5 CRA Resolutions: Glen Canyon ORVs, Longfin Smelt, and California’s Emissions Waivers in the Crosshairs
H.J.Res. 60, H.J.Res. 78, H.J.Res 87, 88, 89 - Proposed CRA Resolutions on Environmental Regulations
Congress is currently considering several Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions that would overturn recent environmental regulations. These resolutions target rules ranging from public land use in a national recreation area to wildlife protections and vehicle emission standards. Below, we present a detailed, non-partisan analysis of each resolution – H.J.Res. 60, 78, 87, 88, and 89 – including a summary of the regulation in question, an assessment of economic, environmental, and social impacts, and the perspectives of key stakeholders.
TL;DR
H.J.Res. 60 (Glen Canyon ORV Rule): Overturns an NPS ban on off-road vehicles (ORVs/ATVs) in Glen Canyon NRA. Supporters say it preserves recreation and local economic activity; opponents say it protects fragile landscapes, reduces habitat damage, and preserves quiet backcountry experiences.
H.J.Res. 78 (Longfin Smelt Listing): Overturns the endangered-species listing for the Bay-Delta longfin smelt. Backers say the listing hurts California’s water supply and farm economy; opponents emphasize preventing extinction and protecting the Bay-Delta’s collapsing ecosystem.
H.J.Res. 87, 88, 89 (California EPA Waivers): Disapprove three waivers that let California set stricter vehicle rules:
Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT): Requires zero-emission medium/heavy-duty trucks. Criticized for driving up costs, lauded for cutting pollution.
Advanced Clean Cars II: Ends new gasoline car sales by 2035. Criticized for affordability/charging challenges, defended as crucial for climate goals.
Low-NOx Truck Rule: Slashes nitrogen oxide emissions from diesel engines. Critics cite cost and complexity; supporters cite major public-health and air-quality benefits.
Overall, supporters of these CRAs highlight economic burdens, regulatory complexity, and water/land-use freedom. Opponents stress environmental protection, public health, and long-term sustainability.
H.J.Res. 60 – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Off-Road Vehicle Rule
Summary
H.J.Res. 60 is a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to nullify a recent National Park Service (NPS) rule that restricts off-road vehicles (ORVs) and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) in parts of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The targeted NPS rule, finalized on January 13, 2025, prohibits ORVs and street-legal ATVs on approximately 24 miles of park roads in the remote Orange Cliffs area, while leaving about 388 miles of roads open to motorized use [source]. These limits were enacted to protect sensitive desert backcountry adjacent to Canyonlands National Park and to uphold a legal settlement with conservation groups. (In 2021, the NPS had expanded ORV access in Glen Canyon, a decision that ignited lawsuits; in April 2024 the NPS settled with plaintiffs and agreed to impose new restrictions [source] [source].) By disapproving the rule under the CRA, H.J.Res. 60 would prevent the NPS from enforcing the ORV ban on those 24 miles of roads and bar the agency from issuing any similar rule in the future without new legislation. In effect, passage of the resolution would restore ORV/ATV access to those road segments [source], reversing the NPS’s attempt to “better protect the ecological integrity and visitor experience” of Glen Canyon’s most delicate areas [source] [source].
Economic Impacts
Supporters of H.J.Res. 60 argue that keeping these backcountry routes open to motorized recreation will benefit local economies dependent on outdoor tourism. Off-road enthusiasts travel to Glen Canyon for its unique combination of lake recreation and backcountry driving; limiting ORV access could deter some visitors and affect businesses such as ATV rental outfitters, guide services, and nearby gas stations or lodging. Preserving full ORV access, they contend, helps sustain “traditional motorized recreation” and the related spending in rural communities. By contrast, the NPS and conservation groups assert the economic effect of the targeted closures is minor, given that the vast majority of park roads remain available to motorized use [source]. They note that non-motorized users (hikers, paddlers, etc.) and sightseeing tourists also contribute to the local economy, and protecting the park’s natural soundscapes and vistas may enhance its appeal to those visitor segments [source]. There may also be long-term cost savings for the Park Service: reducing ORV traffic on fragile routes can lower road maintenance expenses and prevent environmental degradation that would require remediation. In sum, the economic debate balances a small potential loss in ORV-related revenue against the benefits of conservation and diversified recreation. No formal cost-benefit analysis accompanied the CRA, but the issue is largely framed around supporting recreation access versus preserving the quality of the recreation experience for all visitors.
Environmental Impacts
The environmental stakes in H.J.Res. 60 are significant for Glen Canyon’s landscape and wildlife. The NPS’s now-threatened rule was expressly designed to protect “the park’s most delicate areas” from the impacts of motorized use [source] [source]. By closing certain rough backcountry routes (such as an 8-mile segment of the Poison Spring Loop and the upper Flint Trail) to ORVs, the NPS aimed to reduce soil erosion, vegetation damage, and wildlife disturbance in remote canyons [source] [source]. The rule also expanded quiet hours at a popular ORV play area and set clearer limits on shoreline driving as Lake Powell’s water levels fluctuate [source], measures intended to curb noise and habitat destruction. If H.J.Res. 60 is enacted and the rule is voided, these conservation measures would be undone. ORVs and ATVs would continue to traverse the Orange Cliffs routes, potentially threatening archaeological sites, fragmenting wildlife habitat, and introducing invasive weed seeds carried by tires [source]. Environmental advocates warn that unchecked ORV use in these areas would “reduce the rare backcountry solitude” and natural soundscape of Glen Canyon [source] [source] – qualities that also benefit adjacent parks and wilderness. The NPS and groups like the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) have lauded the now-repeal-threatened rule for restoring “balance to land-based recreation” and safeguarding some of Glen Canyon’s wildest places [source]. Overturning it via CRA would remove those protections, likely resulting in higher cumulative environmental impacts (more noise, dust, and habitat degradation) in the long term. However, proponents of the resolution downplay these concerns, arguing that basic park regulations will still constrain truly destructive behavior and that vehicle access can coexist with conservation on most park lands.
Stakeholder Perspectives
Stakeholders are sharply divided. Conservation organizations (NPCA, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, etc.) strongly oppose H.J.Res. 60, noting that they only recently settled litigation to compel the NPS to impose the ORV limits [source] [source]. They applaud the NPS rule for protecting scenic redrock canyons and fragile soils from damage and for preserving the “breathtaking landscapes and dark skies” experience in Glen Canyon [source]. These groups emphasize the environmental stewardship mission of national parks and warn that a CRA reversal would set a “dangerous precedent” of political interference in park management. On the other side, off-road recreation advocates and many Western state officials welcome the resolution. They argue the NPS went too far in restricting public access to public lands, catering to a narrow interest at the expense of general recreationists. Some local county leaders in Utah and Arizona, as well as off-highway vehicle associations, have criticized the NPS’s 24-mile closure as unnecessary regulation that could push out a segment of visitors. In Congress, supporters like House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and members of the Western Caucus frame the issue as stopping federal overreach. They contend that responsible ORV use can be managed without blanket bans, and they see H.J.Res. 60 as defending outdoor enthusiasts’ access rights. Overall, the Glen Canyon ORV resolution pits park conservation interests against motorized access interests. The former stress ecosystem and wilderness values, while the latter prioritize recreation freedom and local economic activity. Both sides invoke the idea of balancing use and protection – but they disagree on where that balance lies. (Notably, the Biden Administration’s position is to keep the NPS rule; a presidential veto would be expected if the resolution passes, adding another stakeholder – the Executive – firmly in the conservation camp.)
