Legal Battle Looms Over Congressional Power to Overturn California’s Emission Waivers.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has sent several California vehicle emissions waivers to Congress for review, marking a potential first step toward revoking them. These waivers, granted under the Biden administration, allowed California to implement stricter emissions rules, including the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule, the Omnibus NOx Rule, and Clean Cars II.
Chris Spear, president of the American Trucking Associations, praised the move, calling it an opportunity to restore federal oversight. However, legal uncertainties remain. The key issue is whether Congress has the authority to review and overturn waivers, which differ from federal rules typically subject to Congressional oversight under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
“Thanks to the leadership of the Trump administration, Congress now has one more avenue available to reclaim the keys from Sacramento and restore common sense to our nation’s environmental policies,” Spear said. “This is not the United States of California. California should never be given the keys to set national policy and regulate America’s supply chain.”
Under the CRA, agencies must submit new regulations to Congress, which then has 60 days to approve or reject them. If Congress votes against a rule and the president signs off, it can be nullified though such reversals are rare.
However, legal experts question whether waivers fall under this process.
Waiver vs. Rule, The Legal Debate
Former ATA official Glen Kedzie noted that the CRA applies to regulations, and waivers are classified as agency actions rather than formal rules in the Federal Register. This distinction raises doubts about whether Congress can legally revoke them under the CRA.
“The CRA adopted the broadest definition of a rule under the Administrative Procedure Act,” he said in an interview with FreightWaves, referring to another federal statute that governs the implementation of federal rules. He summed up the issue: “It is very complicated and there’s not a lot of black and white. There’s a lot of gray in the whole CRA process.”
A 2023 opinion from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) further complicates matters. The GAO determined that the EPA’s waiver for California’s Clean Cars I program was an “adjudicatory order,” which is not subject to Congressional review under the CRA. The waivers now under review including Clean Cars II could face similar legal challenges.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which requested these waivers, argues that the EPA’s move breaks with 50 years of precedent under the Clean Air Act. No previous administration, Republican or Democrat, has taken such action, and CARB maintains that the GAO has already ruled against this interpretation of the law.
Despite these concerns, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the decision, arguing that the Biden administration had previously failed to submit these waivers for Congressional review, preventing lawmakers from weighing in on regulations with major national implications.
California Prepares for a Legal Fight
California has set aside $25 million to defend its emissions regulations, anticipating legal battles over any attempt to revoke its waivers.
The Advanced Clean Trucks Rule requires manufacturers to increase sales of zero-emission trucks, with a goal of full fleet electrification by 2045. The Omnibus NOx Rule imposes stricter nitrogen oxide emission limits, though California recently agreed to align with federal standards in exchange for industry support.
Beyond the immediate legal fight, questions remain about California’s clean transportation future. With the Advanced Clean Fleets Rule effectively dead, fleet operators no longer have a mandate to purchase zero-emission vehicles. This could hinder manufacturers’ ability to meet the Advanced Clean Trucks targets and raise uncertainty about their commitments to California’s stricter emissions rules.
As legal challenges mount, the fate of California’s emissions regulations and their broader impact on national environmental policy – hangs in the balance.
