On May 21, 2026, three Surface Transportation Reauthorization (STR) bills passed out of committees in the House of Representatives. To understand the below bills as passed, please also refer to the associated ANS, manager’s amendments, and other amendments linked below. The links will be updated to the latest text on Congress.gov, but that progress is often subject to a delay:
ZETA is in communication with minority staff on EPW and Finance in regards to timing of Senate negotiations, as well as a Republican Member of the Ways and Means Committee, to stay connected on the feasibility of a markup in W&M. We also have an upcoming meeting scheduled with House Rules Committee staff to better understand the Democratic Caucus’s approach to amendments during upcoming Rules consideration and Floor debate.
We met with Speaker Johnson’s team on Monday, June 8th, to hear about their expectation of Floor time for this package and flag ZETA’s main priorities. According to staff, significant issues remain unsettled among the Republican conference across the various committees of jurisdiction. Among other issues, some of the largest concerns include “right to repair” provisions in E&C, the rail safety title in T&I, and the large transfers (approximately $160 billion) that will need to be transferred to the Highway Trust Fund from the General Fund of the Treasury. On the topic of EV fees, staff acknowledged that there has been major pushback for the relatively minor amount of revenue such a fee is likely to generate, making the provision more challenging for final passage. All these issues will need to be resolved among Republicans before the bill package can be brought to the House Floor for a vote. Given these outstanding concerns and the complexity in resolving them, as well as the minimal number of legislative session days left on the Congressional calendar, it is unclear at this time when a surface transportation package will be able to be considered on the Floor; no time commitments have yet been provided to committees of jurisdiction.
Below is a roundup of where ZETA’s various priorities landed, along with notes about next steps as these bills move towards the House floor and the Senate continues its negotiations.
House T&I Results: An EV-Specific fee starting at $130, increasing to $150 over time was included in the T&I portion of H.R. 8870 (Graves), the BUILD America 250 Act, in Section 1129 ‘Registration Fee on Motor Vehicles,’ on page 174, line 9. Several amendments striking the fee or requesting exemptions for were offered during Committee markup and were either withdrawn or voted down by voice vote.
Rep. Davids offered and withdrew an amendment to replace the static EV fee with a formula to set an EV fee to match the amount paid annually in gas tax by ICE vehicle drivers. Rep. Huffman offered and withdrew an amendment to strike the EV fee. Rep. Foushee offered an amendment, which failed by voice vote, to exempt senior citizens from the EV fee. Rep. Carbajal offered an amendment, which failed by voice vote, to exempt low income individuals from the EV fee. Of note, Rep. Crawford offered an amendment directing the Office of the Comptroller to conduct a study on a fuel-agnostic approach to financing the Highway Trust Fund. This amendment was ultimately withdrawn, but was included in the manager’s amendment, which passed by voice vote.
Senate: Minority committee staff on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee as well as the Committee on Finance are currently committed to holding the line at no fee. Perspectives down-dias vary on the topic; some Democrats feel an EV fee would be appropriate, but don’t want it to be punitive. Finance Committee staff feel confident that jurisdiction of this issue would fall into their Committee.
House T&I Results: Funding past FY26 for the NEVI program is not included in the House T&I bill text, meaning that, if enacted as written, the program will expire and will not be reauthorized (i.e. further funding will not be available past the program’s expiration on September 30, 2026). Previously allocated, unobligated funding is not touched by this bill; however, those funds continue to see clawbacks in the FY27 House THUD Appropriations bill. During the markup, Rep. Foushee offered an amendment, which failed by voice vote, to extend the authorization of NEVI through 2031.
Senate: This priority falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. This is a top priority for Senator Whitehouse’s staff.
House T&I Results: CFI eligibility is retained and included as a required set-aside within the CMAQ program. The program is allocated $1 billion over four years (H.R. 8870 BUILD America 250 Act, Section 118 ‘CMAQ Program’, page 107, line 1). During the markup, Rep. Foushee offered an amendment, which failed by voice vote, to fully fund the CFI program through 2031.
Senate: This priority falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. This is a top priority for Senator Whitehouse’s staff.
House T&I Results: ZETA’s recommended language to amend J3400 eligibility in federal EV charging standards was not included in the House text.
Senate: This priority falls into the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. We want to ensure, to the best of our ability, that this change makes it into the Senate text. Early in the STR process, this was an area where EPW Majority staff had previously expressed interest in seeing draft language.
House T&I Results: Major provisions of Rep. Titus’s Thermal Runaway Reduction Act was included in the T&I base text (H.R. 8870 BUILD America 250 Act, Section 10612. Requirements for Safe Transport of Lithium-Ion Batteries, page 1002, line 1). The House Majority staff seems open to working to improve this language moving forward.
