle emissions standards creates an unworkable regulatory environment for automakers, raising vehicle costs for consumers nationwide. They contend that California's Advanced Clean Cars program — which effectively mandates a transition to zero-emission vehicles — represents a de facto national policy set by a single state, without congressional authorization, affecting hundreds of millions of Americans who never voted on it. They further argue the EPA's 2022 decision to restore the waiver reversed a legally sound 2019 withdrawal and that Congress, not a single state or federal agency, should set national vehicle policy of this magnitude.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that California's authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards is explicitly written into the Clean Air Act, and that the waiver program has been in place for over 50 years — representing a deliberate congressional choice to allow California to serve as a regulatory laboratory. They contend that revoking the waiver via the CRA eliminates a proven mechanism that has driven nationwide air quality improvements, noting that California's standards have historically been adopted federally over time. They also argue that blocking the rule harms the roughly 100 million Americans living in states that voluntarily adopted California's standards and had built vehicle and infrastructure planning around them.
Constitutional context
The Clean Air Act's waiver provision rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). Under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts would independently assess whether EPA had clear statutory authority to restore the waiver — and whether the original 2019 withdrawal or the 2022 restoration was the legally correct reading of the Clean Air Act, without deferring to EPA's interpretation.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority by nullifying an executive agency rule; the CRA also bars EPA from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future without new congressional authorization, significantly constraining executive branch discretion on this specific waiver.
Historical precedent
The Trump administration withdrew California's waiver in 2019 — the first such withdrawal in the waiver program's 50-year history — and the Biden EPA's 2022 restoration of that waiver is the specific rule this resolution targets; both actions were contested in federal court.