HR-2122-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Sponsored by Valerie Foushee (D-NC)
What it does
This bill would expand Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) programs to reimburse states for the extra cost of using low-emissions cement, concrete, asphalt binder, and asphalt mixtures in highway projects. It would also provide states with technical assistance to update construction standards and to measure the greenhouse gas emissions embedded in building materials. Additionally, it would modify the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program to allow states to make advance purchase commitments — including multi-year contracts — for construction materials with superior durability, environmental performance, or energy efficiency.
Who benefits
State transportation departments that would receive federal reimbursement for the cost premium of low-emissions materials. Low-emissions cement, concrete, and asphalt manufacturers who would gain a federally subsidized market. Construction companies positioned to supply qualifying materials. Communities near highway construction sites who may experience reduced air and particulate pollution. Researchers and engineers working on next-generation construction materials. Taxpayers in states that adopt durable materials, if longer-lasting roads reduce long-term maintenance costs.
Who is hurt
Conventional cement, concrete, and asphalt producers who would face a federally subsidized competitive disadvantage. States that lack the administrative capacity to benchmark and quantify embodied emissions may face implementation burdens. Taxpayers broadly, who would fund the reimbursement and incentive programs. Small or regional materials suppliers who may not meet low-emissions eligibility thresholds. States that prefer existing procurement flexibility may find multi-year contract conditions restrictive.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the construction materials sector — particularly cement production — accounts for roughly 8% of global CO₂ emissions, and that federal highway spending represents a large, concentrated procurement opportunity to drive down those emissions at scale. They contend that reimbursing the cost premium removes the primary barrier preventing states from choosing lower-emissions options, and that the durability requirements built into the advance purchase commitment provision ensure taxpayers get longer-lasting infrastructure in return, reducing lifecycle costs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a federal subsidy that distorts the construction materials market, picking winners among competing products and manufacturers rather than letting performance and price competition drive innovation. They contend that the cost of reimbursements and incentives adds to federal highway spending without a clear mechanism to verify that emissions reductions are real or durable, and that the embodied emissions benchmarking requirements impose new administrative burdens on state transportation agencies that may lack the technical capacity to comply effectively.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to attach conditions to federal highway funding under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), as states voluntarily participate in federal highway programs. No significant constitutional tension is present here, as the bill operates through conditional grants rather than direct mandates on states or private parties.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (FHWA) gains administrative authority to determine product eligibility and manage the reimbursement directory; Congress retains oversight through appropriations and authorization, and states retain discretion to participate or not in the incentive programs.
Historical precedent
The original IMPACT Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 similarly used federal highway funding to incentivize lower-emissions and higher-performance construction materials, establishing a direct legislative lineage for this approach.