Senate: These provisions likely fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce. Any concerns with this language should be flagged for Committee staff and staff in offices down dais.
House T&I Results: The Low or No Emissions Grant Program is not included in the House T&I bill text, meaning that the program will not see additional funding through its own program stream after September 30th; however, activities for the Low or No program may be eligible for funding under the CMAQ program. During the markup, Rep. Nadler offered an amendment, which failed by voice vote, to ensure that not less than 50 percent of funds go towards zero emission vehicles.
Senate: This falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
House E&C Results: The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act was included as part of the amendment in the nature of a substitute (AINS) to the Energy and Commerce Committee’s portion of surface reauthorization, H.R. 7389 (Guthrie), Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026 (Part III—AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, Sec. 321-322, page 98). This inclusion reflects changes made in the E&C markup in September 2025 of H.R. 979 (Bilirakis), including an 8-year sunset of the mandate, and a required report on any adverse impacts related to automotive innovation and motor vehicle safety on automated driving systems, and ways to mitigate such impacts, before issuance of rule. The “small manufacturers exemption” is maintained - manufacturers that manufactured no more than 40,000 passenger motor vehicles for sale in the U.S. in 2022 have a 4-year window after the rule is issued before the requirement applies to them. During the markup of H.R. 7389, Rep. Obernolte expressed concern around the AM radio provisions of the bill, stating that it would be costly for EV design and force consumers to pay more for EVs.
Senate: This provision falls under Senate Commerce jurisdiction and is likely to be included in their portion of surface transportation reauthorization.
House Results: Fire safety working group language was marked up and passed out of two committees in two separate bills: 1) House Energy and Commerce as part of an amendment in the nature of a substitute (AINS) to H.R. 7389 (Guthrie), the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026, in Sec 112 Motor Vehicle Fire Rescue Working Group, and 2) out of House Science, Space and Technology Committee as an Amendment #006 introduced to H.R. 8748 (Fong), the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2026. Amendment 006 to H.R. 8748 is substantially similar to H.R. 8307 (Obernolte), the Responder and Recovery Safety in EV Fires Act, which itself is the companion to Sen. Sheehy’s S. 4084 of the same bill title. Between the Energy and Commerce language and the Science Committee language, ZETA has not officially taken a stance; we have endorsed the updated version of S. 4084 (Sheehy), but as H.R. 8307 (Obernolte) was introduced before the updates were included in the Sheehy text, we have not endorsed H.R. 8307.
Senate: This falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Senator Sheehy’s office has shared a redlined version of the bill that includes the two aforementioned changes to the text that ZETA requested.
House T&I Results: Requested flexibility around axle weight distribution for EV school buses was not reflected in H.R. 8870 BUILD America 250. Language from the Variance Act was included in H.R. 8870 BUILD America 250 Act Section.
Senate: This priority falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
House T&I Results: State discretionary authority to allow alternative fuel vehicles to utilize HOV lanes was extended through 2031 (H.R. 8870 BUILD America 250 Act, Section 1121 ‘HOV facilities,’ page 113, line 20).
Senate: This priority likely falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
House E&C Results: Allows for electric recall notice in the AINS to H.R. 7389 Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026, Section 11 Modern Recall Notification Procedures, page 25, line 9. ZETA had included a request for language to allow for this in our priorities submitted to Energy and Commerce in April 2025, and subsequently met with both Majority and Minority staff about this issue.
Senate: This priority falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
House E&C Results: Provisions with similarities to S. 4429 (Moreno) / H.R. 8730 (Moolenaar), the Connected Vehicle Security Act of 2026, were included in the AINS to H.R. 7389 (Guthrie), the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026.
Senate: This item falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It is fairly likely to be included, in some version or another, in the Senate’s version of surface transportation.
In addition to the T&I markup, E&C will also be going ahead with their scheduled markup of their portions of surface transportation reauthorization on Thursday, May 21st, at 10 AM. The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (AINS) to H.R. 7389 (Gurthrie), the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026, makes a number of additions in time for E&C markup that may be relevant to ZETA member companies, including:
T&I markup has been officially noticed for this Thursday, May 21, at 10 AM.
Please find the full list of amendments filed here. We have had multiple conversations with offices on Committee and other stakeholder groups regarding amendments at markup; please see the current status of those conversations below, current as of 11:15 AM, May 21th.
