HR-9453-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Andrew Clyde (R-GA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the EPA from issuing any regulation — including waivers — that can "reasonably be determined" to restrict the sale or use of any vehicle type (including internal combustion engine vehicles), require fuel-switching at power plants, reduce electric grid reliability, mandate commercially unavailable or cost-prohibitive technology, or otherwise significantly expand EPA authority beyond congressional intent. The restrictions would apply to all future EPA rulemaking under the Clean Air Act.
Who benefits
Automakers that produce internal combustion engine vehicles and their dealership networks. Oil and gas companies whose products power those vehicles. Coal and natural gas power plant operators who would face fewer fuel-switching mandates. Rural consumers and lower-income households who may rely on less expensive internal combustion vehicles. Manufacturers and industries that would face fewer technology-upgrade compliance costs. Electric utilities in regions where grid reliability concerns are prominent. States with economies tied to fossil fuel production.
Who is hurt
Electric vehicle manufacturers and their supply chains, who would lose a regulatory environment that favors EV adoption. Renewable energy companies that compete with fossil fuel power generation. Communities near power plants and high-traffic corridors that may experience higher air pollution levels if EPA emission rules are blocked. Public health researchers and advocates who argue stricter vehicle and power plant standards reduce respiratory illness. States like California that have historically relied on EPA waivers to set stricter vehicle emission standards. Future generations who may bear costs associated with higher long-term emissions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the EPA has repeatedly exceeded its statutory authority — a concern the Supreme Court validated in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where the Court blocked generation-shifting power plant rules the agency issued without clear congressional authorization. They contend that unelected agency officials should not be able to effectively ban internal combustion engine vehicles or mandate fuel-switching through regulatory action, decisions of vast economic significance that belong to Congress and the marketplace. They further argue the bill protects grid reliability at a time when energy demand is rising and that requiring commercially unavailable or cost-prohibitive technology imposes real hardship on businesses and consumers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's broad, vague prohibitions — such as any rule that "can reasonably be determined" to restrict vehicle types or "significantly expand" EPA authority — would effectively paralyze the agency's core mission of setting air quality standards, since nearly any meaningful emission rule affects vehicle or power plant operations. They contend that blocking technology-forcing regulations eliminates a tool Congress deliberately built into the Clean Air Act, which has historically driven innovation in catalytic converters, fuel efficiency, and pollution controls. They further argue the bill would override California's longstanding Clean Air Act waiver authority, stripping states of the ability to set stricter standards that millions of residents have relied on for decades.
Constitutional context
West Virginia v. EPA (2022) established that agencies must have clear congressional authorization for rules of vast economic and political significance — a doctrine this bill invokes by codifying explicit limits on EPA authority. Post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts independently review whether agency rules fall within statutory authority, meaning the bill's new restrictions would themselves be subject to judicial interpretation without deference to EPA's reading of its own scope.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority by narrowing EPA's rulemaking power; the executive branch (EPA) loses discretionary regulatory authority; courts would serve as the primary check by adjudicating disputes over whether specific rules "reasonably" fall within the bill's prohibitions.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used statutory riders to block specific EPA rules (e.g., appropriations riders preventing regulation of farm dust or lead ammunition), but a permanent, categorical prohibition on entire classes of EPA rulemaking under the Clean Air Act has no direct legislative precedent.