Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify a specific EPA rule. Under that law, Congress can pass a joint resolution to overturn a recent federal rule and if the resolution becomes law the rule has no force or effect. If enacted, the resolution also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same unless Congress passes new legislation.
Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period (90 Fed. Reg. 29737 (July 7, 2025)).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the Congressional Review Act, this disapproval resolution is subject to expedited consideration in Congress that limits debate in the Senate and makes it effectively immune to a filibuster; it can pass each chamber by a simple majority. After passage by both chambers, it must be presented to the President for signature or veto.
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the Environmental Protection Agency rule titled “Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period” (90 Fed.
Reg. 29737, July 7, 2025).
If enacted, the resolution declares that the specified EPA rule "shall have no force or effect." The text does not itself replace the EPA action or prescribe an alternative State Implementation Plan; it simply disapproves the listed federal regulatory action.
On substance the resolution is narrow and administratively simple, which helps its prospects compared with sweeping statutory changes. But it targets an environmental rule—a subject that mobilizes organized interest groups and tends to split lawmakers—so it faces meaningful political resistance. The procedural pathway under the CRA is straightforward in form, yet practical passage hinges on building a majority in both chambers and obtaining presidential approval or an override, which raises the bar. Absent displays of broad bipartisan support or alignment with the president, such targeted disapprovals commonly face an uphill climb in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise CRA disapproval resolution that accomplishes its primary legal function (voiding a specified rule) but contains minimal explanatory, fiscal, or transitional detail.
Environmental protection vs regulatory relief: progressives focus on air-quality and public-health risks; conservatives emphasize reducing federal regulatory burden and protecting state/control and industry interests.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental protection vs regulatory relief: progressives focus on air-quality and public-health risks; conservatives emphasize reducing federal regulatory burden and protecting state/control and industry interests.
A liberal/left-leaning observer would likely oppose this resolution because it nullifies an EPA approval related to the Regional Haze program, a Clean Air Act initiative aimed at improving visibility and reducing air pollution from regional sources.
They would read the resolution as an attempt to block or roll back federal enforcement/oversight of air quality and visibility protections in West Virginia.
They would be concerned about potential negative impacts on public health, pollution controls, and downstream/tribal visibility interests if the approval is undone.
A centrist/moderate would weigh procedural and substantive considerations.
They would want to know why Congress is disapproving — e.g., whether EPA exceeded legal authority or whether the West Virginia SIP is demonstrably inadequate.
Without those details in the resolution, a centrist would be cautious: sympathetic to checks on agency overreach but concerned about creating regulatory gaps and litigation risk.
A mainstream conservative would likely support this resolution as a valid exercise of Congressional oversight to constrain EPA action and to defend state authority or prevent perceived regulatory overreach.
They would view nullifying the EPA action as a way to protect businesses and state policy choices from a federal rule they may see as ill‑justified or burdensome.
They would emphasize the importance of returning control to states or forcing a clearer, legally grounded EPA action rather than allowing an approval they view as problematic to stand.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On substance the resolution is narrow and administratively simple, which helps its prospects compared with sweeping statutory changes. But it targets an environmental rule—a subject that mobilizes organized interest groups and tends to split lawmakers—so it faces meaningful political resistance. The procedural pathway under the CRA is straightforward in form, yet practical passage hinges on building a majority in both chambers and obtaining presidential approval or an override, which raises the bar. Absent displays of broad bipartisan support or alignment with the president, such targeted disapprovals commonly face an uphill climb in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental protection vs regulatory relief: progressives focus on air-quality and public-health risks; conservatives emphasize reducing…
On substance the resolution is narrow and administratively simple, which helps its prospects compared with sweeping statutory changes. But…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise CRA disapproval resolution that accomplishes its primary legal function (voiding a specified rule) but contains minimal explanatory, fiscal, or transitio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.