EV Fees
Congresswoman Sharice Davids (D-IL-03):
Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA-02):
Congresswoman Valerie Foushee (D-NC-04):
Congressman Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24):
NEVI/CFI
Congresswoman Valerie Foushee (D-NC-04)
Congressman DeSaulnier (D-CA-10)
Low-No Emissions
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-12)
Pending/Unconfirmed/Notes
Congresswoman McDonald Rivet (D-MI-08)
Congressman Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04):
Congresswoman Val Hoyle (D-OR-04):
Congresswoman Julia Brownley (D-CA-26):
Additional pending amendment ideas:
T&I markup has been officially noticed for this Thursday, May 21, at 10 AM. Members of Congress must submit amendments by 1 PM on 5/20. We understand that technically amendments can be filed at any time, but the deadline is for consideration for inclusion in the upcoming manager’s amendment (likely bipartisan in nature in this instance). A manager’s amendment is the only meaningful way to change this bill at Committee, due to the Majority-Minority agreement in place to vote down unagreed-to amendments.
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) to the bill has been posted here and above . It makes a few technical changes, including increasing the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing HSIP set-aside from $245 million per year to $250 million per year and eliminating the bill’s extension of RAISE program authorizations. The ANS also changed the topline from $590 to $580. All amendments must be drafted to the ANS, not the original bill text. (This is typically to provide the Chairman the ability to move to a vote on the ANS when they are ready to cut off debate).
Additionally, please see T&I Minority staff internal guidance on the bill for your awareness - please don’t share widely, per request. Lastly, ZETA is in touch with Leader Jeffries’ team about the markup, and will be speaking with them tomorrow (Wednesday) morning.
Latest intel from staff is that the date being held for the T&I markup is Thursday, May 21st.
Chairman Graves of T&I is retiring at the end of this Congress, and thus is motivated to see action on this bill. We understand his goal is to try to move it (either through the Committee or on the House floor) by June.
Bill Text Assessment from Democratic Staff
Amendment Strategy
Democratic Member of Congress Positioning
Progression on the Senate side of surface reauthorization legislation is considerably slower; while Committees of jurisdiction are trading paper, it is believed that they will not be able to finish their negotiations in time for a final reauthorization package by the September 2026 deadline. It is widely believed that a temporary extension of existing authorities will be required by the end of this calendar year to prevent lapses in authorizations.
In Spring 2025, ZETA underwent a collaborative member engagement process to identify and articulate our priorities for Surface Transportation Reauthorization (STR). These priorities were reviewed by members and submitted to portals maintained by the House Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) and Energy and Commerce (E&C), as well as to the Senate Committee on Energy and Public Works (EPW).
ZETA has maintained a consistent line of communication with Committee staff as well as offices down-dais throughout the STR process. We have also coordinated with coalition partners through CHARGE to ensure that electrification is a leading priority for Democrats in the upcoming bill.
ZETA has communicated clearly to T&I minority staff, including Committee Leadership, that we would oppose a bill that contains what we consider to be an unfair, punitive road use fee on EVs to contribute to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF); for instance, we would consider an annual EV road use fee at or near $150 to be punitive. We are working on a press strategy in anticipation that we may see base text in which our priorities are adversely impacted, to serve as a marker of the continued need for a bipartisan bill to include no punitive EV fee levels and dedicated EV infrastructure funding.
If you have specific questions about the state of play on a specific policy priority, please do not hesitate to reach out to Rebecca or Ronnie.
ZETA is in the process of engaging offices ahead of markup to explore the appetite for and political dynamic around introducing amendments to the base text. In particular, since early April of this year (and in addition to conversations during our March fly-in), ZETA has had numerous conversations with Member offices on and off T&I Committee to ensure, to the best of our ability, that any EV fee in this bill would be fair and non-punitive, including: T&I Committee minority leadership, Leader Jeffries, Congressman Beyer (Member-level), Ways and Means Committee minority staff, and the offices of Reps. DeSaulnier, Titus, Stanton, Hoyle, Deluzio, Garcia, Brownley, Carbajal, Garamendi, Panetta, Mike Thompson, Gomez, and Holmes Norton; additional conversations are pending. From this group, ZETA has spoken with at least six offices on T&I actively interested in, or at least open to, leading amendments during markup (under certain circumstances, further discussed below) to address an unfair EV fee and other relevant issues.
On the Senate side, the Minority is more united in opposition to an EV fee on principle, although some Democratic offices are open to the idea of its inclusion in surface transportation. Committee Leadership for both the Environment and Public Works Committee (which oversees most of T&I’s jurisdiction, including NEVI/CFI) and the Finance Committee (which oversees tax issues, very likely including EV fees) are both committed to pushing back on the inclusion of an EV fee in a final surface transportation bill.
