In a recent op-ed for the Washington Examiner, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, elaborated on the Senate’s decision to pass her joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This resolution aims to repeal California’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate.
Senator Capito expressed concerns over California’s mandate, stating that it would “eliminate consumer choice, increase prices, and kill jobs across the country.” The op-ed emphasizes that Congress has rejected what she describes as an attempt by California to impose its climate policy nationwide.
The op-ed discusses how Congress allowed California to request waivers from federal air regulations over 50 years ago due to its poor air quality. However, Capito argues that this authority has been misused recently. In December 2024, the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency approved California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulation. This waiver mandates that all vehicles sold in certain states must be zero-emission by 2035.
Capito highlights that this decision affects about 30% of the nation’s new car market and could reshape auto manufacturing while limiting consumer choices. She criticizes the Biden EPA for attempting to bypass Congress by not submitting its decision under the CRA. Former President Trump identified this waiver as a rule and submitted it to Congress.
Capito introduced a resolution under the CRA to reverse this waiver, asserting it protects consumers and workers while maintaining Senate oversight over agency rules. The op-ed notes that some Senate Democrats sought intervention from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which stated in a letter that the waiver was not a rule under CRA standards. Despite this GAO observation, Capito insists on maintaining congressional authority over such decisions.
The senator refutes claims from Democratic senators that their actions undermine legislative procedures like filibusters. She maintains her support for procedural norms but argues against GAO staff having veto power over elected officials’ use of CRA against agency-submitted rules.
Capito concludes with her view that despite efforts from various parties to shield the EV mandate, Congress acted against California’s initiative.
