This bill strips federal law of two specific streams of EV charging support created in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). It amends the IIJA authorization language and Title 23, United States Code, to eliminate the highway charging and fueling grant authority, rescinds unobligated formula funds tied to the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, and terminates the NEVI formula program going forward.
For stakeholders tracking federal EV policy, the bill is significant because it removes statutory grant authority and withdraws unspent formula money that states and private partners expected to use for charger deployment. The immediate legal changes are narrow and technical on their face, but they create practical uncertainty for DOT, state transportation agencies, grantees, and private investors that aligned plans and contracts around IIJA funding.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 11101(b) of the IIJA and strikes subsection (f) of 23 U.S.C. §151 to eliminate the charging-and-fueling infrastructure grant authority, rescinds unobligated amounts that IIJA set aside for the NEVI formula program, and adds a statutory termination that forbids use of funds to carry out that NEVI program. These are statutory repeals, rescissions, and a prohibition on further funding for the specified program.
Who It Affects
Primary operational impacts fall on the Federal Highway Administration and state departments of transportation that were implementing IIJA EV charging grants and NEVI formula allocations. Secondary effects reach private EV‑charging companies, utilities and contractors that counted on federal matching funds, and state/local planners who integrated those funds into deployment schedules.
Why It Matters
The bill removes legal authority for two central federal mechanisms that catalyzed EV charger deployment under IIJA—competitive grants and a dedicated NEVI formula allocation—changing the federal role from funder to nonparticipant for these programs and introducing near‑term funding gaps and legal ambiguities for existing projects.
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 three legal moves. First, it tweaks IIJA’s Section 11101(b) by deleting a subparagraph and renumbering others; that change removes a specific piece of the statute that authorized charging-and-fueling infrastructure grants.
Second, it amends 23 U.S.C. §151 by deleting the subsection that created the EV charging grant program, directly eliminating the statutory grant authority that DOT had been using to award competitive funds. Third, it targets the NEVI formula program by rescinding unspent amounts previously made available under the IIJA and declaring the program terminated, with an explicit prohibition on using funds to carry it out after enactment.
Mechanically, rescinding "unobligated amounts" affects money that Congress previously made available but that federal agencies had not yet obligated under federal budget rules; funds already obligated or contractually committed are not expressly rescinded by the language in the bill, although the termination language creates practical constraints on future disbursements tied to the program. The removal of statutory grant authority and the striking of the subsection in Title 23 mean DOT would have no statutory hook to run or restart those specific grant competitions without new legislation.For implementation, the practical work falls to FHWA and Treasury/OMB accounting: FHWA would need to halt any outstanding competitions tied to the struck grant authority, identify unobligated NEVI balances subject to rescission, and advise states about the changed legal landscape.
States and private partners that built contracts or matching commitments around expected federal awards will face uncertainty about whether awards will be honored, whether unobligated funds will be reclassified, or whether alternative state or private financing must fill gaps.Because the bill is narrowly worded to target those IIJA provisions, it does not by text dismantle broader IIJA transportation programs unrelated to EV charging, nor does it create substitute funding. The immediate statutory effect is to remove the federal grant tools that had provided direct funding to accelerate charger deployment, leaving future action to other federal statutes, state decisions, or private investment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2 amends Section 11101(b) of the IIJA by deleting one subparagraph and renumbering others, removing part of the statutory authorization for charging-and-fueling infrastructure funding.
Section 2 also strikes subsection (f) of 23 U.S.C. §151 — removing the specific statutory grant program authority that DOT used to award competitive EV charging grants.
Section 3 rescinds the "unobligated amounts" that IIJA had set aside under the NEVI formula allocation, targeting funds that had been made available but not yet obligated by FHWA.
Section 3 adds a termination clause: as of enactment the specified NEVI program is terminated and the bill prohibits using funds to carry out that program going forward.
The bill is narrowly targeted to grant and NEVI formula authorities in IIJA; it does not repeal the entire IIJA or other federal transportation programs, nor does it create replacement funding or an alternative federal program.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the bill’s caption, the "Unplug the Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Programs Act." This is nominally important because it signals scope—Congressional drafters intend the measure to focus on EV charging program authorities rather than sweeping IIJA repeal. The short title itself has no legal effect beyond description.
