Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2025
A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 624.
Waiting for a floor vote in the other chamber
Passed one chamber and is on the other chamber's calendar.
The calendar is a queue, not a date. The majority leadership decides what comes to the floor and when; much of what is placed on it is never called, and a bill that is never called simply expires with the Congress.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 343–79
- Awaiting Senate
- On Senate calendar
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2025. It amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The main purpose of the legislation is to reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program. It does this by changing the year in Section 797(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 from 2024 to 2029. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on September 15, 2026, and was received and placed on the Senate calendar on September 16, 2026.
Yes· 3 of 32
- Scored +6
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Urban centers experience the highest concentration of diesel emissions.
- Scored +6
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Extending the diesel emissions reduction program directly supports the reduction of harmful pollutants.
- Scored +6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The program helps reduce pollutants that degrade air quality and environmental health.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Reauthorizing a program extends government expenditure for that program.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: a fast-track vote, needing two-thirds to pass The House sets aside its normal procedure to move quickly: no amendments, little debate, and a two-thirds bar instead of a simple majority. It is used for measures expected to be uncontroversial, so a bill that fails here failed despite broad expectations that it would not. Passed 343 yes · 79 no
09/15/2026 · Roll call 304 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Reauthorization of the diesel emissions reduction program: Section 2 of the bill extends the diesel emissions reduction program through the year 2029 by amending Section 797(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This keeps the program active, which is important to keep track of and hold accountable the programs our elected officials fund for the public good.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts identified: Based strictly on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions mentioned that outline negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban centers experience the highest concentration of diesel emissions. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Reduces environmental pollution in historically marginalized urban areas. Would children be better off under this? — Children are more susceptible to respiratory issues caused by diesel emissions. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Reduces environmental pollution in historically marginalized urban areas. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income areas are often disproportionately affected by diesel pollution. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — People with respiratory disabilities benefit significantly from reduced diesel particulate matter. Would retired people be better off under this? — Health benefits for elderly populations sensitive to air pollution. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are highly vulnerable to air pollution-related health issues. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General health benefit from reduced emissions. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners with diesel fleets can access funding to upgrade equipment. Would immigrants be better off under this? — General health benefit from improved air quality. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General health benefit from improved air quality. Would men be better off under this? — General health benefit from improved air quality. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improves overall air quality for the general population. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — General health benefit from reduced emissions. Would students be better off under this? — Improved air quality around schools where buses operate. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General health benefit from reduced emissions. Would women be better off under this? — General health benefit from improved air quality. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improves overall air quality for the general population. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers using diesel equipment may potentially benefit from emissions reduction programs. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General benefit from improved air quality. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General benefit from improved air quality. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — General environmental benefit, though less concentrated than in urban areas. Would union members be better off under this? — Supports jobs in the transition to cleaner transportation technology.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The program helps reduce pollutants that degrade air quality and environmental health. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Extending the diesel emissions reduction program directly supports the reduction of harmful pollutants. Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — Diesel emissions reduction often targets public transit buses, leading to cleaner fleets. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Emissions reduction programs often incentivize shifts toward cleaner energy alternatives.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Continued investment in emissions reduction can stimulate targeted economic sectors. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Small businesses utilizing diesel fleets may benefit from continued emissions reduction grants. Is this likely to create jobs? — Program continuation may support jobs in green technology and emissions reduction implementation. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Reauthorizing a program extends government expenditure for that program.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Reducing diesel emissions often improves air quality in marginalized urban communities.
In the queue for a floor vote, with no date set
- 9/16/2026
- Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 624.
- 9/15/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 343 - 79 (Roll no. 304).
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 343 - 79 (Roll no. 304). (text: CR H5679)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5824)
- At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2140.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5679-5680)
- Mr. Guthrie moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
- 9/14/2026
- Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-819.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 718.
- 7/14/2026
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
- 3/14/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Ken CalvertRepublican · California
Nicholas LangworthyRepublican · New York
Chellie PingreeDemocrat · Maine