SJRES-208-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Jon Husted (R-OH)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a 2022 EPA rule that reinstated California's waiver to enforce its own stricter vehicle emissions standards under the Advanced Clean Cars program. If enacted, the EPA rule would have no legal force or effect, meaning California could not rely on that federal waiver to enforce its stricter tailpipe emissions standards — including rules that move toward requiring zero-emission vehicles — and the 17 or more states that had adopted California's standards would also be affected.
Who benefits
Automakers who prefer a single, less stringent national emissions standard rather than complying with California's stricter rules. Consumers in affected states who might otherwise face a more limited selection of lower-cost gasoline-powered vehicles. States that oppose California setting de facto national vehicle standards. Workers in traditional internal combustion engine manufacturing and supply chains. Dealers who sell conventional gasoline-powered vehicles.
Who is hurt
California and the roughly 17 states that had adopted California's Advanced Clean Cars standards, which would lose the legal basis for enforcing those rules. Electric vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers who benefit from the larger market created by multi-state zero-emission vehicle mandates. Environmental and public health advocates who argue stricter tailpipe standards reduce smog and particulate matter. Residents of adopting states who may experience higher air pollution levels. Clean energy technology companies and investors who rely on state-level EV demand signals.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that allowing California to set vehicle emissions rules that 17+ other states adopt effectively lets one state dictate national automotive policy, bypassing Congress and disadvantaging consumers in those states who face reduced vehicle choice and higher prices. They contend the EPA's 2022 waiver reinstatement was itself a reversal of a prior EPA decision and that Congress — not a single state or a federal agency — should determine national vehicle standards, particularly given the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which limits sweeping regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that California's authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards is explicitly granted by Congress in the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA waiver process has been in place since 1970 with dozens of waivers granted across administrations of both parties. They contend that blocking the waiver strips California and other states of a congressionally authorized tool to address air quality, undermining federalism principles and the rights of states to adopt stricter environmental protections — and that the Advanced Clean Cars program directly addresses serious public health concerns from vehicle pollution in high-population areas.
Constitutional context
The Clean Air Act's waiver provision for California rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and represents a deliberate statutory carve-out for state regulation. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently assess whether the EPA's waiver reinstatement was a valid exercise of statutory authority rather than deferring to the agency's interpretation, raising the question of whether the CRA disapproval is even necessary if courts might already invalidate the rule.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to nullify the EPA rule under the Congressional Review Act; if enacted, the rule cannot be reissued in substantially the same form without new congressional authorization, limiting future executive branch action on this specific waiver.
Historical precedent
Congress used the Congressional Review Act in 2018 (S.J. Res. 54) to attempt to disapprove a prior EPA waiver for California's heavy-duty truck standards, though that effort did not become law; the broader question of whether CRA applies to EPA waivers has been actively contested.