Highway Funding Flexibility Act of 2025
SB1066, titled the Highway Funding Flexibility Act of 2025, would redirect certain unobligated federal funds originally set aside for electric vehicle charging infrastructure to other highway-related uses. Specifically, it would allow unused National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program funds to be used for federal-aid highway construction and preservation, bridge replacement and rehabilitation, wildlife-vehicle collision reduction projects such as wildlife crossings, commercial motor vehicle parking projects, and related engineering and design work. It also applies a similar reallocation approach to unobligated Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant funds, but with a narrower use: those funds could only be redirected to federal-aid highway construction and preservation projects.
The bill also changes how future appropriations for these programs would be handled. Instead of remaining dedicated to EV charging or fueling infrastructure, future fiscal-year funds would be distributed to states and then used for the highway purposes described in the bill, subject to the bill’s rules on apportionment, availability, and federal-aid highway requirements. In effect, the measure preserves the federal funding stream but repurposes it away from charging infrastructure and toward broader highway and bridge priorities.
Its impact on state laws is indirect but significant in federal transportation funding administration. The bill does not create new state statutes, but it would alter how states can use federal transportation dollars under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. States would gain flexibility to apply certain EV infrastructure funds to highway projects, while also losing access to those funds for their original charging and fueling infrastructure purposes.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and its procedural posture appears to be policy-driven and fiscally pragmatic, emphasizing efficient use of unobligated funds rather than expansion of EV infrastructure. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. The bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, indicating it is still at an early stage.
The main point of contention implied by the legislation is the tradeoff between electric vehicle infrastructure investment and traditional highway spending. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to avoid idle funds and address immediate transportation needs such as roads, bridges, truck parking, and wildlife crossings. Opponents would likely argue that redirecting these funds undermines federal commitments to EV charging deployment and could slow the buildout of charging networks, especially in states or localities still developing EV infrastructure.
SB1066 would amend the use of unobligated and future funds from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant program, redirecting them from EV charging and fueling projects to specified highway and bridge projects. It would affect the administration of federal transportation funds under Title 23 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, while leaving state law unchanged except for the way states receive and spend these federal apportionments.
The bill’s apparent sentiment is generally pro-highway and pro-flexibility, with an emphasis on using federal transportation dollars for projects viewed as immediately needed and less likely to sit unobligated. No votes or committee discussion were provided, so there is no recorded bipartisan or partisan debate in the supplied materials. The measure’s introduction and referral suggest it is still in the early legislative process.
The central controversy is whether funds originally intended for electric vehicle charging and fueling infrastructure should be repurposed for highways, bridges, truck parking, and wildlife crossings. Likely supporters include lawmakers prioritizing road maintenance, freight mobility, and faster deployment of already-available funds. Likely opponents include EV advocates, clean transportation stakeholders, and states or localities that want to preserve dedicated funding for charging network buildout and electrification goals.