Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to reject a specific Environmental Protection Agency rule on renewable fuel standards. If both chambers approve the resolution and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the cited EPA rule would be nullified and have no legal effect. The law also prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule unless Congress enacts new legislation. The resolution specifically targets the EPA final rule published at 91 Fed. Reg. 16388 on April 1, 2026.
The EPA final rule titled "Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2026 and 2027, Partial Waiver of 2025 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement, and Other Changes" (published at 91 Fed. Reg. 16388 on April 1, 2026).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate gets expedited consideration of disapproval resolutions and they are protected from filibuster, so passage in each chamber requires only a simple majority; as a joint resolution it must also be presented to and signed by the President (or have a veto overridden) to take effect.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 8) to disapprove and nullify an Environmental Protection Agency rule titled “Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2026 and 2027, Partial Waiver of 2025 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement, and Other Changes” (91 Fed.
Reg. 16388, April 1, 2026).
If enacted, the resolution declares that the cited EPA rule has no force or effect.
Very narrow but politically charged measure; easier in one chamber but high Senate and possible executive-branch resistance reduce overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise Congressional Review Act-style disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the targeted EPA rule, invokes the proper statutory authority, and states the intended legal effect (nullification).
Progressives emphasize EPA authority and climate impacts.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize EPA authority and climate impacts.
Likely opposes the resolution as an attack on EPA regulatory action and federal climate and air-quality policy.
Views congressional nullification of an EPA RFS rule as undermining executive enforcement of environmental standards and potentially delaying emissions reductions.
Approaches the resolution pragmatically, weighing regulatory cost, legal precedent, and market disruption.
Concerned about rule specifics, compliance uncertainty, and whether congressional disapproval is the most targeted response.
Likely supports the resolution as restoring limits on EPA rulemaking and relieving regulatory burdens.
Sees CRA disapproval as appropriate when an agency exceeds statutory authority or imposes costly mandates.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow but politically charged measure; easier in one chamber but high Senate and possible executive-branch resistance reduce overall chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize EPA authority and climate impacts.
Very narrow but politically charged measure; easier in one chamber but high Senate and possible executive-branch resistance reduce overall…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise Congressional Review Act-style disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the targeted EPA rule, invokes the proper statutory authority, and states t…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.