This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to stop applying the Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate after December 31, 2025, effectively ending that source of revenue starting January 1, 2026. It also alters the statutory authority that governs advances to the Superfund by changing the cutoff date for advances to the bill’s enactment date and inserting a new repayment mechanism requiring quarterly repayments from unobligated amounts in the Fund until repayment is complete.
Why it matters: terminating the financing rate removes a dedicated, statutory revenue stream that has funded aspects of hazardous‑substance cleanup and trust‑fund advances. At the same time, the change to advance‑repayment rules redirects how outstanding advances must be repaid, creating near‑term cash‑flow and program‑funding consequences for EPA, the Superfund trust, and the parties and communities dependent on that funding.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new subsection to IRC section 4611 declaring that the Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate will not apply after December 31, 2025, and revises section 9507(d)(3)(B) to substitute the phrase 'date of enactment' for an ending date and to require quarterly repayment from unobligated Fund amounts until repaid. It sets the termination of the rate to take effect January 1, 2026 and makes the advance‑authority changes effective on enactment.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are parties that paid or collected the financing rate under IRC 4611 (entities in the fuel and hazardous‑substance supply chain and their tax/compliance teams), the Environmental Protection Agency and its Superfund program, and communities that rely on Superfund‑financed cleanups. Treasury/IRS and EPA finance staff will have to implement the statutory changes in tax collection, reporting, and intra‑governmental cash flows.
Why It Matters
The measure eliminates a standing, statutory finance mechanism for hazardous‑substance cleanups without creating a replacement revenue stream, while simultaneously altering how outstanding advances are repaid — a pair of changes that could create a funding gap for cleanups, shift fiscal pressure onto appropriations, and trigger administrative and cash‑management challenges for federal agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill works in two linked steps. First, it inserts a new subsection into section 4611 of the Internal Revenue Code that simply says the Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate 'shall not apply after December 31, 2025.' In plain terms, the legal hook used to impose that financing rate stops functioning for taxable periods beginning on or after January 1, 2026.
The measure does not use the word 'tax repeal' or specify alternative levies; it only declares the existing financing rate no longer applies after the stated cutoff.
Second, the bill changes the statutory language in section 9507(d)(3)(B) that governs the authority to make advances to the Superfund and how those advances are repaid. The existing calendar cutoff in law is replaced with a reference to the bill’s enactment date, and the repayment instruction is rewritten so that any required repayment is made 'on a quarterly basis from unobligated amounts available in such Fund until repaid in full.' Put differently, the bill shortens or ends the window for making advances as of enactment and prescribes a specific quarterly repayment mechanism drawing from unobligated balances in the Fund.Taken together, these provisions stop a financing charge that generated revenue tied to hazardous‑substance cleanup and change the legal terms for advances and repayment.
The bill’s effective dates are split: the 4611 change takes effect January 1, 2026, while the changes to advance authority and repayment take effect immediately upon enactment. The text contains no new appropriation or substitute funding source; it focuses solely on ending the rate and restructuring repayment mechanics.
That means agencies and Congress would need to address any shortfall or timing mismatch through existing appropriations or other statutory authorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds subsection (e) to IRC section 4611 stating the Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate 'shall not apply after December 31, 2025.', The termination of the financing rate is effective January 1, 2026 (the amendment in subsection (a) takes effect on that date).
Section 9507(d)(3)(B) is amended to replace the statutory date 'December 31, 2032' with 'the date of the enactment of the Pay Less at the Pump Act of 2026.', The same 9507 provision's repayment language is changed to require repayment 'on a quarterly basis from unobligated amounts available in such Fund until repaid in full.', The bill contains no appropriation or explicit replacement revenue provision; it only terminates the rate and adjusts advance‑repayment mechanics.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill the public name 'Pay Less at the Pump Act of 2026.' This is strictly a caption; it has no legal effect on tax or funding mechanics but signals legislative intent and the policy framing sponsors intend for implementation and messaging.