H.J.Res. 78 – Endangered Species Listing of the Bay-Delta Longfin Smelt
Summary
H.J.Res. 78 would overturn a Biden-era Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing for the longfin smelt in California’s San Francisco Bay and Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. In August 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) officially listed the Bay-Delta distinct population segment of the longfin smelt as an endangered species (under ESA) due to dramatic declines in its abundance [source]. This tiny, silvery fish – once plentiful in the Bay-Delta estuary – has seen its numbers plummet, primarily from habitat loss and reduced freshwater outflows. By listing it as endangered, FWS triggered immediate protections: it became illegal to harm the smelt or its critical habitat, and activities like “discharging fill material, dredging, contaminating water, draining water, or diverting water” in its habitat would likely violate the ESA [source]. A critical habitat designation for the smelt (which could further restrict water diversions in parts of the Delta) is also in the works. The CRA resolution, introduced by Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and other California Republicans on March 21, 2025 [source] [source], seeks to nullify this listing. If H.J.Res. 78 passes, the longfin smelt would be removed from the endangered species list, the pending critical habitat rules would be halted, and FWS would be barred from re-listing the population without new authorization [source]. LaMalfa and supporters describe the listing as “out-of-touch environmental policy” that complicates water management, and they aim to strip federal protection from the fish to prioritize human water use [source]. In summary, the resolution is an attempt by Congress to undo a recent scientific determination that the Bay-Delta longfin smelt faces extinction risk, reflecting long-running conflicts between species protection and California’s water supply operations.
Economic Impacts
At the heart of H.J.Res. 78 is the tension between environmental regulation and agricultural water use. The economic implications center on California’s massive farming industry and regional water supply. The Bay-Delta longfin smelt’s habitat overlaps with the pumps and canals of California’s water projects that deliver irrigation water to millions of acres of farmland. If the smelt remains protected under the ESA, water agencies may be required to leave more freshwater flows in the Delta (especially during dry periods) to avoid killing the fish or degrading its habitat. This could mean reductions in water exports to the Central Valley and Southern California, leading to less water for farmers in drought years. Farm groups and rural communities fear that enforceable smelt protections would force cutbacks in crop planting, job losses in agriculture, and higher food prices – essentially, they see the listing as another regulatory hurdle in California’s “water wars.” Rep. LaMalfa argues the state is “already dealing with a maze of arcane…regulations” on water, and that adding the smelt to the ESA would make it “nearly impossible to manage our water supply effectively for Californians” [source]. By blocking the listing, supporters say H.J.Res. 78 will “ensure California’s water remains available for families and farmers” [source], boosting water reliability for agriculture and related industries. They point to potential positive impacts like stabilized farm production and retention of agricultural jobs in regions dependent on Delta water.
Opponents, however, contend that these economic claims are overstated and shortsighted. They note the longfin smelt’s decline is largely due to decades of over-diversion of water – implying that a more sustainable water management, even if it means modest cuts to deliveries, is necessary for the Bay-Delta ecosystem’s health. Environmental advocates and some economists argue that protecting the smelt could push innovation in water use efficiency and investments in sustainable water infrastructure, with long-run benefits. Additionally, the Bay-Delta supports commercial and recreational fisheries (e.g. salmon fisheries) that are part of California’s economy; the smelt is considered an indicator for the estuary’s health, so its protection might help prevent collapses in related fish populations that also carry economic value (fisheries jobs, tourism). Those against the CRA also highlight the cost of ecological degradation – if the Delta’s ecological balance worsens (e.g. more frequent algal blooms or fisheries collapses), there could be economic losses in coastal communities and increased water treatment costs for cities. In immediate terms, though, the primary economic beneficiaries of H.J.Res. 78 would be agricultural and water supply interests, while the costs would be borne by environmental and fisheries sectors (which are harder to quantify in dollars). The debate essentially weighs farm economy gains against ecosystem service losses.
Environmental Impacts
The longfin smelt is a small fish, but its listing touches a big ecological issue: the health of California’s Bay-Delta estuary. FWS listed the Bay-Delta smelt as endangered because the species faces multiple severe threats: altered hydrology from water diversions, destruction of wetlands, competition/predation by invasive species, and climate change effects like intensified drought. Removing ESA protections via H.J.Res. 78 would likely have adverse environmental consequences for the species and the broader ecosystem. Without federal protection, there would be no requirement to adjust water operations to improve freshwater outflows to the Delta. During droughts or pumping operations, more smelt could be drawn into pumps or lost due to low habitat quality, hastening their path to extinction. Critical habitat designation – which was anticipated to protect key salinity zones and tidal wetlands – would be canceled, meaning no habitat safeguards specifically for the smelt. In the big picture, scientists warn that the smelt’s decline is a red flag: “the fish’s decline portends the loss of our valuable salmon runs” and other native species, as one conservationist put it [source] [source]. Essentially, the smelt is part of the base of the food web; its collapse could reverberate upward, affecting birds, bigger fish, and the overall resilience of the Bay-Delta. Keeping the smelt listed would trigger recovery efforts – habitat restoration, flow improvements, hatchery programs – which could improve water quality and conditions for many species. By contrast, repealing the listing risks a continued trajectory of ecological deterioration. The Delta is already highly stressed (witness the near-extinction of the related delta smelt); losing the longfin smelt as well would indicate failure to protect the estuary’s biodiversity. Proponents of H.J.Res. 78 downplay these impacts, often noting the longfin smelt is also protected under California state law (it was listed as threatened in California in 2009). They argue state-level measures and existing environmental laws are enough. However, state protections for the smelt have proven insufficient to halt its decline – one reason the federal listing was pursued after 30 years of petitions and lawsuits [source]. In summary, the environmental impact of the CRA would be to remove a “safety net” for a collapsing species, likely reducing oversight on Delta water operations and potentially allowing environmental conditions in the estuary to further degrade.
Stakeholder Perspectives
This resolution draws strong opinions from distinct stakeholder groups in California’s perpetual water debate. Agricultural and water supply stakeholders are firmly in favor of H.J.Res. 78. Organizations like the Rural County Representatives of California (a coalition of 37 rural counties) quickly endorsed the move to “repeal the Biden Administration’s listing”, explicitly linking it to protecting water supplies for farms [source] [source]. Large irrigation districts and farm bureaus argue that another endangered fish in the Delta would lead to more pumping restrictions and legal uncertainty, adversely impacting farmers, farm workers, and communities dependent on irrigation. They emphasize human needs: in their view, allocating scarce water to sustain a nearly vanished fish is misguided when towns and farms face water shortages. Many of these stakeholders feel that environmental regulations (like those for the delta smelt and salmon) have already forced them to fallow fields in dry years; they see the longfin smelt listing as the “last straw”. Republican lawmakers echo these sentiments. Rep. LaMalfa called the listing “just another example” of overreach that makes it harder to deliver water in California [source], and co-sponsors like Rep. Tom McClintock and Rep. David Valadao (representing farm regions) similarly champion the resolution as a check on what they term “heavy-handed” ESA enforcement.
