HR-10154-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by James Gallagher (R-CA)
What it does
This bill would amend Section 209 of the Clean Air Act to require EPA to obtain concurrence from the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Transportation before granting a waiver or authorization allowing California (or other states adopting California's standards) to enforce vehicle emissions standards stricter than federal ones. It would apply to waiver or authorization requests submitted after enactment.
Who benefits
Automakers and oil and gas producers who oppose stricter state emissions and zero-emission vehicle mandates, and industries seeking a slower or more uniform national approach to vehicle standards. States and industries dependent on fossil fuel production, such as those represented by the Departments of Energy and Interior, would gain additional leverage over California's regulatory process.
Who is hurt
California and the roughly 17 states that have adopted its vehicle emissions standards, along with residents in those states who could see delayed adoption of stricter air quality rules. Environmental and public health advocates, electric vehicle manufacturers, and communities near highways or ports affected by vehicle pollution could also see effects if waivers are delayed or denied.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that California's emissions waivers under Section 209 have effectively let one state set national vehicle policy, since automakers often adopt California's stricter rules nationwide rather than build cars for two markets. They contend that requiring concurrence from agencies overseeing energy, transportation, agriculture, and public lands ensures broader interagency expertise and accountability before granting such far-reaching authority to a single state's regulator.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress explicitly authorized California's unique waiver authority under the Clean Air Act to address the state's severe air pollution history, and that adding a four-agency concurrence requirement effectively gives agencies with no environmental expertise a veto over public health regulation. They contend this would slow or block legitimate state authority upheld for decades and could be used to indefinitely stall waivers regardless of their scientific merit.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under the Commerce Clause to structure the Clean Air Act's cooperative federalism framework, including California's special waiver provision under Section 209, and can condition or restructure that authority as it sees fit; this bill raises questions about agency delegation and interagency review procedures rather than a settled constitutional violation. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) is the most relevant precedent, having affirmed both EPA's authority to regulate vehicle emissions and states' standing to challenge related agency action.
Checks and balances
Congress would restructure executive branch procedure by requiring four Cabinet agencies to jointly approve EPA waiver decisions, diffusing EPA's current sole authority and creating new interagency veto points subject to judicial review for arbitrary or capricious action.
Historical precedent
Congress and successive administrations have repeatedly revisited California's Clean Air Act waiver authority, including EPA's 2019 revocation and 2022 reinstatement of California's waiver for its Advanced Clean Car standards, but no prior law has imposed a multi-agency concurrence requirement on the waiver process itself.