S-1066-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
What it does
This bill would effectively shut down two federal electric vehicle (EV) charging programs — the NEVI Formula Program and the CFI Discretionary Grant Program — by prohibiting states from using unobligated funds for EV charging infrastructure. Instead, states would be required to spend those funds on conventional highway projects such as road construction and rehabilitation, bridge replacement, wildlife crossing structures, and commercial truck parking. The Department of Transportation would redistribute any remaining or future program funds to states using the existing federal highway apportionment formula.
Who benefits
State highway departments that prefer flexibility to direct funds toward traditional road and bridge needs. Trucking companies and commercial vehicle operators who would gain more designated parking. Communities with deteriorating bridges or roads that may receive additional funding. Construction firms specializing in conventional highway infrastructure. Wildlife conservation groups that support vehicle-wildlife collision reduction structures. Rural communities where EV charging infrastructure may be less immediately practical.
Who is hurt
EV charging network developers and companies that had anticipated NEVI and CFI contracts. Electric vehicle owners and prospective buyers who would have fewer public charging options, particularly along highway corridors. States and localities that had already planned or begun EV charging projects using these funds. Auto manufacturers that have invested in EV production and depend on charging infrastructure expansion. Clean energy contractors and workers employed in EV infrastructure installation. Consumers in rural or lower-income areas where private charging investment is less likely to fill the gap.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the NEVI and CFI programs have been slow to deploy — as of early 2025, only a small fraction of the originally planned charging stations had been built despite billions in allocated funds — and that redirecting money to roads and bridges addresses more immediate and universal infrastructure needs. They contend that EV charging infrastructure is better left to private markets, and that federal highway dollars should prioritize the physical road network used by all Americans regardless of vehicle type, including the roughly 97% of U.S. drivers who do not currently own an EV.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the NEVI and CFI programs were authorized by the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 with a specific statutory purpose, and that redirecting those funds mid-stream breaks commitments to states and private partners who structured plans around them. They contend that eliminating the charging network buildout would slow EV adoption, undermine U.S. competitiveness with China in the EV sector, and strand the billions already invested by automakers in EV production capacity — ultimately raising costs for consumers and reducing the return on prior federal infrastructure spending.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to attach conditions to federal highway funds distributed to states under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), as affirmed in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Redirecting already-appropriated funds raises potential separation of powers questions, particularly given that Executive Order 14154 paused disbursements before this legislation was introduced — courts may scrutinize whether the executive pause was itself authorized, though this bill would provide retroactive legislative backing for the policy direction.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to redirect executive branch spending priorities; the Executive Branch (DOT) would implement the new apportionment formula; states retain discretion only within the newly permitted project categories, and courts could review whether the redirection violates any contractual or statutory obligations created by the 2021 Infrastructure Act.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously redirected transportation program funds — for example, rescissions of unobligated highway funds have occurred under the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act and subsequent transportation bills — though redirecting funds from a newly created, purpose-specific program of this scale is less common.