On the opposing side, environmental groups and fisheries advocates vehemently oppose H.J.Res. 78. Organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity and San Francisco Baykeeper – which petitioned and litigated for years to get the smelt protected [source] – argue that politics must not overturn science-based decisions. They stress that the FWS listing was the result of extensive scientific review and that the smelt absolutely meets the ESA’s definition of endangered (on the brink of extinction). To these groups, the CRA attempt is seen as pandering to agricultural interests at the expense of ecosystem collapse. They also underscore cascading effects: a healthier Delta environment, aided by protecting the smelt, benefits water quality for millions of Californians and helps preserve iconic species like Chinook salmon which have commercial and cultural importance. California’s state wildlife agencies and many Democratic lawmakers side with this perspective. They point out that California has poured resources into Delta habitat restoration and that abandoning protections now would squander those efforts. Fisheries organizations (like commercial fishing associations) also oppose the resolution, noting that poor Delta conditions (partly signaled by smelt decline) have led to fishery closures, such as recent shutdowns of the salmon fishing season, which have economic and social costs. In public discourse, the pro-listing camp often highlights how extraordinary it is for Congress to directly remove an endangered species – something the ESA has rarely seen – and caution that it could set a precedent for other politically contentious wildlife decisions. Meanwhile, urban water agencies have a more nuanced stance. Some city water suppliers sympathize with farmers and support the CRA (wanting maximum flexibility in Delta operations), while others, like those in the Bay Area, value the Delta’s ecological health and worry that weakening environmental standards could backfire (e.g., leading to toxic algal blooms that complicate drinking water treatment). Despite these differing views, the partisan lines are clear: the Republican House majority is advancing H.J.Res. 78, whereas most Democrats, the Biden Administration, and environmental stakeholders are lined up against it. This makes the resolution a flashpoint in the broader conflict between water development and endangered species protection in the West.
H.J.Res. 87 – EPA Waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Trucks Rule
Summary
H.J.Res. 87 is aimed at a Clean Air Act waiver that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted to California, allowing the state to enforce its Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation. The ACT rule, adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2020, requires manufacturers of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission trucks (electric or hydrogen fuel cell) beginning with model year 2024, ramping up each year. It is the first regulation of its kind in the nation targeting the commercial truck sector for electrification. In March 2023, the Biden EPA approved California’s waiver request, legally permitting California (and other states that opt in) to implement these tougher-than-federal truck standards [source]. H.J.Res. 87 would nullify that EPA decision. Practically, if the resolution succeeds, California’s mandate for truck makers to meet zero-emission sales targets would be blocked – truck manufacturers would no longer be federally obligated to comply with the ACT quotas in California. The resolution’s sponsor, Rep. John James (R-MI), frames the issue in stark terms: he argues the California rule “ram[s] its comply-or-die ‘zero-emission truck’ rule down the throat of America – essentially killing Michigan’s trucking industry” [source]. This rhetoric reflects concern for truck and engine manufacturers (many based in the Midwest) who would have to overhaul product lines to meet California’s mandates. H.J.Res. 87 is thus a direct challenge to California’s authority to set aggressive clean truck requirements. It seeks to preserve the status quo where only federal emissions standards (which are far less stringent regarding electric truck sales) apply.
Economic Impacts
The Advanced Clean Trucks rule raises complex economic questions about the transition to electric vehicles in the freight sector. Proponents of H.J.Res. 87 (and the industry stakeholders they align with) argue that California’s mandate will impose significant costs on manufacturers, trucking companies, and ultimately consumers. Representative John James warned that the ACT would “increase vehicle prices for consumers, increase costs and manufacturing complexities for automakers, and convolute the regulatory environment” [source]. Because the rule forces truck makers to invest heavily in zero-emission technology (battery-electric or hydrogen drivetrains) regardless of near-term market demand, companies may face higher production costs that could be passed on as higher truck prices. Small trucking businesses worry that as the mandate phases in, the available diesel truck models will dwindle or become more expensive, potentially pricing out independent truckers who cannot afford new electric rigs. There are also concerns about supply chains: the trucking industry is foundational to goods movement, and if costs rise sharply (for trucks or for freight rates due to expensive equipment), those could ripple into higher prices for goods nationwide [source]. In a letter to Congress, major automakers and truck manufacturers suggested they might even limit the supply of vehicles to states with zealous mandates in order to meet the required sales ratios [source]. This implies some states could see reduced vehicle availability or choice because manufacturers divert more of their conventional (non-ZEV) inventory to other states [source] [source]. In short, critics predict market distortions: preemptive vehicle supply cuts, “no-choice” compliance costs, and possible job losses in traditional engine manufacturing (if production lines shift away from diesel technology).
On the other hand, supporters of California’s ACT rule (and thus opponents of the CRA) highlight the long-term economic benefits of spurring innovation. California officials note that the mandate is driving investment into clean truck technology, creating opportunities for new jobs in electric truck manufacturing, battery production, and charging infrastructure deployment. Several major truck makers (Volvo, Daimler, Paccar, etc.) were already developing electric models; the rule effectively guarantees a market for them, which can lead to economies of scale and potentially make U.S. companies more competitive in the emerging global EV truck market. There are also operational cost considerations: while electric trucks are currently more expensive upfront, they promise lower fuel and maintenance costs over time (electricity is cheaper than diesel per mile, and electric drivetrains have fewer moving parts to service). Fleet operators like delivery companies could see savings in the total cost of ownership by late this decade, an economic upside attributed to the rule. Additionally, reducing pollution yields economic co-benefits (though diffuse) such as improved public health – fewer pollution-related illnesses can mean lower healthcare costs and better workforce productivity in communities near freight corridors. California’s analysis of the ACT anticipated net positive economic outcomes by factoring in these health savings and the avoided climate damages of diesel emissions. Those analyses are disputed by opponents, but they form part of the pro-regulation argument. If H.J.Res. 87 were to halt the rule, California and like-minded states (e.g., New York, New Jersey which planned to adopt the truck ZEV mandate) might lose a key driver of clean-tech investment, potentially ceding leadership (and associated jobs) in a growth industry. However, it’s worth noting that the near-term economic impact of the ACT rule is concentrated on manufacturers (having to retool factories) and dealers (adjusting inventory). The CRA’s supporters focus on these immediate industry costs, whereas opponents broaden the view to longer-term societal benefits. Overall, H.J.Res. 87 is backed by those fearing economic disruption and cost inflation, and opposed by those anticipating economic innovation and health-cost reductions.
