Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Electric Vehicles

Trump Couldn’t Kill Biden’s EV Charging Program

But he did slow it down.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

President Trump has had it in for electric vehicle charging since day one. His January 20 executive order “Unleashing American Energy” singled out the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program by name, directing the Department of Transportation to pause and review the funding as part of his mission to “eliminate” the so-called “electric vehicle mandate.”

With the review now complete, the agency has concluded that canceling NEVI is not an option. In an ironic twist, the Federal Highway Administration issued new guidance for the program on Monday that not only preserves it, but also purports to “streamline applications,” “slash red tape,” and “ensure charging stations are actually built.”

“If Congress is requiring the federal government to support charging stations, let’s cut the waste and do it right,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a press release. “While I don’t agree with subsidizing green energy, we will respect Congress’ will and make sure this program uses federal resources efficiently.”

Duffy’s statement stands in sharp contrast to the stance of other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, which continue to block congressionally-mandated spending programs.

Only time will tell whether the new guidance is truly a win for EV charging, however. It’s a win in the sense that many EV advocates feared the agency would try to kill the program or insert poison pills into the guidance. But it’s unclear whether the changes will speed up NEVI deployment beyond what might have happened had it not been paused.

“The real story to me is the needless delay,” Joe Halso, a senior attorney for Sierra Club, told me. “They took six months to produce something that they could have done in an afternoon, and that didn’t require them to halt the program in the first place. Every day of that delay stalled critical EV charging projects.”

The goal of the NEVI program was to help states install charging stations in areas that the market, on its own, was not serving. States had to submit annual plans to the FHWA for how they would deploy the funds to fill gaps in regional EV charging networks. Once those plans are approved, states could issue requests for proposals from EV charging companies to build the new charging stations and award grants to help get them financed.

In February, Duffy issued a letter to state Departments of Transportation suspending approval of their plans for all fiscal years, pending forthcoming new guidance from the agency. That meant states would not be able to issue new awards, essentially freezing the program. At the time, the agency had approved state spending plans totaling more than $3.2 billion for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. Of that money, states had committed only about $526 million to specific projects.

In early May, 16 states plus the District of Columbia challenged the DOT’s actions in court, winning a preliminary injunction that prevented the agency from suspending or revoking their previously-approved plans. While the injunction unfroze the program in the plaintiff states, about $1.8 billion for the rest of the country was still locked up. But the judge allowed a coalition of national, regional, and community groups, including the Sierra Club, to become parties in the case and fight for the funding to be restored across the board. That means that if the plaintiffs are ultimately successful, the verdict will apply to every state, not just those 16 that filed the case.

The fact that the DOT issued new guidance this week doesn’t change anything about the case, Halso of the Sierra Club told me. The move could wind up delaying the program further.

“This new guidance prolongs the freeze by forcing states to resubmit already approved plans to access money they’re already entitled to,” Halso explained. “And we don’t know if or when federal highways will approve those plans and restore states’ access to money.” The guidance gives states 30 days to submit their plans, though it does allow them to simply re-submit previously-approved versions.

In Monday’s press release, Duffy declared the program’s implementation to date a “failure,” citing the fact that only 16% of the funds had been obligated so far. It’s true that the program has been slow in getting underway. As of this week, there are at least 106 NEVI-funded charging stations with 537 ports across 17 states, Loren McDonald, the chief analyst for the EV charging data analytics firm Paren, told me. That’s a long way off pace to achieve President Biden’s stated goal of installing 500,000 by 2030.

It’s also true that the new rules are simpler. The previous guidance, which was 30 pages long, contained more than five pages of detailed “considerations” states had to follow in developing their plans, which designated specific distances between chargers, required projects to mitigate adverse impacts to the electric grid, and mandated that States target “rural areas, underserved and overburdened communities, and disadvantaged communities,” among other rules. The new guidance, by contrast, is a tight seven pages devoid of almost any obligations not explicitly required by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which created the program.

Under the previous guidance, for example, NEVI-funded stations had to be built within one mile of a federally-designated EV corridor and at no greater than 50-mile increments along those corridors. The new guidance simply says that states should “consider the appropriate distance between stations to allow for reasonable travel and certainty that charging will be available to corridor travelers when needed.”

