Are We There Yet?

A U.S. infrastructure bill journeys through the legislative process.

Are We There Yet?

August 2020   minute read

By: Paige Anderson

Do you remember as a kid the ubiquitous summer road trip to see America’s treasures that your parents insisted would be great fun and educational? My family would pack up the old Ford station wagon and head out of southern California to destinations north—sometimes along the coast and other times inland to the Sierra Nevada mountains. Regardless of the destination and detours along the way, the most frequent question on the trip came from my brother or me asking my dad and mom, “Are we there yet?”

So far, the journey of Congress passing an infrastructure bill has been much like a family summer vacation with delays, detours and roadblocks along the way, leaving us asking the same thing. Perhaps the better question is, “Do we know where we’re going?” (Or I could pose the question, “Are we lost?”)

The big roadblock to passing any significant highway or broader infrastructure bill has been how to find the necessary funds to pay for the programs.

The journey to develop a highway and infrastructure bill began in early 2017 with President Trump’s first State of the Union address, as infrastructure was one of his policy priorities for his administration. Republican and Democrat leadership in Congress agreed that highway and infrastructure projects should be a priority. With the itinerary set and agreement on the destination, one would think this would be a smooth road trip. But somewhere along the way, Washington took a few unexpected side trips and stops and is now trying to get back on the road to its destination.

The years 2017 and 2018 brought many detours and roadblocks—from investigations into Russian influence in the 2016 elections, repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, to the catastrophic 2017 hurricane season that brought hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria within weeks of each other. Other obstacles and diversions included the Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, border and immigration issues and the longest shutdown of the federal government in history at the end of 2018 and into 2019.

After Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in 2019, it appeared there might be a chance to get this road trip back on track and headed to our destination. House leadership listed infrastructure legislation as one of its top three policy priorities, and House committees began holding hearings and some committee work was being done on infrastructure, though the highway portion of the bill appeared to be moving more slowly.

In the Senate, real progress was made. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee marked up its highway authorization bill and passed it out of committee with bipartisan support before it recessed for the summer break in August 2019. Unfortunately, what momentum that had been gained to get a Senate floor vote stalled in September with the House launching its impeachment inquiry and investigation of the president. The impeachment hearings and votes in the House and then the subsequent trial in the Senate in effect stalled not only the infrastructure bill but almost all other legislative activity until the first quarter of 2020. Just as it appeared the legislative process was getting back on track, the coronavirus pandemic essentially shut down Congress, along with the rest of the country.

Does this mean our road trip is over? Can we get back on the road and keep moving to our destination? As Congress tried to get back to its legislative business in a new normal, one of the first non-COVID-19-related bills that the House worked on was the infrastructure bill. In June, the first committee markup to take place using virtual technology was the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee when it marked up its highway authorization bill. The bill was added to a larger infrastructure package that included investments in broadband technology, water and housing projects, clean energy projects and other climate-related projects, and many other infrastructure-related programs and projects. Before the Independence Day holiday weekend, the bill passed the House on mostly a party-line vote.

The House and Senate have two very distinct versions of what an infrastructure bill should look like.

It is now August, so where are we on this legislative quest? Some may argue that Congress took a wrong turn in the desert and can’t find their way back to the highway. Others might say we’ve hit traffic and just need to find another route. And, more optimistic folks will say adding these few extra detours just adds to the adventure.

A few factors to keep in mind. First, time. It’s an election year, and there are not many days in the legislative calendar. With new floor procedures and health and safety protocols in place due to the coronavirus pandemic, it takes more time to conduct legislative business, such as markups, hearings and votes.

Second, scope. The House and Senate have two very distinct visions of what an infrastructure bill should look like. The Senate has only marked up a highway bill, not a larger infrastructure package like what passed the House. Even if the Senate attaches other infrastructure-related bipartisan bills, such as its water resources bill or an energy bill, the House bill is much broader and heavily laden with climate and carbon reduction programs. So, if the time challenge is overcome, a conference committee to negotiate differences in the two bills will be complicated.

Finally, cost. The biggest roadblock to passing any significant highway or broader infrastructure bill has always been how to find the necessary funds to pay for these programs. The Highway Trust Fund is unable to keep pace with the need to maintain and grow our interstate and roads system. A stable and consistent long-term funding stream is necessary but difficult to find agreement on a solution.

So, at the end of the year, will we find ourselves, like the Griswold family in “National Lampoon’s Vacation,” finally reaching Wally World, racing across an empty parking lot, only to find the amusement park closed, or will Congress find a way through these detours and misadventures and finish its legislative road trip?

EV Charging Infrastructure

Congress is considering legislative proposals to increase the use of electric vehicles (EVs) and expand electric charging infrastructure. As part of the debate, some are looking at encouraging government agencies or electric utilities to build, own and operate electric charging stations. For example, some states have allowed utilities to charge customers (or ratepayers) to subsidize the cost of that infrastructure and the cost of recharging by electric vehicle drivers.

Retail Impact

The convenience and fuel retailing industry sells more than 80% of the motor fuels in the United States. Policies that impact transportation energy—what and how to sell, store, label, dispense, price and tax fuel—can have a dramatic impact on the industry. Permitting utilities to charge all of their customers to subsidize EV infrastructure and charging will stunt the private sector’s ability to invest in EV charging infrastructure.

NACS Position on EV Charging Infrastructure

NACS believes that EV charging should be an open, competitive market. Convenience and fuel retailers should have the option to sell any legal source of transportation energy in a competitive market with a level playing field. Allowing the private sector to compete is the best way to spur investment in and the development of electric charging infrastructure. It is also the best way to ensure that vehicle owners get the best prices over the long term. With over 122,000 fueling locations, the convenience industry is the best way to fulfill the energy needs of future drivers—regardless of the energy source. All industries, whether it be a gas station, utility, technology company or other type of business, should have the same access to incentive and investment opportunities to provide consumers the widest range of choices in fueling their vehicles.

Legislative Updates and NACS Position

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out S. 2302, the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019, which includes a grant program to invest in electric charging infrastructure and alternative energy fueling infrastructure in designated “clean energy corridors” and ensures that these grants must go to the private sector. Report language filed with the bill discourages providing grants to utilities that charge all electric customers for the cost of EV charging. NACS supports S. 2302.

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act. On the positive side, H.R. 2 includes language to encourage states to allow the resale of electricity for purposes of charging EVs without being regulated as a utility. In addition, the rebate program to incentivize building charging infrastructure would be available to the private sector, such as convenience and fuel retailers. Unfortunately, H.R. 2 allows electric charging infrastructure to be built at rest areas and allows investor-owned utilities to “double-dip” by using their rate base and receiving grant dollars. NACS opposes H.R. 2.

Paige Anderson

Paige Anderson

Paige Anderson is NACS director of government relations. She can be reached at [email protected].

Share:
Print:
To provide complete functionality, this web site needs your explicit consent to store browser cookies. We recommended that you "allow all cookies" so you may be able to use certain features, such as logging in, saving articles, or personalizing content.