Environmental Impacts
The environmental stakes of the Advanced Clean Trucks rule are high, as it addresses emissions from diesel trucks – one of the largest sources of both greenhouse gases and local air pollutants. California’s rationale for ACT is to tackle climate change and to improve air quality in communities plagued by diesel exhaust (often low-income communities near ports, warehouses, and highways). If the rule remains in force, it is projected to eliminate tons of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions over the coming decades, as diesel trucks are gradually replaced by zero-emission models. This is critical for California to meet its climate targets (carbon neutrality by 2045) and its federally mandated air quality standards. For example, by 2035, the ACT and related measures aim to put hundreds of thousands of electric trucks on the road, significantly cutting petroleum use and tailpipe emissions. If H.J.Res. 87 succeeds, however, these environmental benefits could be delayed or diminished. California (and the states that follow its lead) would be unable to enforce the zero-emission sales requirements, likely resulting in more diesel trucks on the road for a longer time. That means continued high emissions of CO₂ (contributing to climate warming) and pollutants like NOx and particulate matter (contributing to smog and health issues). A national advocacy group noted that allowing states to enforce the ACT rule is essential because transportation is the largest source of emissions – and heavy-duty trucks are disproportionately responsible for smog in cities. By blocking the rule, the CRA would “lock in” more pollution from the freight sector in the near term.
It’s also important to recognize the cumulative environmental impact. The Advanced Clean Trucks rule was designed alongside California’s broader suite of clean air regulations – including the low-NOx engine standards (addressed by H.J.Res. 89) and forthcoming federal greenhouse gas standards – as part of an integrated strategy. Undermining one piece (the ZEV sales mandate) could compromise the overall strategy’s effectiveness. Opponents of the CRA argue that without aggressive policies like ACT, the turnover to cleaner trucks will be too slow: diesel trucks typically stay in service for 15-20 years, so each new diesel truck sold today could pollute into the 2040s. They contend we cannot afford that delay for climate and health reasons. The environmental justice aspect is also prominent: communities near major freight hubs suffer higher rates of asthma and other pollution-related illnesses; electric trucks have zero tailpipe emissions, so their adoption directly improves local air quality. California’s ACT was partly motivated by these inequities. In summary, nullifying the ACT waiver via H.J.Res. 87 would be seen by environmental and public health groups as a setback to clean air progress, likely resulting in higher emissions than otherwise would occur, both in California and in the 6+ other states that have begun moving toward similar requirements [source] [source]. On the flip side, those supporting the CRA often argue that environmental goals should be achieved through nationwide standards rather than state mandates. They suggest that a single federal program could be more efficient (and indeed, the EPA has since proposed national clean truck standards, though not as stringent as ACT). Nonetheless, California officials maintain that their rule is “crucial” for emissions reductions [source]. The bottom line: H.J.Res. 87 would trade away guaranteed emission cuts in exchange for regulatory uniformity, a trade that environmental experts say will result in tangible increases in pollution relative to keeping the California program in place.
Stakeholder Perspectives
Stakeholder views on H.J.Res. 87 mirror a classic split between environmental regulators and industry, but with some nuances. On one side, California’s leadership, environmental organizations, and public health advocates strongly oppose the resolution. California Air Resources Board officials argue that the ACT rule is a cornerstone of their climate strategy and that EPA’s waiver was properly granted to allow state innovation. They are joined by environmental NGOs (Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.) who have applauded California for tackling truck pollution. These stakeholders emphasize the health benefits for communities and often point out that several other states (e.g. New York, New Jersey, Oregon) have already moved to adopt the same truck standards – indicating a broader demand for action on truck emissions [source]. Indeed, those states want California’s waiver to remain so they too can implement the rule under Clean Air Act provisions. From this perspective, the CRA is seen as an attempt to undercut states’ rights to protect their residents’ health and to slow progress on climate. Some large companies that are investing in electric trucks (for example, Tesla with its electric Semi, or startups in the hydrogen truck space) also quietly favor the California rule because it creates a market for their products.
On the other side, truck and engine manufacturers and many in the freight industry support H.J.Res. 87. The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association and major firms (e.g., Navistar, Cummins) have historically been wary of California-only requirements, preferring one national standard. They lobbied against the piecemeal granting of separate waivers for California’s truck rules. Their concerns are reflected in Rep. John James’s statements that the ACT mandate “threatens… the nation’s supply chain” and would “crush our trucking industry” with Green New Deal-style mandates [source]. Labor groups in manufacturing (such as unions representing diesel engine plant workers) also lean toward supporting the CRA, out of concern that a forced shift to EVs could mean job dislocations or layoffs if not managed carefully. Notably, the American Trucking Associations (ATA), which represents trucking companies, has expressed concern about the feasibility of the transition (though ATA’s focus has also been on infrastructure needs for charging). They welcome congressional oversight to ensure regulations are “practical and achievable.” Many Republican lawmakers back the industry side: House Energy & Commerce Committee leaders portrayed the waiver as a case of “California bureaucrats” dictating choices to Americans [source]. They argue consumers and businesses – not government – should drive technology adoption, and they cast the California rule as an overreach that Congress must check. Some also raise the fairness issue: if 49 other states didn’t consent to these changes, why should California (via a federal waiver) set policy that impacts the national market? This resonates politically, even if legally California has that authority.
In public debates, consumer choice has become a talking point. For example, Congressman John Joyce (R-PA) said Congress needs to overturn California’s “ban on gas-powered vehicles” to protect Americans’ freedom to choose their vehicles [source]. Although this phrasing is directed more at the car rule, the sentiment carries into trucks: opponents imply the government shouldn’t force technology that truck buyers may not want or afford. Meanwhile, proponents counter that the market for zero-emission trucks won’t materialize fast enough on its own given entrenched diesel interests, and that strong policy is justified by the costs of inaction (climate change, lung disease etc.). To sum up, stakeholders backing H.J.Res. 87 include truck manufacturers, engine makers, some trucking/logistics companies, and their political allies, all arguing for regulatory relief and economic caution. Stakeholders opposing it include California and allied states, environmental and health groups, clean tech companies, and their supporters, arguing for urgent action on emissions and defending states’ ability to lead. Each side claims to be protecting the public interest – be it economic stability and consumer choice, or clean air and climate mitigation. The resolution’s fate will hinge on which argument carries the day in Congress and, potentially, whether the Biden (or current) Administration threatens a veto to uphold its EPA’s decision.
H.J.Res. 88 – EPA Waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Cars II Rule
Summary
H.J.Res. 88 is a CRA resolution targeting the EPA waiver that authorizes California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) program – an ambitious regulation governing emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks. The ACC II rule, adopted by California in 2022, sets progressively tighter standards for greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions and establishes a de facto schedule for phasing out new gasoline-powered vehicles. In essence, it requires that an increasing percentage of new vehicles sold be zero-emission, reaching 100% zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales by 2035 (with interim targets of 35% ZEVs by 2026, ~68% by 2030, etc.) [source] [source]. This policy is often described as California’s “2035 gas car ban,” although it allows a portion of plug-in hybrids. The Biden Administration’s EPA granted a waiver for these ACC II standards in 2022, after reinstating California’s longstanding Clean Air Act waiver authority that had been curtailed under the Trump Administration. H.J.Res. 88 seeks to invalidate EPA’s waiver approval, thereby blocking California from enforcing the 2035 EV mandate and related requirements. If successful, California (and the 11+ other states that have adopted or are adopting the same rules) would have to revert to federal vehicle emission standards, which are much less stringent regarding EV sales. In practical terms, nullifying the waiver would mean automakers are no longer compelled by law to hit California’s aggressive electric vehicle targets. The House resolution is championed by Republicans like Rep. John Joyce (R-PA) and House Energy & Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who argue that a single state’s mandate should not dictate the nation’s automotive market. They view the ACC II rule as an overreach that could “ban gas-powered vehicles” and limit consumer choice [source] [source]. Thus, H.J.Res. 88 encapsulates the battle over whether California’s vision of an electric future for cars will proceed or be derailed by Congress.