If T&I Majority and Minority reach an agreement on text, Committee and down-dais Member staff alike have expressed that the funding numbers will have been heavily negotiated, and thus locked in. While there is no Committee rule against non-budget-neutral amendments, we have been told that changes to funding levels would upend the entire bill as negotiated. Furthermore, Majority and Minority are likely to have an agreement on types of amendments that they will vote against on principle, in the event of a finalized negotiation process. Presumably, this would include any amendments to change pre-negotiated funding levels.
In short, as any amendment to strike or reduce a prospective EV fee or increase funding for programs (i.e. NEVI/CFI, Low or No Emission Grant Program, etc.) would have an impact on funding levels, such amendments would likely be voted down on a bipartisan basis at the Committee Leadership level. Many down-dais Members of Congress would feel it necessary to follow Leadership’s direction in this matter. Amendments that change policy but do not impact funding levels may still fail a vote due to Committee political makeup, but would not have the same hurdles as those with budgetary impacts.
With this in mind, implementing an effective amendment strategy will require careful consideration of the challenges and nuances presented by both bill text and the nature of any agreement that comes together. However, given we have had a number of offices interested in engagement, we do have some options. We have laid out our thought process below, as well as our recommendation on a path forward at this time.
Example scenario: Bill text comes out with an annual EV fee set at $150. (Note: we understand there are many programs that may be affected by this bill that may warrant an amendment, and we are happy to discuss on a case-by-case basis; since the greatest priority for many ZETA members is preventing a punitive EV fee, this is the example being used for planning purposes.)
Ask a MOC to offer and withdraw an amendment to allow the opportunity to message on the issue. Our top recommendations for amendments to the message on EV fees would include 1.) exemptions from the fee for lower-income individuals, senior citizens, and drivers of used EVs to make the point about affordability, and 2.) bringing the fee down to gas car driver parity (we can name a number or not) in order to make the point about fairness.
We feel this approach allows Members of Congress to discuss the unfair nature of a punitive EV fee and its negative impacts on consumers, while avoiding an unfavorable vote that may create negative future precedent on the issue.
Please let the ZETA team know by this Friday, May 15th, if you would be supportive of ZETA taking this general approach in regard to treatment of EV fees during Committee markup of a surface transportation bill. We are very happy to chat through other ideas, and of course, happy to discuss any questions.
T&I markup has been officially noticed for this Thursday, May 21, at 10 AM. The notice also flags that Members of Congress must submit amendments by 1 PM tomorrow. We understand that technically amendments can be filed at any time, but the deadline is for consideration for inclusion in the upcoming manager’s amendment (likely bipartisan in nature in this instance). A manager’s amendment is the only meaningful way to change this bill at Committee, due to the Majority-Minority agreement in place to vote down unagreed-to amendments.
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) to the bill has been posted here and above . It makes a few technical changes, including increasing the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing HSIP set-aside from $245 million per year to $250 million per year and eliminating the bill’s extension of RAISE program authorizations. The ANS also changed the topline from $590 to $580. All amendments must be drafted to the ANS, not the original bill text. (This is typically to provide the Chairman the ability to move to a vote on the ANS when they are ready to cut off debate).
Additionally, please see T&I Minority staff internal guidance on the bill for your awareness - please don’t share widely, per request. Lastly, ZETA is in touch with Leader Jeffries’ team about the markup, and will be speaking with them tomorrow (Wednesday) morning.
We have had multiple conversations with offices on Committee and other stakeholder groups regarding amendments at markup; please see the current status of those conversations below, current as of 12:30 PM, May 20th.
Congresswoman Sharice Davids (D-IL-03):
Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA-02):
Congresswoman Valerie Foushee (D-NC-04):
Congressman Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24):
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-12)
Congressman Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04):
Congresswoman Val Hoyle (D-OR-04):
Congresswoman Julia Brownley (D-CA-26):
Additional pending amendment ideas:
Latest intel from staff is that the date being held for the T&I markup is Thursday, May 21st.
Chairman Graves of T&I is retiring at the end of this Congress, and thus is motivated to see action on this bill. We understand his goal is to try to move it (either through the Committee or on the House floor) by June.
Bill Text Assessment from Democratic Staff
Amendment Strategy
Democratic Member of Congress Positioning
Progression on the Senate side of surface reauthorization legislation is considerably slower; while Committees of jurisdiction are trading paper, it is believed that they will not be able to finish their negotiations in time for a final reauthorization package by the September 2026 deadline. It is widely believed that a temporary extension of existing authorities will be required by the end of this calendar year to prevent lapses in authorizations.
