On February 4, 2015, a group of bipartisan lawmakers renewed their efforts to reform the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) program, specifically targeting the ethanol fuel-blending mandate. Sponsored by Republican Representatives Bob Goodlatte of Virgina and Steve Womack of Arkansas and Democrats Peter Welch of Vermont and Jim Costa of California, H.R. 704, the RFS Reform Act, would prohibit gasoline blends with more than ten percent ethanol. It would also eliminate the use of corn-based ethanol for RFS compliance and require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement at actual production levels, rather than set targets.

These latest reform efforts stem from concerns that the current RFS program hurts consumers by driving up food costs and creating wear and tear on vehicles through ethanol use. Supporters of the RFS argue that the policy reduces greenhouse gas emissions and creates jobs.

In addition to the bill, Rep. Goodlatte says the group will continue to lobby the EPA, the agency tasked with regulating the RFS program, for changes. The EPA is under increased scrutiny for its failure to issue blend mandates for 2014. The EPA has also missed the statutory deadline to issue its standards for 2015, prompting further outrage. Goodlatte’s bill is just one of what is expected to be a series of bills introduced this year aiming to repeal or revise the RFS program.



In a letter sent to every Member of Congress on February 9, 2015, NAFA urged lawmakers to raise the federal fuels user fee in order to ensure the longevity of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).

The HTF pays for the heart of the country’s transportation system, including Interstate highways, roads, and bridges. More specifically, it pays for interstate highway construction and maintenance; safety improvements like stronger guardrails and better lighting; building and maintaining bridges and roads; safety research and program development; and advanced technologies that reduce congestion. It’s funded via federal fuel user fees on gasoline and diesel, which are currently set at 18.4 cents and 24.4 cents respectively. These fees have not been raised since 1993. Due to increased fuel economy and rising costs associated with labor and construction, the user fee’s purchasing power has dramatically eroded. Federal highway funding is scheduled to expire in May, meaning the DOT’s HTF will go bankrupt this spring if Congress does not act to replenish it.

NAFA is not alone in its support for an increase in federal fuel user fees. AAA, the American Trucking Associations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and the American Public Transit Association, among others, have also expressed their support for restoring solvency to the HTF with an increase in user fees.  



On February 2, 2015, President Obama unveiled his fiscal year (FY) 2016 budget which included a $94.7 billion request in budget authority for the Department of Transportation (DOT) to launch a six-year highway and infrastructure repair plan. The budget request is a 30 percent increase over DOT’s estimated FY 2015 enacted funding.

The President’s infrastructure repair plan rests on what’s known as repatriation, which would require companies to bring back earnings to the U.S. at a fourteen percent tax rate. The administration said that under the plan, an estimated $238 billion in transitional revenue from the tax overhaul could be transferred to the nearly insolvent Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The fund would then be named the Transportation Trust Fund and would be expanded to include rail and multi-modal surface transportation.

Obama’s plan is similar to H.R. 625, the Infrastructure 2.0 Act, a bill recently introduced by Rep. John Delaney (D-MD) that would impose an 8.75 percent tax rate on existing foreign earnings and establish a $50 billion infrastructure fund.

Reaction to the President’s proposals has been mixed. David Goldberg, a spokesman for Transportation for America said the plan presented "a real starting point for some real negotiations," but also noted that tax repatriation would only provide a one-time windfall and that more discussion was needed to identify a long-term funding solution.