Economic Impacts
The economic debate around the ACC II rule (and thus H.J.Res. 88) is extensive, given the central role of the automobile industry in the U.S. economy and the sweeping change the rule portends. Automakers and dealers, in particular, have voiced strong concerns. Major automakers, represented by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, warned that California’s EV sales requirements are extremely challenging – so much so that by as early as model year 2026, they might be “forced to substantially reduce the number of [gas-powered] vehicles for sale” in states following California’s rule to meet the ZEV quotas [source]. In an April 2025 letter to Congress, automakers said these mandates could cause vehicle shortages in some markets and argued “allowing these gas vehicle bans…to proceed will increase automobile prices and reduce vehicle choices for consumers” [source]. The near-term issue is that EVs currently cost more on average than equivalent gasoline cars; requiring 35-50% of new inventory to be EVs (far above current consumer demand levels) could lead to unsold stock or necessitate automakers to raise prices on gas models to subsidize EV compliance – either scenario potentially drives up average prices. Dealership associations also fear a mismatch between what consumers want and what the state would force them to sell, possibly leading to lost sales or a glut of vehicles they must discount heavily. States that adopted ACC II account for ~40% of the U.S. auto market [source], so the economic stakes are nationwide: if automakers struggle to meet California-driven mandates, it could affect their financial stability and strategies (some have suggested they might prioritize EV supply to California states and send more gasoline models to states without mandates). This patchwork could create inefficiencies in manufacturing and distribution.
Proponents of H.J.Res. 88 highlight these risks and also broader economic impacts: the oil industry points out that a rapid EV transition could disrupt jobs in fuel refining and auto maintenance (EVs need less servicing, and gasoline demand would drop). Furthermore, they argue the electrical infrastructure and supply of critical minerals for batteries may not scale up fast enough, potentially leading to bottlenecks that harm the economy (e.g., electricity rate increases or dependence on foreign battery materials). The resolution’s backers effectively call for a slower, more organic transition to avoid “shocks” to industries and consumers.
However, supporters of the ACC II rule argue that the economic downsides are overstated and that the rule actually positions the economy for success in the emerging clean energy landscape. They note that many automakers – including U.S. companies like GM and Ford – have voluntarily announced plans to go predominantly or fully electric in the next 10-15 years, in line with or even exceeding California’s timeline. This suggests that industry investment is already headed toward EVs, and the mandate provides regulatory certainty that can accelerate innovation. California and several Northeastern states also commissioned economic analyses finding that, over time, consumers will save money with EVs (on fuel and maintenance), which could free up disposable income to circulate in the economy. By spurring domestic EV manufacturing (factories, battery plants, etc.), the rule is expected to create jobs in the automotive sector, just of a different kind than traditional engine assembly. Indeed, since the ACC II rule’s adoption, there’s been a boom in announced EV-related investments in the U.S. (partly also driven by federal incentives in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act). States advocating the rule want to secure a share of that burgeoning EV economy – for example, new battery gigafactories and EV component plants bring construction and operations jobs. They see economic opportunity in leading the EV revolution rather than following it. Additionally, they highlight the public health cost savings: a joint study by California regulators projected billions in avoided health costs (from fewer asthma attacks, hospital visits, etc.) as tailpipe emissions drop – while not a direct industry “economic impact,” these savings benefit the economy broadly by improving productivity and reducing healthcare burdens.
If H.J.Res. 88 passes, one immediate economic effect would be relief for automakers and dealers from the 2026 ZEV sales quota, likely easing pressure on inventory and compliance spending. But it could also undercut some investments that were being made in expectation of these state markets. Automakers might slow down certain EV programs if the largest EV mandate is removed (though global market trends and EPA’s separate proposed regulations could keep them moving forward anyway). In summary, opponents of the ACC II mandate (pro-CRA) are motivated by fears of short-term market disruption, higher consumer costs, and misalignment with consumer preferences, while supporters of the mandate (anti-CRA) emphasize long-term savings, industrial competitiveness in EV technology, and the cost of inaction on climate and health. The economic lens thus offers two very different views: one sees California’s EV rule as economically risky, the other sees it as economically catalytic.
Environmental Impacts
The ACC II rule is fundamentally an environmental (climate and air quality) regulation, so nullifying it via H.J.Res. 88 would have significant environmental ramifications. Transportation is the largest source of California’s (and the nation’s) greenhouse gas emissions. California’s ACC II ZEV mandate is a linchpin policy for cutting those emissions drastically by mid-century. If the rule stays in place, it ensures a rapid increase in zero-emission vehicles on the road: by 2030 around two-thirds of new cars in California and its follower states would be electric, and by 2035 essentially all new sales. This trajectory is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by many millions of tons – helping to combat climate change – and to virtually eliminate tailpipe emissions of pollutants like NOx and particulate matter from new vehicles over that timeframe. These pollutants are major contributors to smog and have health impacts (especially in high-traffic urban areas). The state has projected that full implementation of ACC II will lead to a 25% reduction in smog-forming pollution from cars by 2037, and is essential for Southern California to meet federal ozone (smog) standards [source]. Additionally, as more EVs replace gasoline cars, there will be reductions in gasoline demand, oil drilling, and refinery emissions, which have broader ecological benefits (less risk of oil spills, less refinery pollution in communities like Richmond and Los Angeles).
If H.J.Res. 88 voids the waiver and the mandate is dropped, the environmental outcome would be a slower transition to electric vehicles. Instead of an assured 100% new EV sales in 2035 in those states, the EV adoption would depend on federal regulations and market forces alone, which likely means a lower percentage of EVs on the road in that timeframe. More gasoline vehicles sold in the late 2020s and early 2030s translate to higher cumulative emissions. Every conventional car can emit greenhouse gases for 10-15 years on the road; thousands or millions more of them means a significant increase in emissions relative to the scenario with the mandate. The difference could be stark: the Air Resources Board warned that without its ZEV program, meeting California’s climate targets (such as a 40% GHG cut by 2030) would be far more difficult, if not impossible. From a climate perspective, time is a critical factor – delaying emissions cuts tends to make achieving climate stabilization harder, as it allows more heat-trapping gases to accumulate in the atmosphere.
On air quality, residents of California and the other ACC II states would experience more tailpipe pollution for longer. California has some of the worst air quality in the nation (e.g., Los Angeles, Central Valley), and a major share comes from passenger vehicles. The state’s Department of Air Resources has stated that the ACC II rule is “crucial to meeting…smog-forming pollutant reduction targets” [source]. Without it, those regions might stay in non-attainment of clean air standards, risking federal sanctions and, more importantly, continuing to expose people to harmful pollution. Another environmental aspect is the signal to global climate efforts: California’s 2035 vehicle policy is often cited internationally as a leading example; rolling it back might have a chilling effect on other jurisdictions considering bold moves, whereas upholding it could encourage similar policies abroad (which are needed to address a global problem).
