Summary#
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rule titled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units: Final Repeal.” The resolution says the EPA repeal is disapproved and “shall have no force or effect.” The resolution was introduced in the Senate but a motion to proceed to consideration failed on a 46–53 vote.
- Main change: It would nullify the EPA’s final repeal of the hazardous-air-pollutant standards for coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units.
- Legal basis: The resolution is filed under chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code (the Congressional Review Act).
- Target rule: The rule cited is published at 91 Fed. Reg. 9088 (February 24, 2026).
- Current status: The Senate rejected proceeding to consider the resolution, so it did not advance at that time.
What it means for you#
- Power plants and utilities: This would likely affect coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units. If the disapproval passed, the repeal would be voided and the previous emission standards would remain in effect.
- EPA: The agency would not be able to keep the repeal in force if Congress passed and the President signed the resolution. This could limit the agency’s immediate ability to change those particular standards.
- State environmental agencies: States that implement or enforce federal hazardous-air-pollutant standards could see no change from the pre-repeal rules while disapproval is in effect.
- Electric customers and local communities: Any changes in plant operations or compliance costs that would have followed from the repeal may not occur if the resolution nullifies the repeal.
- General public: The resolution addresses federal air-pollution rules for specific types of power plants. It does not itself create new standards; it seeks to restore the status that existed before the EPA’s repeal rule.
What is unclear:
- The resolution text simply states the rule is disapproved. It does not spell out how the EPA should implement or enforce the prior standards after disapproval.
- The resolution does not include implementation details or timelines.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill text and supplied material do not include a fiscal note, budget estimate, or cost analysis.
- Possible costs or savings (not quantified here) could include enforcement and compliance costs for the EPA, states, and affected utilities if the prior standards remain in effect. These are not estimated in the provided material.
Proponents' View#
No clear argument available from the supplied material.
Possible reasons someone might support the resolution (inferred from the text):
- The bill appears intended to keep the prior hazardous-air-pollutant standards in force for coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units. Supporters may argue this preserves public-health protections tied to those standards.
- Using the Congressional Review Act is a direct way for Congress to overturn an agency rule that it disagrees with.
- Supporters may believe the repeal would have removed important controls on toxic emissions from large power plants.
Opponents' View#
No clear criticism is provided in the supplied material.
Possible concerns or trade-offs that follow from the bill’s design:
- One concern is that keeping the prior standards could maintain compliance costs for utilities and could affect electricity prices or plant operations; the resolution does not address those economic effects.
- The resolution does not explain how EPA or states should handle technical or administrative steps after disapproval, which could create implementation uncertainty.
- Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval can limit the agency’s ability to issue a substantially similar rule in the future without new congressional authorization. This could reduce regulatory flexibility to update standards based on new science or technology.
- The resolution itself is short and procedural; it does not provide technical fixes or alternatives to the EPA rule it disapproves, so questions could remain about long-term policy direction.