The Highway Funding Flexibility Act of 2025 redirects unobligated dollars from two federal EV charging programs — the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) grant program — so States can spend those funds on specific highway projects instead. The bill prescribes eligible highway uses (rehab, preservation, bridge work, wildlife crossing structures, commercial motor vehicle parking, and related engineering) and bars their use for the original EV charging purposes described in the NEVI and CFI program authorities.
For professionals tracking federal transportation dollars, the bill is consequential: it converts earmarked EV deployment money into additional Title 23-style highway apportionments, reallocates set-asides that supported a Joint Office and disadvantaged grantees, and creates different cash-flow and compliance rules for NEVI versus CFI balances. The change will alter State capital planning, procurement priorities, and the marketplace for EV charging projects.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires that unobligated NEVI and CFI funds be distributed to States and used only for a narrow list of highway and bridge projects or related engineering. It prohibits using those funds for NEVI/CFI charging infrastructure purposes and reassigns amounts previously set aside for the Joint Office and disadvantaged grantees to States on a proportional apportionment basis.
Who It Affects
State departments of transportation (recipient of redistributed funds), EV charging equipment vendors and developers (loss of expected federal dollars), freight stakeholders (new access to CMV parking funds), and agencies that administered NEVI/CFI set-asides (Joint Office and grant administrators).
Why It Matters
By converting targeted EV program dollars into Title 23-like apportionments, the bill changes both the policy priority (short-term highway preservation over EV buildout) and the fiscal mechanics (availability, obligation limitations, and statutory controls) that States, contractors, and EV project sponsors rely on for long-term planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill operates in two parallel tracks: one for the NEVI Formula Program and one for the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure grant program. For each program it identifies any amounts that remain unobligated as of enactment (and any future amounts made available) and sends those dollars to States.
The distribution method is simple and mechanical: each State receives a share equal to its proportion of Title 23 apportionments (the same ratio used under 23 U.S.C. 104(c) and 165), so the funds flow to States the same way many highway dollars already do.
Once in State hands the money can only be used for a set list of highway-related purposes: construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, or preservation of Federal-aid highways; bridge replacement/rehab/preservation for bridges on the National Bridge Inventory; improvements to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions (for example, crossings); projects that preserve or add commercial motor vehicle parking eligible under the MAP–21 provision; and preliminary engineering or design work that directly supports those projects. The bill expressly forbids using the reallocated funds for NEVI or CFI charging infrastructure activities described in the original program authorities.The text adds several administrative controls.
NEVI-derived amounts that are redistributed are not subject to ‘‘obligation limitations’’ for Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, they remain available for the same period they would have under NEVI, and they are treated as additional apportionments under Title 23. By contrast, the amounts switched out of the CFI grant program are made subject to any applicable obligation limitation.
Both categories must be administered largely as if they were apportioned under chapter 1 of Title 23 and remain subject to IIJA transparency and Title 23 procedural requirements noted in the bill (for example, the IIJA subsection the text references and section 120 of Title 23). The bill also redirects NEVI set-asides—such as the Joint Office funding and grants for jurisdictions needing extra help—into the same State apportionment formula and requires those redistributed dollars be used for the same highway purposes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires States to use any NEVI unobligated balances for highway construction, bridge work, wildlife-vehicle collision mitigation, commercial motor vehicle parking projects, or directly related engineering services.
NEVI set-asides for the Joint Office and for grants to disadvantaged States/localities are redistributed to States pro rata based on Title 23 apportionments and must be used for the highway purposes listed in the bill.
Funds moved from the NEVI program under this bill are not subject to Federal-aid obligation limitations, remain available for the same availability period as under NEVI, and are added on top of existing Title 23 apportionments.
Amounts taken out of the CFI grant program are distributed to States using the same Title 23 apportionment ratio but are explicitly made subject to any Federal-aid obligation limitation, creating a different cash-flow treatment than NEVI-derived funds.
All redistributed funds must be administered largely as if apportioned under chapter 1 of Title 23 and remain subject to the IIJA reporting/requirements cited in the bill and to section 120 of Title 23, bringing Title 23 compliance rules to previously programmatic EV dollars.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the Highway Funding Flexibility Act of 2025. This is the standard naming clause and carries no operative change but frames the bill’s purpose for statutory citations and subsequent references.
