Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Climate Change

Behind the Transport Industry’s Lament About the Senate Climate Bill

While transport reform advocates hailed last week's long-awaited Senate climate bill for directing an estimated $6 billion-plus towards local land use planning and green infrastructure, state DOTs and construction interests criticized the legislation -- suggesting that the measure's sponsors could face stiff resistance from the transportation industry's mainstream despite making concessions to win over all sides.

gas_tax.jpgDoes the Senate climate bill include a user fee? That depends on how the term is defined. (Photo: Pop and Politics)

The central complaint raised by mainstream transport players boils down to, as American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) executive director John Horsley put it in a statement, the Senate bill's "preemption" of user-fee revenue that historically has gone into the nation's dwindling highway trust fund.

"Congress can ill-afford to consider any legislation that" siphons off money from the trust fund, which has required more than $30 billion in replenishment from the general Treasury over the past 18 months, Horsley said.

Stephen Sandherr, chief of the Associated General Contractors -- a backer of the Senate effort to bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of congressional action -- echoed that sentiment in his own statement on the upper-chamber climate proposal.

"[B]y taking funds raised through the proposal’s new transportation fees
and committing all but a small percentage to unrelated spending, the
legislation leaves our aging and inefficient roads, airways and transit
systems vastly underfunded," Sandherr said.

But does the Senate climate bill impose a user fee on transportation fuel consumers? The text of the measure specifically requires "each refined [fuel] product provider" to purchase emissions permits from the EPA on a quarterly basis at a fixed price, with no permit trading allowed. Horsley's depiction of those charges as a "user fee" relies on the considerable likelihood that oil companies and refiners would pass on the cost of those emissions permits to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.

In the meantime, how much of the revenue raised by the bill's new fuel permits would infrastructure receive?

The American Road and Transportation Builders Association estimated last week that the Senate plan would raise $20 billion from the new charges on oil producers and refiners, with about $6.25 billion of that divided into equal parts -- one-third for the highway trust fund, one-third for competitive federal grants similar to the TIGER program, and one-third for local land use projects, in the style of the so-called "CLEAN TEA" proposal.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Friday Video: The Horrors of the Modern High-Tech Car

As more technology wheedles its way into our cars, they get scarier and scarier.

October 31, 2025

Friday’s Headlines Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Tech companies and automakers keep pushing autonomous vehicles and don't seem to care whether they're safe or not.

October 31, 2025

Pedaling Toward Progress: San Antonio’s Bold Bike Plan in a Car-Centric State

If we can do this in Texas, we can do it anywhere.

October 31, 2025

Talking Headways Podcast: Getting California High Speed Rail Done

It took a while, but California is figuring out the best, most-cost-effective way to do fast trains.

October 30, 2025

Spooky Stuff: On Halloween, Some States Will Have Deadlier Roads Than Others

Find out how yours ranks — and what policymakers can do to make streets less scary.

October 30, 2025
See all posts