DRIVE Across America Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 3, 2026
Bottom line
The DRIVE Across America Act aims to significantly expand electric vehicle infrastructure and usage in national parks, forests, and surrounding tourism-dependent areas, with substantial federal investment and policy adjustments.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the Cleaner Transportation at Recreational Areas to Improve our Landmarks and Sites (Cleaner TRAILS) Initiative, directing the Forest Service and National Park Service to develop a strategy for deploying zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and associated fueling infrastructure on federal recreational lands and nearby areas. It authorizes $1 billion over five years for this purpose, amends existing transportation law to prioritize ZEVs in federal grants and HOV lane access, and expands the Electric Vehicle Working Group to include tourism and outdoor recreation stakeholders.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will modernize transportation in and around America's cherished national parks and forests, reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality in sensitive natural areas. They contend it will enhance visitor experience by providing reliable charging options, support the growing electric vehicle market, and boost local economies dependent on outdoor recreation and tourism by making these destinations more accessible to EV owners. Furthermore, supporters highlight the bill's focus on interagency coordination and strategic planning as crucial for effective implementation.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the significant federal spending authorized, questioning the necessity of such a large investment in EV infrastructure on federal lands when private sector solutions could potentially emerge. They may also argue that the focus on ZEVs could divert resources from other critical infrastructure needs or that the environmental benefits might not justify the cost and potential impact of new construction within natural landscapes. Some could also express skepticism about the feasibility of rapidly deploying complex charging infrastructure in remote areas.
The bill is moderately complex due to its definitions and cross-references, requiring careful reading to understand its full scope. The estimated reading time is sufficient for an informed reader to grasp its provisions.
Section 3(a), (b)
Establishment of Cleaner TRAILS Initiative and Interagency Strategy
This provision formally establishes the Cleaner Transportation at Recreational Areas to Improve our Landmarks and Sites (Cleaner TRAILS) Initiative, to be led by the Forest Service and National Park Service in consultation with the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation and the General Services Administration. It mandates the development of a comprehensive interagency strategy to facilitate the use of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), ZEV fueling infrastructure, and emerging mobility options on National Forest System land, National Park System land, and certain related areas. The strategy must include plans for phased transitions, interagency coordination, incentives for concessionaires, consistent policies, external partnerships, utility upgrades, staff training, and ZEV fleet expansion goals.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a coordinated interagency strategy is essential for the successful and efficient deployment of ZEV infrastructure across diverse federal lands, ensuring consistency and maximizing impact. They believe this structured approach will overcome common implementation hurdles and accelerate the transition to cleaner transportation in these vital recreational areas.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that mandating such a detailed interagency strategy could lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and delays, potentially stifling innovation or local flexibility. They might argue that a more decentralized approach, allowing individual parks or forests to adapt to their specific needs, could be more effective.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for a unified, strategic approach to ZEV deployment across federal lands with the potential for bureaucratic overhead. It aims for consistency and broad impact but risks slowing down localized initiatives due to extensive coordination requirements.
Section 3(h)
Authorization of Appropriations and Funding Limitations
This section authorizes the appropriation of $100,000,000 annually for the Secretary of the Interior (National Park Service) and $100,000,000 annually for the Secretary of Agriculture (Forest Service) for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031, totaling $1 billion over five years. It also sets limitations on how these authorized funds can be used: no more than 20% for acquiring ZEVs for federal fleets, no more than 30% for infrastructure in urbanized areas, and no more than 4% for administrative costs.
Section 4
Priority for ZEV Shuttle and Transportation Services
This section requires appropriate agency heads (Forest Service and National Park Service) to give priority consideration to entities that propose to use zero-emission vehicles when entering into agreements for shuttle or other transportation services on or to covered land. This applies to both new agreements and potentially renewals or conversions.
Section 6(b)
Traveler Electrification Set-Aside for Charging and Fueling Grants
This provision amends Section 151(f) of Title 23, United States Code, to create a new 'Traveler electrification set-aside.' It mandates that 10 percent of the funds made available for charging and fueling infrastructure grants under this subsection be used for projects that increase electric vehicle adoption and mobility at and around airports, or that support long-haul travel, tourism, and outdoor recreation sectors, including travel to and from federal sites like National Parks and Forests.
Section 6(c)
Expansion of Electric Vehicle Working Group to Commission
This provision amends Section 25006 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, renaming the 'Electric Vehicle Working Group' to the 'Electric Vehicle Commission.' It expands the commission's membership from 25 to 28, increasing non-Federal members from 19 to 22, and specifically adds representatives from the travel and tourism sector (including airport and rental car), public land or outdoor recreation sectors, and firefighters, law enforcement, or other first responders. The commission's duties are expanded to include the electrification of travel, tourism, and outdoor recreation, particularly transportation to, from, and within National Park System units and other federal land.
Section 7
Extension of Clean Transportation Access to HOV Facilities
This provision amends Section 166(b)(5)(A) of Title 23, United States Code, by removing the sunset date of September 30, 2025, for states to allow certain clean vehicles (such as single-occupant electric vehicles) to use high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. By striking 'Before September 30, 2025, if' and inserting 'If', the bill makes this authority permanent, allowing states to continue or initiate policies that grant ZEVs access to HOV lanes regardless of occupancy.
The definition of 'covered land' extends beyond National Forest System and National Park System land to include sites affiliated with these services (not under immediate control) and any land located within 25 miles of federal or affiliated sites, provided an appropriate agency head enters into an agreement with the owner for ZEV infrastructure installation, determining it's related to providing ZEV access to the federal/affiliated site.
Section 2(4)(A)(iii) and (iv)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the scope of a bill's applicability, ensuring precision. It's not necessarily evasive but requires careful reading to understand the full reach of the initiative.
Case for: Supporters argue that including adjacent and affiliated lands is crucial for creating a seamless and effective ZEV charging network, as many visitors access federal lands from nearby communities or private facilities. This broader scope ensures comprehensive coverage and supports local economies.
Case against: Critics might argue that extending federal authority and funding to private or non-federal lands, even with agreements, could be seen as an overreach or an inefficient use of federal resources that should be focused strictly on federal property. They might also raise concerns about the administrative complexity of managing agreements with numerous external entities.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the geographic area where ZEV infrastructure can be installed under the Cleaner TRAILS Initiative, potentially including private businesses, local government properties, and tribal lands near national parks and forests.
The strategy must include a plan to increase the number of zero-emission vehicles in the fleet and shuttle operations of the Forest Service and National Park Service (excluding law enforcement) to the greater of 125% of their current ZEV fleet or 25% of all vehicles by 2030. It includes an exception if documented barriers (lack of suitable models, supply chain, inadequate charging) prevent this goal, allowing for a plan to meet the goal as soon as practicable.
Section 3(b)(1)(S)
Why it matters:This is a specific programmatic detail within a broader strategic planning section. It's a common legislative drafting technique to place detailed requirements within the scope of a larger mandate.
Case for: Proponents argue that setting clear, ambitious targets for federal fleet electrification is crucial for demonstrating leadership, driving market demand, and achieving significant emissions reductions from government operations. The flexibility clause acknowledges practical challenges while maintaining the long-term goal.
Case against: Critics might argue that setting such specific, aggressive targets could be unrealistic or overly prescriptive, potentially leading to inefficient procurement or operational challenges if suitable ZEV models are not available or infrastructure lags. The exception clause, while practical, could also be seen as an avenue for agencies to avoid meeting the primary target.
Estimated impact: Mandates a significant increase in ZEVs within federal recreational land agency fleets, potentially hundreds or thousands of vehicles, depending on current fleet sizes, leading to substantial procurement and infrastructure investment.