Capito Op-Ed: Ending the Electric Vehicle Mandate

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In an op-ed published in the Washington Examiner, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, detailed the importance of the Senate’s passage of her joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal California’s EV mandate, and the process taken to end this misguided policy.

“Despite the best efforts of unelected bureaucrats in California, the Biden administration, and congressional Democrats to shield this electric vehicle mandate from the will of the people, Congress has rejected California’s attempt to impose a mandate that would have eliminated consumer choice, increased prices, and killed jobs across the country,” Chairman Capito writes.

The full op-ed is available here and below.

Ending The Electric Vehicle Mandate
By: U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
The Washington Examiner
May 27, 2025

Oftentimes in Washington, promises go unkept, and priorities fall to the wayside as politics take over. I’m proud to have worked in tandem with my colleagues and President Donald Trump to make good on a promise I made.

On May 22, Congress struck down a key aspect of the Biden administration’s nationwide electric vehicle mandate under the Congressional Review Act. This is a win for American consumers and protects Congress’s constitutional and statutory oversight authority over federal agencies and unelected bureaucratic overreach.

How did we get here?

More than 50 years ago, Congress allowed California to request a “waiver” from applicable federal air regulations. Congress provided California with this tool because the state had extraordinarily poor air quality and unique challenges in controlling it. Recently, California has abused that discreet authority to set climate policy across the country.

In December 2024, the lame duck Biden Environmental Protection Agency approved California’s request to implement its Advanced Clean Cars II regulation when Democrats wouldn’t have to face voters over this politically toxic policy.

California’s ACC II waiver requires all vehicles sold in the state, Washington, D.C., and the 11 other states that have adopted California’s standard to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. This means that in one decade, these states, totaling 30% of the nation’s new car market, will have a full ban on the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles and traditional hybrids. These unattainable standards, backed by a fine of over $26,000 per vehicle for non-compliance, would reshape auto manufacturing and take away consumer choice across the country.

The Biden EPA tried to avoid accountability from Congress by claiming its decision was not a rule and refusing to submit it to Congress under the CRA. Fortunately, Trump corrected this by identifying the waiver as a rule and submitting it to Congress.

To protect consumers and workers, as well as the Senate’s oversight authority over bad agency rules, I introduced a resolution under the CRA to reverse the EPA’s California waiver. Using this statutory process allows members of the Senate and the House, the constitutionally elected representatives of all Americans, to decide whether a nationally significant agency rule should move forward.

After the rule was submitted to Congress, Senate Democrats who wanted to protect this electric vehicle mandate requested the Government Accountability Office find that the waiver was not a rule under the CRA. Once a rule is submitted by an agency, GAO consistently refrains from issuing an opinion. Despite its own precedent, GAO “observed” in a letter that the Biden EPA action approving California’s waiver was not a rule under the CRA, despite the agency’s submittal to Congress.

Democrats got this GAO letter to obstruct the Senate from exercising its authority provided by the CRA. Nothing in the plain text of the CRA, Senate rules, or Senate precedents gives unelected staff at the GAO the authority to prevent the Senate from considering a resolution of disapproval against a rule that has been submitted to Congress.

Once an agency submits a rule to Congress, as the EPA did here, elected representatives are able to decide whether to approve or disapprove of the rule. That is how the CRA precedent has functioned since its enactment in 1996 as a statutory exception to the Senate’s normal practice of unlimited debate. This allows Congress to realize the fundamental purpose of the CRA: oversight by elected representatives over unelected agencies.

Democratic senators claim that our action undermines the legislative filibuster. That is simply untrue. Unlike my Democratic colleagues, I have supported the legislative filibuster as a senator in the majority and as a senator in the minority. The procedural action we have taken is not about the filibuster. Instead, the procedural action the Senate has taken is simply about whether GAO staff can violate its own precedent and have veto authority over elected officials’ ability to use the CRA against rules submitted to Congress by an agency. The answer is no.

Despite the best efforts of unelected bureaucrats in California, the Biden administration, and congressional Democrats to shield this electric vehicle mandate from the will of the people, Congress has rejected California’s attempt to impose a mandate that would have eliminated consumer choice, increased prices, and killed jobs across the country.

 

# # #