Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a recent Environmental Protection Agency rule on phasing down hydrofluorocarbons. It declares that the named EPA rule shall have no force or effect. Under the Act, disapproval stops the rule from taking effect and prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule unless Congress passes a new law. The joint resolution must be approved by both chambers and sent to the President for signature or veto.
The EPA rule titled "Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020" (published at 89 Fed. Reg. 82682 on October 11, 2024).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the Congressional Review Act, the resolution gets expedited consideration in the Senate with limited debate and cannot be filibustered, so it can pass with a simple majority; if both chambers approve it, the measure is sent to the President for signature or veto.
This joint resolution, under the Congressional Review Act, disapproves and nullifies the EPA rule titled “Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020” (89 Fed.
Reg. 82682, Oct 11, 2024).
If enacted, the rule would have no force or effect.
Narrow CRA disapproval is procedurally simple but success hinges on both chambers and executive concurrence; potential veto risk and stakeholder opposition lower prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted congressional review (CRA) disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the specific EPA rule and uses the correct statutory mechanism to nullify it.
Liberty of regulatory enforcement vs reducing greenhouse gases
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberty of regulatory enforcement vs reducing greenhouse gases
Likely strongly opposed to the resolution because it would repeal an EPA rule implementing a federal HFC phasedown under AIMA 2020.
Views the rule as a climate and environmental protection measure; disapproval is seen as rolling back emissions reductions and weakening enforcement authority.
Mixed; appreciates goals of reducing HFCs but worries about implementation timing and economic impacts.
Prefers fixing or amending the rule rather than blanket disapproval, or a short delay to address specific compliance or supply-chain concerns.
Likely supportive of the resolution as a check on federal regulatory overreach and to prevent costly new compliance mandates.
Views disapproval as protecting domestic manufacturers and avoiding burdensome rules issued without sufficient Congressional input.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow CRA disapproval is procedurally simple but success hinges on both chambers and executive concurrence; potential veto risk and stakeholder opposition lower prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberty of regulatory enforcement vs reducing greenhouse gases
Narrow CRA disapproval is procedurally simple but success hinges on both chambers and executive concurrence; potential veto risk and stakeh…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted congressional review (CRA) disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the specific EPA rule and uses the correct statutory mechanism to nul…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.