End the Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate
This provision inserts a new subsection (e) into IRC section 4611 providing that the financing rate will not apply after December 31, 2025. Mechanically, that removes the statutory authority for whatever charge is characterized in law as the 'financing rate' under section 4611 — taxpayers and payers who previously calculated and remitted amounts under that provision will no longer be required to do so for periods starting January 1, 2026. Practically, the IRS must adjust forms, guidance, and collection processes to reflect the termination, and tax compliance systems in affected industries will need to be updated.
Change advance cutoff date and prescribe repayment source
This subsection strikes the existing calendar cutoff in 9507(d)(3)(B) and replaces it with the bill’s enactment date, shortening or ending the statutory window for making advances. It also replaces the prior repayment phrase with language that forces repayment 'on a quarterly basis from unobligated amounts available in such Fund until repaid in full.' That creates a statutorily required repayment flow that draws from Fund balances that are not already obligated. Administratively, the change requires the agency managing the Fund to identify unobligated balances each quarter and direct repayments accordingly, which affects cash‑management and could accelerate reductions in uncommitted Fund balances.
When each change takes effect
The bill specifies two effective dates: the amendment terminating the financing rate takes effect January 1, 2026, while the amendments to the advance authority and repayment mechanics are effective on the date of enactment. This split timing matters because the advance‑authority change can be implemented immediately upon enactment; the rate termination applies to the following calendar year, creating a narrow transition window that agencies and payers must manage.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Refiners, importers, distributors and other payers who previously collected or remitted the section 4611 financing rate — they will no longer be required to calculate and remit that rate for taxable periods beginning January 1, 2026, reducing their immediate tax compliance and cash outlays.
- Retail fuel sellers and, potentially, motorists — to the extent the financing rate was passed through along the supply chain, ending the rate removes a statutory cost component that could translate into lower retail fuel prices, at least in the short term.
- Corporate and tax compliance teams at affected firms — elimination of the rate reduces ongoing tax‑reporting complexity, paperwork, and the need for related compliance controls and external advisory services (assuming no replacement charges are adopted).
Who Bears the Cost
- The Environmental Protection Agency and the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund — removing the financing rate eliminates a statutory revenue source, reducing funds available for cleanup activities unless Congress provides replacements via appropriations or other mechanisms.
- Communities and sites that rely on Superfund financing — cleanups that depended on trust‑fund receipts may face delay, reprioritization, or reliance on appropriations to continue work, particularly for non‑responsible‑party‑led actions.
- Federal taxpayers and appropriators — absent replacement revenue, Congress may face pressure to fund Superfund activities from general revenue, increasing competition among priorities and potential increases in appropriations pressure and deficit impact.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between reducing a targeted, statutory charge that increases costs borne by fuel‑chain actors and consumers and preserving a stable, dedicated funding stream for hazardous‑substance cleanups; the bill resolves one side (cost and compliance relief) by eliminating the financing rate but does not supply the funding or governance adjustments needed to reliably maintain cleanup programs, leaving a structural funding gap and administrative uncertainty.
The bill eliminates a dedicated financing rate without providing replacement funding or explicit transition rules for obligations and ongoing projects. That creates an immediate policy and administrative tension: funds that EPA expected to receive under the existing statutory framework may no longer be available, but the bill does not alter substantive cleanup obligations or the legal liabilities of potentially responsible parties.
The short effective‑date structure (enactment‑dated changes to advance authority and January 1, 2026 termination of the rate) compresses the period for agencies and payers to adjust cash‑management, tax reporting, and program budgets. EPA will need to reconcile prior appropriations, outstanding advance balances, and unobligated Fund balances under the new quarterly‑repayment language, but the bill leaves open how to treat existing obligations that were structured around the prior revenue flow.
Operationally, the quarterly‑repayment requirement raises definitional and sequencing questions that the statute does not answer: how to determine 'unobligated amounts' for quarterly draws, how to sequence repayments against obligations already incurred, and which internal agency accounts govern the mechanics of transfer. Those are implementation matters that will fall to Treasury, IRS, and EPA guidance or interagency agreement.
The bill also shifts political risk: ending a visible financing charge may reduce consumer costs but increases the chance that cleanups will depend on annual appropriations, subjecting long‑term remediation to political cycles and budget constraints.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.