S-2235-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 226.
Sponsored by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
What it does
This bill would reauthorize the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program — originally created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 — by extending its authorization deadline from 2024 to 2029. The program provides grants and loans to help fleet owners, states, tribes, and localities replace or retrofit older, higher-polluting diesel engines with cleaner technology. The bill makes no other changes to the program's structure, funding formula, or eligibility rules.
Who benefits
State and local governments, tribal governments, and school districts that receive DERA grants to replace or retrofit diesel fleets. Trucking companies, construction firms, and agricultural operations that use older diesel equipment and may qualify for retrofit funding. Communities located near freight corridors, ports, and construction sites that would see reduced diesel particulate exposure. Children and elderly individuals, who are disproportionately vulnerable to diesel exhaust health effects. Clean diesel technology manufacturers and installers who supply equipment funded by the program.
Who is hurt
Diesel engine manufacturers and suppliers of older technology who may face reduced demand as fleets are upgraded. Competing clean energy programs that may vie for the same discretionary appropriations pool. Taxpayers who bear the cost of the program's funding. Operators of older diesel equipment who do not qualify for grants and may face indirect competitive pressure from peers who receive subsidized upgrades.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that diesel exhaust is a leading source of fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, pollutants linked to respiratory disease, cardiovascular illness, and premature death — particularly in communities near highways and freight hubs. They contend that DERA has a documented track record, with EPA reporting that prior funding rounds eliminated hundreds of thousands of tons of harmful emissions at relatively low cost per ton, making reauthorization a cost-effective public health measure with broad bipartisan support.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that reauthorizing a grant program without revisiting its funding levels, eligibility criteria, or performance metrics represents a missed opportunity to evaluate whether federal dollars are being spent efficiently. They contend that the program primarily subsidizes private fleet operators and state agencies that could fund equipment upgrades independently, and that in a constrained fiscal environment, automatic reauthorization of existing programs without rigorous review perpetuates spending that may not reflect current priorities.