Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 409.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a recent rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency. If Congress passes this joint resolution and the President signs it, the named EPA rule would have no force or effect. Disapproval under this law also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same without new legislation from Congress. The CRA provides a faster way for Congress to reject federal rules it disagrees with.
The EPA rule titled "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units: Final Repeal" (91 Fed. Reg. 9088, Feb. 24, 2026).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
CRA disapproval measures are considered under expedited procedures in the Senate, are not subject to a filibuster there, and can pass with a simple majority; as a joint resolution it must also be signed by the President to take effect (subject to a possible veto and override).
This joint resolution, under the Congressional Review Act, would disapprove and nullify the Environmental Protection Agency rule titled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units: Final Repeal” (91 Fed.
Reg. 9088, Feb 24, 2026).
If enacted, the rule submitted by EPA would be declared to have no force or effect, preventing that repeal from taking effect.
Narrow technical vehicle helps, but policy touches a partisan regulatory fault line and carries veto risk; success depends on chamber-executive alignment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this joint resolution is well-aligned with standard CRA practice: it clearly identifies the specific rule, invokes the correct statutory authority, and states the operative legal effect. It is concise and legally specific in what it accomplishes.
Health and environmental protection versus regulatory cost concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Health and environmental protection versus regulatory cost concerns
Likely strongly supportive: sees the resolution as preventing a rollback of hazardous air pollutant protections for coal and oil power plants.
Views it as protecting public health, environmental justice communities, and maintaining regulatory safeguards.
Generally supportive but pragmatic: accepts protecting health standards while wanting clear cost, reliability, and legal analyses.
Favors measurable benefits and careful implementation to avoid unintended grid or price impacts.
Likely opposed: views the resolution as blocking a deregulatory EPA action that reduces burdens on power producers.
Emphasizes costs, energy prices, and federal regulatory overreach concerns.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow technical vehicle helps, but policy touches a partisan regulatory fault line and carries veto risk; success depends on chamber-executive alignment.
The Senate declined to take up this bill. It cannot be debated or voted on unless the motion is tried again.
Health and environmental protection versus regulatory cost concerns
Narrow technical vehicle helps, but policy touches a partisan regulatory fault line and carries veto risk; success depends on chamber-execu…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this joint resolution is well-aligned with standard CRA practice: it clearly identifies the specific rule, invokes the correct statutory authority, and states the operative leg…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.