SJRES-207-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Pete Ricketts (R-NE)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a 2013 EPA decision that granted California a waiver from federal Clean Air Act preemption. That waiver allowed California to enforce its own stricter vehicle emission standards — including a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate — for model years up to 2017. If enacted, the waiver would have no legal force or effect, meaning California could no longer enforce those standards under the authority the waiver provided.
Who benefits
Automakers that found it costly to comply with California's stricter standards alongside federal rules. States that adopted the federal standard rather than California's, which may see competitive parity restored for auto dealers. Consumers in non-California states who may have faced limited vehicle model availability due to manufacturers managing dual compliance. Auto workers in plants producing vehicles that did not meet California's ZEV requirements.
Who is hurt
California and the roughly 17 states that adopted California's emission standards under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, which together represent a large share of the U.S. auto market. Residents of those states who may lose air quality protections tied to the stricter standards. Electric vehicle manufacturers and suppliers who benefited from the ZEV mandate driving demand. Environmental and public health organizations that supported the stricter standards. Consumers in California and adopting states who purchased vehicles in reliance on those standards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that California's waiver creates a de facto national vehicle standard, since automakers must design fleets to satisfy the largest state market, effectively removing Congress's role in setting national policy. They contend the EPA's 2013 waiver grant was an administrative decision of vast economic and political significance — covering millions of vehicles — that should require explicit congressional authorization under the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). They further argue that uniform federal standards reduce compliance costs, keep a wider variety of vehicle models available to consumers nationwide, and prevent a single state from dictating national automotive policy.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that California's authority to set stricter emission standards is explicitly written into Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, which Congress enacted in 1970 and has reaffirmed repeatedly, making the waiver a straightforward statutory grant rather than an agency overreach. They contend that California's program has a decades-long track record of reducing smog and improving public health in some of the most polluted airsheds in the country, and that revoking the waiver retroactively for model years already produced creates legal uncertainty without meaningful emissions benefit. They also argue that 17 states adopting California's standards reflects legitimate state-level democratic choices that this resolution would override.
Constitutional context
The Clean Air Act's California waiver provision rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and represents a deliberate statutory carve-out from federal preemption. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently assess whether the EPA's waiver grant was within its statutory authority rather than deferring to the agency's interpretation. The major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022) could be invoked to argue the waiver's scope required clearer congressional authorization, though opponents would counter that Section 209(b) provides explicit statutory text.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to nullify an executive agency (EPA) decision; the CRA mechanism limits judicial review of the disapproval itself, though courts retain authority to assess downstream effects on California's enforcement powers and any resulting Tenth Amendment or preemption disputes.
Historical precedent
In 2019, the EPA revoked California's waiver for its Advanced Clean Cars program administratively; California and allied states sued, and the Biden administration subsequently restored the waiver in 2022 — the same waiver this resolution targets — illustrating the ongoing legal and political contest over this authority.