Repurposing unobligated NEVI Formula Program funds
Defines ‘‘program’’ as the NEVI formula program from the IIJA and sets out definitions for Secretary and State. The core operative provisions force redistribution of any unobligated NEVI formula dollars as of enactment (and future unobligated NEVI dollars for fiscal years after enactment) to States for specific Title 23-eligible highway and bridge projects. It also takes NEVI set-asides—such as money for the Joint Office and targeted assistance grants—and reallocates them to States on the same apportionment basis. Section 2 then sets special budgetary treatment for those amounts: they are not subject to an obligation limitation, they remain available for the original NEVI availability period, and they are added in addition to other Title 23 apportionments. Finally, it imposes administrative rules: redistributed funds must be administered as if apportioned under chapter 1 of Title 23 and must comply with the IIJA provision and section 120 that the bill cites.
Repurposing unobligated CFI grant program funds
Mirrors the NEVI redistribution structure for the CFI grant program (the discretionary grant program under 23 U.S.C. 151(f)), directing unobligated CFI grant funds to States using the Title 23 apportionment ratio. The bill requires those redistributed CFI dollars be used for the same enumerated highway and bridge purposes and bars their use for the original CFI charging activities. Unlike Section 2, Section 3 makes redistributed CFI amounts subject to any applicable obligation limitation for Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, while still requiring Title 23-style administration and compliance with the same IIJA and Title 23 provisions referenced earlier.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation 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
- State Departments of Transportation — receive additional flexible Title 23-like dollars for highway preservation and bridge work, allowing them to accelerate projects or reprogram capital plans without awaiting new congressional appropriations.
- Local governments with aging bridges and highways — gain access to more federal funds for preservation and rehabilitation projects that may have been deferred.
- Highway construction contractors and engineering firms — expand potential project pipelines because redistributed funds are eligible for construction, rehabilitation, and related engineering services.
- Freight operators and long-haul truck drivers — stand to benefit from the bill’s explicit eligibility for commercial motor vehicle parking projects, which target a persistent freight infrastructure gap.
- States with historically low NEVI/CFI obligations — can convert unused program balances into immediately deployable highway funding, improving near-term capital utilization.
Who Bears the Cost
- EV charging equipment manufacturers, site developers, and installers — lose a pool of federal funding that could have supported charging deployments, particularly in states or localities that had not yet obligated NEVI/CFI dollars.
- The Joint Office and targeted grant recipients — see earmarked set-aside dollars redirected to States, reducing centralized technical assistance and targeted grants for disadvantaged or high-need communities.
- State and local planners focused on EV deployment and decarbonization — face reduced programmatic resources and must compete with highway preservation priorities for capital.
- Federal agencies and program administrators — confront additional administrative burdens to reclassify, transfer, and track redistributed funds under Title 23 rules and reconcile availability and obligation limitations.
- Equity-focused advocates and communities in charging deserts — may disproportionately lose programmatic support intended to address EV access gaps if set-asides for strategic deployment are absorbed into broader highway apportionments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: accelerate spending to repair and preserve highways now using available federal balances, or keep targeted EV program funding to support a longer-term national transition to zero-emission transportation. The bill privileges immediate highway needs and State flexibility at the expense of centrally directed EV deployment tools, raising hard choices about equitable access to charging, federal policy coherence on decarbonization, and the most efficient use of limited transportation dollars.
The bill answers the short question—how to spend unobligated NEVI/CFI money—but leaves several implementation decisions unresolved. First, the shift of programmatic EV dollars into Title 23 apportionments changes compliance and procurement pathways: States will need to retool project selection criteria, environmental review timing, and match calculations to fit Title 23 practice.
The text references section 11101(e) of the IIJA and section 120 of Title 23, but practitioners will need guidance on how those rules interact with prior NEVI/CFI statutory design and any grant conditions attached to previously obligated portions of the same awards.
Second, the bill creates asymmetric cash-flow rules: NEVI-derived dollars are carved out from obligation limitations while CFI-derived dollars are not. That difference affects a State’s ability to obligate funds quickly and could produce perverse incentives in fiscal planning (for example, prioritizing NEVI repurposing because it bypasses obligation caps).
The bill also redirects set-asides intended for technical assistance and equity-focused grants into the general apportionment pot; that redistributes authority to States but removes centralized targeting mechanisms without prescribing a compensating federal or State process to ensure disadvantaged areas still receive support. Finally, because the bill uses broad ‘‘notwithstanding’’ language, stakeholders may litigate whether Congress can repurpose funds that were appropriated for a specific programmatic purpose, particularly where matching requirements, prior grant commitments, or environmental commitments are in play.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.