A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision".

What happened: On August 6, 2026, Senator Sullivan (R-AK) introduced S.J. Res. 209, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) targeting the EPA's 2023 approval of California's Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards for ocean-going vessels at berth. The resolution was read twice and referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It has five original Republican cosponsors.

The mechanism: CRA resolutions have privileged floor procedures in the Senate (limited debate, simple majority passage) and are not subject to filibuster. However, this bill is still at the earliest stage—referred to committee. To become law, it must pass both chambers and be signed by the President. Given the Republican majority in the 119th Congress and a Republican President, the path is possible but not assured, as committee markup and floor scheduling remain hurdles.

Money trail: This resolution authorizes zero funding. Its sole effect is regulatory: if enacted, it would void the EPA's October 2023 final rule (88 FR 72461) that allowed California to enforce stricter emission controls on vessels while docked at California ports. That rule required ships to connect to shore power or use alternative emission control technologies for at least 80% of their hoteling time. Nullification would remove this mandate, eliminating associated compliance costs (shore power installation, retrofits, low-sulfur fuel requirements) for shipping companies and port operators.

Structural winners and losers: The clearest beneficiaries of the resolution's passage would be ocean carriers and marine terminal operators serving California ports (Los Angeles/Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego). Avoiding mandated shore-power connections reduces capital expenditure for vessels that do not currently have the equipment, and for ports that would otherwise need to expand grid capacity. Conversely, companies providing shore-power systems, emission-control hardware (e.g., scrubbers, SCR catalysts), or alternative marine fuels would lose a regulatory tailwind specific to California. However, many global carriers (Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM) are already investing in green technologies voluntarily, and other jurisdictions (EU, China) have similar requirements, diluting the impact of a single U.S. state's rollback. Publicly traded pure-play beneficiaries or losers are difficult to isolate because the affected equipment suppliers are largely private or diversified conglomerates where the California at-berth segment is a small fraction of revenue.

Timeline: The next step is committee consideration. The Environment and Public Works Committee typically handles CRA resolutions quickly, but the current session calendar (August 2026) means a vote may slip to September or beyond. If the resolution clears committee, floor passage in the Senate is plausible given GOP control, but the House would need to act separately. Full enactment before the 119th Congress ends in January 2027 is possible but not guaranteed.