PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 202.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 7, 2005
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 - (Sec. 3) Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: (1) use 70% of the funding provided by this Act to provide grants and low-cost revolving loans, on a competitive basis, to a regional, state, local, or tribal agency or port authority with jurisdiction over transportation or air quality and to certain nonprofit organizations (eligible entities) to reduce diesel emissions; (2) provide not less than 50% of such funding to eligible entities for the benefit of public fleets of diesel vehicles; and (3) provide not less than 90% of such funding to eligible entities for projects using a certified engine configuration (new, rebuilt, or remanufactured engine configuration with a more stringent set of emission standards) or a verified technology. Defines "verified technology" as a pollution control technology (including a retrofit technology), advanced truckstop electrification system, or auxiliary power unit that has been verified by the Administrator or the California Air Resources Board.
Limits to 10% the amount of funding available to eligible entities for the development and commercialization of emerging technologies. Defines "emerging technology" as an uncertified technology for which an approvable application and test plan has been submitted for verification to the Administrator or the California Air Resources Board).
Sets forth grant and loan application requirements for eligible entities, priorities for awarding such grants or loans, and criteria for use of funds provided by this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) Requires the Administrator to: (1) use 30% of the funding provided by this Act to support state grant and loan programs to reduce diesel emissions; (2) provide certain guidance to states for such programs; (3) make funding allocations; and (4) award additional funding (50%) to states that match allocations.
(Sec. 5) Directs the Administrator, not later than one year after funds are first available under this Act and biennially thereafter, to submit to Congress reports evaluating the implementation of programs under this Act.
(Sec. 6) Directs the Administrator to: (1) establish a program to inform industry stakeholders (equipment owners and operators, emission and pollution control technology manufacturers, engine and equipment manufacturers, state and local air quality managers, community organizations, and public health, educational, and environmental organizations) of the benefits of eligible technologies (defined as verified or emerging technologies); (2) develop nonfinancial incentives to promote the use of such technologies; (3) develop appropriate guidance to provide credit to a state for emission reductions created by eligible technologies though a Clean Air Act state implementation plan; and (4) in coordination with the Department of Commerce and industry stakeholders, inform foreign countries with air quality problems of the potential of U.S. technology to reduce emissions in those countries.
(Sec. 7) Affirms that nothing in this Act affects any authority under the Clean Air Act in existence prior to the enactment of this Act.
(Sec. 8) Authorizes appropriations for FY2007-FY2011.
People & committees
Sen. Voinovich, George V. [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 202.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 109-133.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 109-133.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 109-960.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6762-6763)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6761-6762)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1265 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1265 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1265 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1265 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.