It’s worth mentioning that the EPA’s grant of the waiver underwent scrutiny – in March 2025, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) opined that this kind of waiver might not be subject to CRA reversal [source]. While that’s a legal nuance, environmentally it means the EPA believed the waiver was solidly grounded in the need for California to address “compelling and extraordinary conditions” (California’s smog and climate challenges). Critics of California’s rule sometimes argue that environmental gains in one state may be offset if people simply keep older cars longer or travel to buy gas cars from out-of-state. California anticipated this and designed measures to discourage prolonged use of high-polluting vehicles, but without the rule, those concerns are moot. The bottom line: environmental advocates see H.J.Res. 88 as potentially one of the most damaging moves Congress could make in climate policy, because it would undercut a policy slated to eliminate a major source of emissions in many states. Conversely, those supporting the CRA often contend that there are other ways to achieve environmental goals (like federal EV incentives, improving fuel economy standards, etc.) that might be more uniform and less coercive. Yet, none of those alternatives are as stringent as ACC II. Thus, the environmental impact of passing H.J.Res. 88 would almost certainly be higher emissions – more CO₂ contributing to climate change, and more smog pollutants affecting public health – compared to the status quo with the California rule in effect.
Stakeholder Perspectives
The divide over H.J.Res. 88 is one of the most pronounced in the current environmental policy landscape. California state officials and environmental groups are adamant in their opposition to the resolution. California’s Governor and CARB argue that their authority to set vehicle standards is fundamental to the state’s identity as an environmental leader and is crucial to protect Californians’ health. They often cite the history of why California has a special waiver in the first place – its smog crisis in mid-20th century L.A. – and assert that necessity is as real now as ever, both for smog and for the global climate crisis. The 11 other states (and counting) that have adopted California’s ACC II standards are also stakeholders; their environmental and transportation agencies have largely supported California in this fight, some submitting formal comments to EPA in favor of the waiver. These states (including New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, Washington, etc.) collectively represent a large bloc of the U.S. population that has chosen, via their own laws, to follow California’s stricter standards to address local climate and air quality goals [source]. They are effectively co-beneficiaries of California’s waiver. Thus, they view H.J.Res. 88 as an attack on their policy choices as well. Environmental organizations (Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, etc.) and climate advocacy groups vocally oppose the CRA. They emphasize the urgency of transitioning to EVs and often point out that the auto industry is already moving in this direction – suggesting the fears of economic ruin are overblown. Some have noted that the five largest automakers by market cap (including Tesla, which is entirely EV, and traditional companies investing billions in EVs) are not fighting the California rule in court; instead, it’s more the industry trade associations and states with oil interests that are pushing back.
Supporters of H.J.Res. 88, meanwhile, include a coalition of states and industry groups who are resistant to the 2035 mandate. Notably, attorneys general from states like Texas, Indiana, and others sued EPA over the waiver, claiming it effectively sets a national standard (since so many states adopt California’s rules) and thus circumvents federal authority. These states, generally more dependent on fossil fuels or with different political leanings, welcome Congress stepping in. Oil and gas industry stakeholders also indirectly support blocking the EV mandate, since widespread electrification poses an existential challenge to gasoline demand. Fuel retailers and convenience store associations have raised concerns about an EV-only future harming their businesses. Car dealer associations, as mentioned, are a strong voice too; they fear a future where selling gas cars (still a profit center) is phased out too quickly. Many Republican politicians champion the resolution as standing up for the average American. They argue that not everyone can afford an EV or wants one, and that California’s policy (if unchecked) could force all of America into electric cars “whether they like it or not.” This populist framing was evident in statements by Rep. Joyce, who said he wants to “permanently protect the freedom of the open road for all Americans” by overturning California’s ban [source]. They also cite grid concerns (can the power grid handle all these EVs?) and use that to cast the mandate as impractical.
Interestingly, some automakers have been somewhat split: while they want flexibility, they also dislike having to navigate different state rules. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation did come out, as noted, pushing Congress to intervene [source], which is a key endorsement of the CRA. However, individual companies often tread carefully because they are simultaneously investing in EVs and don’t want to appear opposed to climate goals. For example, GM and Ford, while not publicly supporting the waiver repeal, did not oppose the Alliance’s letter either.
In the broader public, polls have shown Californians generally support the 2035 EV policy, but nationally the idea of banning gas cars is more controversial. The stakeholder perspectives thus also reflect a cultural dimension: one vision sees the EV transition as inevitable and beneficial (supported by those in coastal and some midwestern states, younger consumers, tech and green industries), while another vision resists the mandate as symbolic of government overreach and coastal elitism (expressed by some heartland states, older consumers, and fossil fuel allies). H.J.Res. 88 has become a vessel for these clashing perspectives. If it advances, it will be celebrated by its supporters as reining in California’s influence and standing up for consumer choice, and denounced by opponents as a setback in the fight against climate change and a usurpation of state rights to protect the environment. Given President Biden’s emphasis on EVs as part of his agenda, a veto is almost certain should this resolution reach his desk, adding one more stakeholder – the Executive Branch – firmly aligned with California on this issue.
H.J.Res. 89 – EPA Waiver for California’s “Omnibus” Low-NOx Heavy-Duty Engine Rule
Summary
H.J.Res. 89 focuses on another California-specific emissions standard: the state’s “Omnibus” Low NOx Regulation for heavy-duty engines, which requires dramatic reductions in allowable nitrogen oxide emissions from new heavy-duty trucks and buses. CARB adopted this set of rules in 2020 to address stubbornly high smog levels, and it includes not only tighter NOx limits (roughly a 90% cut compared to current federal standards) but also extended warranty and useful life requirements to ensure emission control systems remain effective longer [source] [source]. In 2022, the EPA granted California a waiver to implement this low-NOx program for on-road heavy-duty vehicles, and an additional waiver for a companion rule affecting some nonroad engines, recognizing California’s need to combat severe ozone pollution. H.J.Res. 89 would nullify EPA’s decision, thereby preventing California from enforcing its advanced NOx standards for trucks. In practical terms, without the waiver, truck manufacturers would only need to meet the EPA’s federal NOx standards for new trucks (which, as of 2023, are significantly less strict than California’s 2024+ requirements, though EPA is tightening its own standards somewhat starting 2027). The resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), argues that California’s latest NOx rules “create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty…engines” [source]. By invoking the CRA, the resolution aims to relieve those perceived burdens by revoking the state’s authority. Essentially, H.J.Res. 89 is about whether California can press forward with cutting-edge pollution controls on diesel trucks, or whether federal lawmakers will pull back the reins to maintain a uniform (looser) national standard.
Economic Impacts
Heavy-duty vehicle regulations often involve a trade-off between up-front equipment costs and downstream benefits (fuel savings, health savings). In the case of California’s low-NOx rule, the economic impact on manufacturers and truck operators is a key concern driving H.J.Res. 89. Truck and engine manufacturers contend that meeting California’s ultra-low NOx standard (about 0.05 g/bhp-hr on certain test cycles, versus the current federal 0.2 g standard) required extensive R&D and re-engineering of engines. This includes adding new hardware like improved catalytic converters, possibly dual selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, and advanced onboard diagnostics – all of which raise production costs. They warned that these costs would ultimately reflect in higher prices for new trucks. For example, the Engine Manufacturers Association estimated that California’s rule could increase the cost of a new heavy-duty truck by several thousand dollars. Such an increase might prompt fleet operators to delay purchasing new trucks, opting to keep older, higher-polluting units in service longer (a phenomenon known as fleet turnover delay or “pre-buy, post-buy” around new regulations). If trucking companies pre-buy trucks before the new standards kick in, there could be a sales surge followed by a slump, which is disruptive economically. Opponents of the California rule argue it could therefore inadvertently slow the adoption of cleaner trucks because companies avoid buying the expensive new models – an outcome that is economically inefficient (capital spent on older tech that will soon be obsolete) and environmentally counterproductive.
