The Biden administration’s EPA has sent two California Clean Air Act waivers to Congress, putting state port and harbor craft rules in the crosshairs of federal review and a possible Congressional Review Act repeal that would overturn costly California mandates affecting ships at berth and commercial harbor craft nationwide.
Washington has transmitted two California waivers to Congress after concluding they qualify as rules under the Congressional Review Act and were not previously submitted for review. The EPA framed this as correcting a procedural lapse so lawmakers can decide whether to block regulations that extend beyond California’s borders. Administrator Lee Zeldin said the move restores accountability to the process and prevents selective policymaking.
The first contested regulation is the “At Berth” rule, which forces certain ocean-going ships to cut emissions while docked by using shore power rather than running onboard engines. The EPA argues the requirement increases shipping costs, strains port infrastructure, and tightens pressure on supply chains that feed retail shelves across the country. Those economic impacts matter for American consumers and businesses that rely on affordable, reliable ocean freight.
The second waiver challenges California’s Commercial Harbor Craft amendments that expand emissions standards for ferries, tugboats, excursion vessels, and other harbor craft. The EPA described parts of the rule as imposing “burdensome and unrealistic zero-emission requirements on vessels” and warned the maritime industry faces economic hardship while trying to comply. Rising costs can translate into lost jobs and higher prices for goods moved by sea.
California first adopted harbor craft standards in 2008 and broadened them in 2022 to push cleaner engines and new technologies, with the amendments taking effect on January 1, 2023. State regulators argue the rules reduce diesel pollution and protect workers and passengers, pitching short-term costs against promised long-term benefits. That promise often ignores who actually pays for compliance and how national supply chains absorb those expenses.
The Biden EPA did not bless every element California sought. In January 2025 it approved most Commercial Harbor Craft amendments but withheld approval for two sections, including zero-emission mandates for certain short-run ferries and standards tied to feasibility extension expirations. California later withdrew those specific requests and said it is not enforcing the denied portions, but the broader fight over the remaining mandates continues.
Congress already used the CRA to reject three California vehicle-emissions waivers in 2025, and the president signed those resolutions into law. Sacramento responded with litigation, arguing waivers are agency orders rather than rules and therefore not subject to CRA action. The administration rejected that legal framing the last time around, and Congress prevailed; now ports are next on that same timeline.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Air Resources Board have turned to the courts before and signaled they will do so again over the maritime waivers. In response Bonta said, “The Trump Administration is resorting to a familiar illegal playbook. Its continuous, outright assault on California’s waivers is blatantly politically motivated, and California won’t stand for this.”
That quote reflects Sacramento’s predictable defense, but it does not change the practical reality: rules that apply at California ports ripple across the country because goods move through West Coast hubs en route to retailers nationwide. When ports face mandates that require new infrastructure or expensive vessel retrofits, costs are passed along to consumers and businesses beyond state lines.
The EPA’s transmission of these waivers revives the same CRA mechanism that previously overturned state vehicle rules, and the clock is now ticking on the ports. If Congress votes to reject the waivers and the president signs those resolutions, two more parts of California’s aggressive climate agenda will be nullified for the nation. That outcome would leave the courts as the primary lever Sacramento can pull to try to preserve its regulations.
For conservatives who worry about federal overreach and the economic impact of state-driven mandates on interstate commerce, the move is a welcome reassertion of statutory process and congressional oversight. It forces a national conversation about whether state rules should effectively set de facto national policy for industries that operate across state lines. The fight will play out in Congress and likely in the courts, with clear implications for supply chains, maritime jobs, and consumer prices.
Add comment