Repeal of Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grants (statutory edits)
Subsection (a) amends IIJA’s Section 11101(b) to remove one subparagraph and renumber subsequent subparagraphs; the change deletes a statutory authorization that supported charging-and-fueling infrastructure grants. Subsection (b) directly amends 23 U.S.C. §151 by removing language that referenced funds awarded through the grant program and by striking the entire subsection (f), which had established the competitive grant authority. Practically, stripping that subsection removes DOT’s statutory authority to run that particular grant program unless another statute supplies authority. Agencies implementing those grants will need to identify whether any procedural steps or awards rely on that now‑deleted authority.
Rescission and termination of NEVI formula program
Section 3(a) rescinds unobligated amounts that IIJA had placed under the "HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS" heading for the NEVI formula allocation—this is a budgetary step that pulls back money Congress previously made available but that FHWA had not obligated. Section 3(b) goes further by declaring the program terminated as of enactment and explicitly forbidding use of funds to carry out the program. The combination of rescission and prohibition means FHWA cannot proceed with NEVI formula disbursements or program activities tied to those authorizations; however, the statute does not purport to cancel any funds already obligated or contracts already executed, which raises follow‑on administrative and legal questions about final reconciliations and state expectations.
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
- Federal appropriations accounts/fiscal control advocates — rescinding unobligated NEVI amounts reduces the pool of federally available EV charging outlays and may be counted as reduced spending on those line items for budget scoring.
- Entities that opposed federal grant conditions — private companies or states that preferred market-led deployment avoid the federal grant terms, reporting requirements, or matching obligations attached to those programs.
- Competing infrastructure interests — highway projects or non-EV infrastructure lines that were not prioritized for NEVI funding face less federal competition for discretionary attention or messaging, potentially easing advocacy for alternate uses of state or federal transportation resources.
Who Bears the Cost
- State departments of transportation — states that planned NEVI-based deployments, matching funding, or project schedules will lose expected formula dollars and must identify replacement funding or delay builds.
- Private EV charging companies and contractors — firms that bid or planned deployments contingent on federal grants or formula allocations face funding gaps and potential stranded bids or investment shortfalls.
- Utilities and grid planners — utilities that coordinated electrification and grid upgrades around projected charger siting and timelines will see implementation schedules disrupted and may face stranded preparatory investments.
- Local governments and disadvantaged communities — jurisdictions that relied on federal grants to correct charger deserts or deliver equitable access will lose a federal financing path to build out stations in lower‑return locations.
- Federal agencies (FHWA) — the agency must administratively unwind programs, reconcile unobligated fund rescissions, and answer legal and contractual questions, creating administrative burden without an appropriation for that closure work.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is fiscal retrenchment versus deployment certainty: the bill advances the interest in halting targeted federal spending on EV charging (and reclaiming unobligated funds) but does so at the cost of disrupting multi‑party deployment plans and removing a federal backstop for deployment in low‑return areas—a trade‑off between reducing federal outlays and preserving coordinated national infrastructure progress that has no clean technical fix within the bill’s text.
The bill is tightly drafted but leaves open important practical questions. It rescinds only "unobligated amounts," which under budget rules are money not yet committed by a federal agency; therefore, whether states or recipients with awards or contracts that FHWA had authorized but not yet paid will retain those commitments is unclear and will depend on administrative accounting, existing contract terms, and potential legal challenges.
The termination language forbids using funds to carry out the program going forward, but it does not explicitly vacate existing contracts or explain how federal cost‑share obligations recorded in state budgets are to be reconciled.
Another tension concerns legal authority versus programmatic practice. Removing the statutory subsection in Title 23 eliminates the specific legal basis for competitive grants; however, DOT retains broad authorities under other statutes and regulations.
The bill does not block DOT from designing different programs under other statutory authorities, but creating substitute authorities would require new legislation or repurposing other program funds—options that are technically possible but politically and technically complex. Finally, the economic effects are uneven: rescission shrinks federal funding availability but may not dramatically reduce aggregate EV deployment if private actors and states step in; conversely, it may delay or prevent chargers in low‑profit rural or disadvantaged areas where federal dollars were intended to bridge the gap.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.