By nullifying the waiver, H.J.Res. 89 would align California with federal standards, simplifying the compliance landscape. Manufacturers would not have to create two sets of engines (one for California/other strict states and one for the rest of the country), which they argue yields cost efficiencies. This uniformity could benefit manufacturing economies of scale and avoid potential market fragmentation (where, for instance, some engine models might be pulled from California markets entirely due to compliance difficulty). Small businesses in trucking are also part of the economic calculus – many operate on thin margins, and while they generally buy used trucks, the price of used trucks is influenced by new truck costs. If new trucks are very expensive, that trickles down to used truck pricing and availability. The California trucking industry (especially independent operators) expressed concerns that the low-NOx rule, on top of other state regulations, would increase operating costs or force them to upgrade equipment they can’t afford. By supporting the CRA, they hope to avoid those outcomes.
On the other side, California’s analysis of the low-NOx rule indicated substantial long-term economic benefits, largely via public health. Reducing NOx (a precursor to ozone and particulate pollution) yields fewer asthma cases, hospital visits, lost work days, etc., which economists monetize as health benefits. CARB estimated billions in health benefit value from the rule, far outweighing the compliance costs when looked at from a societal perspective [source] [source]. Additionally, more stringent standards can spur innovation in the emissions control industry – companies that make catalytic converters, sensors, and after-treatment technology may see increased business, some of which are located in the U.S. The rule also mandated longer emission control warranties (up to 350,000 miles for heavy trucks), which can save truck owners money on repairs that would otherwise come out-of-pocket; effectively, it shifts some costs onto manufacturers to ensure durability. California argued that better-performing, cleaner engines could also be more fuel-efficient with the right technology, potentially offsetting some costs with fuel savings (although fuel efficiency and NOx control can sometimes be at odds technically). If H.J.Res. 89 cancels the waiver, these anticipated economic co-benefits (health cost savings, technology leadership, warranty savings for owners) would be forgone or delayed.
We should also note the interplay with federal regulation: after California set its rule, the EPA adopted a new national heavy-duty engine rule in December 2022 (for model year 2027 onwards) that tightened NOx limits, though not as strictly as California’s. Industry favored the federal rule and wanted it to effectively replace the need for California’s separate standard. One could argue that having one national standard (EPA’s) is economically preferable to a patchwork. California and clean air advocates counter that EPA’s rule, while an improvement, still leaves significant pollution on the table that costs the economy in health terms. Economically, California’s freight corridors (like the Inland Empire warehouse region) suffer productivity losses when workers have respiratory illnesses due to pollution – a hard-to-quantify but real economic drag that cleaner trucks would alleviate.
In summary, the economic argument for H.J.Res. 89 is about avoiding high compliance costs and potential negative effects on the trucking and manufacturing sectors (especially in the short run), emphasizing uniform standards and affordability. The economic argument against it highlights the value of health improvements, innovation, and California’s need to prevent the larger costs of pollution-related nonattainment (which can include federal highway fund sanctions and hindered economic growth due to poor air quality reputation). Each side weighs costs and benefits differently: immediate industry cost vs. broader social benefit. The CRA’s supporters clearly prioritize the former, painting California’s rule as too costly to implement, while opponents prioritize the latter, seeing the rule as a wise investment in public health.
Environmental Impacts
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are at the center of this resolution’s environmental impact. NOx emitted from diesel engines is a primary ingredient in ground-level ozone (smog) and also contributes to fine particulate (PM2.5) formation. California, especially regions like Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, still struggles with extreme ozone pollution – some of the worst in the U.S. The state’s low-NOx omnibus rule was crafted to address this by requiring diesel trucks to run much cleaner. If the waiver stands and the rule is implemented, by CARB’s estimates, it would cut NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles by more than 23 tons per day in California by 2037 (an approximately 90% reduction compared to business-as-usual) and significantly reduce the number of high-ozone days [source] [source]. It would also slash emissions of soot (black carbon) from diesel exhaust, because strategies that reduce NOx (like better combustion control and after-treatment) often reduce particulate emissions as well. This has direct health benefits – diesel exhaust is linked to asthma, lung cancer, and other respiratory/cardiovascular problems. Many of California’s disadvantaged communities live along highways or near freight hubs where truck traffic is intense; cleaner trucks would mean cleaner air in those neighborhoods. Additionally, NOx reductions help ecosystems – for instance, nitrogen deposition from air pollution can harm nutrient-sensitive habitats in national parks; less NOx would alleviate this issue.
If H.J.Res. 89 nullifies the waiver, California would be forced to default to the federal standards. EPA’s 2027-onward federal truck rule is significantly weaker than California’s: roughly, it cuts NOx by about 75% (as opposed to 90%) and has shorter warranty periods. Thus, the environmental impact of the CRA would be that heavy-duty trucks in California (and any states that would have adopted the CA rule) pollute more than they otherwise would have. The difference in emissions might be the difference between meeting health-based air quality standards or not in certain regions. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (which includes Los Angeles) has indicated that it needs the additional reductions from the state’s advanced truck standards to attain the ozone standards by the mandated deadlines. Without it, smog could remain at harmful levels longer, prolonging environmental and health damage.
Moreover, California’s low-NOx rule also covered some off-road engines (the omnibus term included not just on-road trucks but certain categories like commercial pickup truck engines, etc., and had a separate element for off-road equipment engines). Blocking the waiver might also affect those, meaning emissions from construction equipment or generators might stay higher.
From a climate perspective, NOx rules are not primarily about CO₂, but there is an indirect link: some technologies to reduce NOx can slightly affect fuel efficiency. California tried to ensure its rule wouldn’t increase CO₂ significantly, but if manufacturers choose certain strategies, there could be a minor uptick in fuel consumption per truck. However, California also has separate greenhouse gas standards, so it’s a balancing act. If the state rule is gone, manufacturers will optimize for the federal standard which might not push as hard on maintaining fuel efficiency with low NOx. This is a complex technical point; broadly, the climate impact is secondary here compared to air quality.
One more environmental aspect: encouraging fleet turnover. California’s stringent rule was complemented by provisions to incentivize getting older trucks off the road (through fleet rules, etc.). If the rule is nullified, older trucks (which are far dirtier) might remain in use longer in California, meaning more cumulative pollution. Conversely, uniform federal standards might discourage pre-buying of older tech and thus avoid a glut of high-polluting vehicles. So there is a scenario where a very strict rule could lead to a short-term increase in emissions if people game the system. CARB was aware of this and tried to set implementation timelines to minimize it, but some pre-buy likely occurred in 2023-2024 in anticipation. With the CRA, that pre-buy might end up having been unnecessary, and California might simply align with EPA’s 2027 rule, leading to a “middle-ground” outcome: better than old status quo, but not as clean as originally planned.