In Spring 2025, ZETA underwent a collaborative member engagement process to identify and articulate our priorities for Surface Transportation Reauthorization (STR). These priorities were reviewed by members and submitted to portals maintained by the House Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) and Energy and Commerce (E&C), as well as to the Senate Committee on Energy and Public Works (EPW).
ZETA has maintained a consistent line of communication with Committee staff as well as offices down-dais throughout the STR process. We have also coordinated with coalition partners through CHARGE to ensure that electrification is a leading priority for Democrats in the upcoming bill.
ZETA has communicated clearly to T&I minority staff, including Committee Leadership, that we would oppose a bill that contains what we consider to be an unfair, punitive road use fee on EVs to contribute to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF); for instance, we would consider an annual EV road use fee at or near $150 to be punitive. We are working on a press strategy in anticipation that we may see base text in which our priorities are adversely impacted, to serve as a marker of the continued need for a bipartisan bill to include no punitive EV fee levels and dedicated EV infrastructure funding.
If you have specific questions about the state of play on a specific policy priority, please do not hesitate to reach out to Rebecca or Ronnie.
ZETA is in the process of engaging offices ahead of markup to explore the appetite for and political dynamic around introducing amendments to the base text. In particular, since early April of this year (and in addition to conversations during our March fly-in), ZETA has had numerous conversations with Member offices on and off T&I Committee to ensure, to the best of our ability, that any EV fee in this bill would be fair and non-punitive, including: T&I Committee minority leadership, Leader Jeffries, Congressman Beyer (Member-level), Ways and Means Committee minority staff, and the offices of Reps. DeSaulnier, Titus, Stanton, Hoyle, Deluzio, Garcia, Brownley, Carbajal, Garamendi, Panetta, Mike Thompson, Gomez, and Holmes Norton; additional conversations are pending. From this group, ZETA has spoken with at least six offices on T&I actively interested in, or at least open to, leading amendments during markup (under certain circumstances, further discussed below) to address an unfair EV fee and other relevant issues.
On the Senate side, the Minority is more united in opposition to an EV fee on principle, although some Democratic offices are open to the idea of its inclusion in surface transportation. Committee Leadership for both the Environment and Public Works Committee (which oversees most of T&I’s jurisdiction, including NEVI/CFI) and the Finance Committee (which oversees tax issues, very likely including EV fees) are both committed to pushing back on the inclusion of an EV fee in a final surface transportation bill.
If T&I Majority and Minority reach an agreement on text, Committee and down-dais Member staff alike have expressed that the funding numbers will have been heavily negotiated, and thus locked in. While there is no Committee rule against non-budget-neutral amendments, we have been told that changes to funding levels would upend the entire bill as negotiated. Furthermore, Majority and Minority are likely to have an agreement on types of amendments that they will vote against on principle, in the event of a finalized negotiation process. Presumably, this would include any amendments to change pre-negotiated funding levels.
In short, as any amendment to strike or reduce a prospective EV fee or increase funding for programs (i.e. NEVI/CFI, Low or No Emission Grant Program, etc.) would have an impact on funding levels, such amendments would likely be voted down on a bipartisan basis at the Committee Leadership level. Many down-dais Members of Congress would feel it necessary to follow Leadership’s direction in this matter. Amendments that change policy but do not impact funding levels may still fail a vote due to Committee political makeup, but would not have the same hurdles as those with budgetary impacts.
With this in mind, implementing an effective amendment strategy will require careful consideration of the challenges and nuances presented by both bill text and the nature of any agreement that comes together. However, given we have had a number of offices interested in engagement, we do have some options. We have laid out our thought process below, as well as our recommendation on a path forward at this time.
Example scenario: Bill text comes out with an annual EV fee set at $150. (Note: we understand there are many programs that may be affected by this bill that may warrant an amendment, and we are happy to discuss on a case-by-case basis; since the greatest priority for many ZETA members is preventing a punitive EV fee, this is the example being used for planning purposes.)
Ask a MOC to offer and withdraw an amendment to allow the opportunity to message on the issue. Our top recommendations for amendments to the message on EV fees would include 1.) exemptions from the fee for lower-income individuals, senior citizens, and drivers of used EVs to make the point about affordability, and 2.) bringing the fee down to gas car driver parity (we can name a number or not) in order to make the point about fairness.
We feel this approach allows Members of Congress to discuss the unfair nature of a punitive EV fee and its negative impacts on consumers, while avoiding an unfavorable vote that may create negative future precedent on the issue.
Please let the ZETA team know by this Friday, May 15th, if you would be supportive of ZETA taking this general approach in regard to treatment of EV fees during Committee markup of a surface transportation bill. We are very happy to chat through other ideas, and of course, happy to discuss any questions.