In summary, environmentally, the CRA’s passage would mean more NOx pollution in the coming decades from heavy-duty vehicles in California and any state that would have adopted the California rule. It could slow progress on cleaning up smog in places long suffering from it. Environmentalists often point out that heavy-duty trucks and buses are only about 6% of vehicles but produce over 50% of NOx emissions on-road due to their diesel engines and high mileage – so weakening standards for this small but mighty segment has a disproportionate negative impact. Proponents of H.J.Res. 89 acknowledge that some emission reductions will be foregone but argue that the differences can be made up through other means (for instance, they suggest that the eventual electrification of trucks – via things like the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, ironically – will anyway reduce diesel use and thus NOx, or that refining fuel or using add-on devices can mitigate emissions without such strict standards). However, California’s own comprehensive plans rely on both the low-NOx rule and electrification; losing one leg makes the stool wobbly. To conclude, the environmental impact of H.J.Res. 89 is clearly in the direction of higher emissions and prolonged air quality problems relative to keeping California’s rule. It’s essentially a question of how much cleaner the air could be: the CRA says “less clean, in favor of regulatory uniformity,” while California’s now-threatened approach said “as clean as technology allows, at the expense of tougher regulations.”
Stakeholder Perspectives
Stakeholders on H.J.Res. 89 overlap with those in H.J.Res. 87 to some extent, since both deal with heavy-duty vehicles, but there are some differences in emphasis. State air quality officials and environmental health advocates are strongly against the resolution. California’s local air districts, like the South Coast AQMD (Los Angeles region) and San Joaquin Valley Air District, have been vocal that they need the emissions cuts from the low-NOx rule to meet Clean Air Act requirements. They support California’s waiver and have lobbied EPA and Congress accordingly. For them, it’s not just an abstract policy – failing to meet air standards can result in federal penalties and continued public health crises. Groups such as the American Lung Association in California, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and environmental justice organizations representing residents of port communities (e.g., around the Ports of LA/Long Beach) have also thrown their weight behind the strict standards, highlighting the asthma and cancer risks from diesel exhaust. They view any attempt to roll back the standards as a direct attack on the health of vulnerable populations. As one environmental justice advocate might say, “our lungs are not ‘burdensome and unworkable’” – a play on Obernolte’s characterization [source] – implying that what’s truly burdensome is living with dirty air. These stakeholders often bring personal stories to the table (kids growing up with inhalers, etc.) to underline the human impact behind the regulatory numbers.
National environmental groups and some technologists support California as well, noting that historically, California’s push on vehicle emission controls (like the first catalytic converters, etc.) ended up benefiting the whole country when EPA later adopted similar rules. They argue that today’s “California low-NOx” could be tomorrow’s national standard if proven feasible – in fact, they were disappointed that EPA’s 2022 federal rule wasn’t as strict, and see California’s continuing effort as keeping the pressure on. By that logic, H.J.Res. 89 could not only freeze California’s progress but also remove the impetus for EPA or other states to aim higher on pollution control.
On the industry side, the stakeholders supporting H.J.Res. 89 include the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), major engine makers like Cummins, and truck manufacturers (e.g., Navistar, Daimler Trucks, Volvo Group). They heavily lobbied against the California NOx waivers. Their perspective is that having to meet two regulatory regimes (California’s vs. EPA’s) is costly and inefficient, and that California’s timeline was rushed. Some of these companies have publicly stated they are committed to reducing emissions, but prefer a single national standard that is achievable. They likely greeted Rep. Obernolte’s resolution with approval, seeing it as a chance to invalidate what they view as an extreme rule. Trucking trade groups also support the CRA. The American Trucking Associations, while more focused on usage rules (like zero-emission mandates and fleet rules), has criticized California’s emission standards as well, suggesting that regulators should consider the real-world durability and reliability issues that ultra-stringent rules might pose (for instance, concern that new low-NOx engines could have more breakdowns or higher maintenance costs, affecting trucking operations). Small trucker organizations in California (like the Western States Trucking Association) outright opposed the CARB rule and are in favor of congressional intervention.
Republican lawmakers backing H.J.Res. 89 echo the industry’s talking points. As seen, Rep. Obernolte calls the standards “unworkable” [source], implying that they are not technically or economically feasible. There is a broader ideological point as well: some conservatives see California’s array of environmental rules as part of a war on diesel and fossil fuels, and by pushing back with a CRA, they assert federal primacy over a patchwork of state rules. They often package H.J.Res. 87, 88, and 89 together as fighting “California’s radical climate agenda.” In fact, House Energy & Commerce Committee leaders explicitly said these CRAs (87, 88, 89) were to stop “far-left policies” that would ban gas cars, trucks, and certain engines [source]. So stakeholders in the political realm are linking the low-NOx rule (which is actually more about smog than climate) to the broader anti-regulation effort.
It’s interesting that Rep. Obernolte himself is a Californian (from a more conservative inland district). He frames his stance as pro-business and pro-consumer, saying CARB’s rules have “hurt businesses and hardworking Americans by imposing costly mandates” [source]. This suggests he’s hearing from local constituents (maybe logistics companies, farms, or trucking firms in his district) that are unhappy with state regulations. So, some local California business groups are indeed supportive of the CRA. For example, construction contractors or farm bureaus that use heavy trucks might prefer a single, less stringent standard for their equipment nationwide.
Another stakeholder group is the environmental regulators in other states. A few states (like Oregon and Washington) indicated interest in adopting California’s heavy-duty NOx standards for their own severe pollution areas. If the waiver is struck down, they lose that option. These states (often through organizations like the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM) support California’s right to set stricter rules. They might not be front and center in public debate, but behind the scenes, their input matters. The automotive aftermarket industry (companies that make emissions retrofits, etc.) could also be stakeholders: stricter standards could create a market for retrofit tech, but if they are too strict, maybe only new tech can comply, limiting retrofits. However, that’s a minor voice compared to the big players.
In conclusion, supporters of H.J.Res. 89 (engine/truck manufacturers, trucking/logistics businesses, and aligned politicians) argue from a competitiveness and practicality angle, and often align it with resisting an overly aggressive California environmental agenda. Opponents (California regulators, environmental justice and health groups, and aligned politicians) argue from a health necessity and states’ rights angle – that California must be allowed to protect its people’s air and that the technology can achieve what's needed if industry is pushed. Both sides feel strongly: industry sees livelihoods and stable rules at stake, while environmental stakeholders see lives and lungs at stake. The outcome of this CRA fight, like the others, will be a barometer of how far Congress is willing to go in tipping the balance between state-led environmental innovation and nationally uniform standards that may be more modest.
Sources
Official Documents
House Rules Committee Report (April 2025)
EPA and NPS filings in the Federal Register
Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule (July 2024)
National Park Service Announcement (January 2025)
Congressional Statements
Rep. James Statement on California Emissions Standards
House Energy and Commerce Committee Press Release
Media Coverage
E&E News: GOP Looks to Strip Protection for Fish at Center of Water Wars
Reuters: Major Automakers Want Congress to Bar California 2035 Electric Vehicle Plan