McDonald told me that some states had been frustrated with the 50-mile siting requirement and would likely welcome that change. NATSO and SIGMA, two industry associations that represent rest stops, travel centers, and fuel marketers, issued a joint statement praising the “flexible, consumer-oriented approach.” They also specifically applauded the guidance for encouraging states to prioritize projects that are built and operated by the site owner. Some NEVI projects were being developed by a third party, such as Tesla, which had to sign a long-term lease with the site owner, like a grocery store or hotel. These agreements took time to work out, and would sometimes fall apart, McDonald told me.

But from McDonald’s vantage point, what was slowing down the program most was the fact that every state had different requirements and a different process for soliciting and scoring proposals from developers. Also, while a few states already had previous experience administering EV charging grant programs, many lacked staff and expertise in the subject. “I don’t mean this the way it’s going to come out,” McDonald said. “But they barely knew how to spell EV charging. A lot of the state DOTs really just were about building roads and bridges, and they had never had to deal with any charging.”

The new DOT guidance doesn’t seek to address either of those issues. “I’m not seeing anything in here that’s going to lead to a significant reduction in time,” McDonald said. “It seems to sort of miss where the lengthy processes were.”

The Zero Emission Transportation Association, an industry group, had a more positive outlook. Research associate Corey Cantor told me the new guidance is “workable” for the industry and provides regulatory certainty. When I asked Cantor if the changes the agency made to the guidance would help get more money out the door, he said it “remains to be seen on the implementation side,” but that states had been asking for more flexibility.

Cantor emphasized that it was important for state DOTs to have regulatory certainty and to get the funds flowing again. “Charging anxiety, after the upfront cost of EVs, is one of the highest cited barriers for entry for new adopters of electric vehicles,” he said. “And so getting the charging network filled out is key to helping us move to this next stage of the transition.”

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Podcast

Heatmap’s Annual Climate Insiders Survey Is Here

Rob takes Jesse through our battery of questions.

A person taking a survey.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Every year, Heatmap asks dozens of climate scientists, officials, and business leaders the same set of questions. It’s an act of temperature-taking we call our Insiders Survey — and our 2026 edition is live now.

In this week’s Shift Key episode, Rob puts Jesse through the survey wringer. What is the most exciting climate tech company? Are data centers slowing down decarbonization? And will a country attempt the global deployment of solar radiation management within the next decade? It’s a fun one! Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
The Insiders Survey

Climate Insiders Want to Stop Talking About ‘Climate Change’

They still want to decarbonize, but they’re over the jargon.

Climate protesters.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Where does the fight to decarbonize the global economy go from here? The past 12 months, after all, have been bleak. Donald Trump has pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement (again) and is trying to leave a precursor United Nations climate treaty, as well. He ripped out half the Inflation Reduction Act, sidetracked the Environmental Protection Administration, and rechristened the Energy Department’s in-house bank in the name of “energy dominance.” Even nonpartisan weather research — like that conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research — is getting shut down by Trump’s ideologues. And in the days before we went to press, Trump invaded Venezuela with the explicit goal (he claims) of taking its oil.

Abroad, the picture hardly seems rosier. China’s new climate pledge struck many observers as underwhelming. Mark Carney, who once led the effort to decarbonize global finance, won Canada’s premiership after promising to lift parts of that country’s carbon tax — then struck a “grand bargain” with fossiliferous Alberta. Even Europe seems to dither between its climate goals, its economic security, and the need for faster growth.

Now would be a good time, we thought, for an industry-wide check-in. So we called up 55 of the most discerning and often disputatious voices in climate and clean energy — the scientists, researchers, innovators, and reformers who are already shaping our climate future. Some of them led the Biden administration’s climate policy from within the White House; others are harsh or heterodox critics of mainstream environmentalism. And a few more are on the front lines right now, tasked with responding to Trump’s policies from the halls of Congress — or the ivory minarets of academia.

We asked them all the same questions, including: Which key decarbonization technology is not ready for primetime? Who in the Trump administration has been the worst for decarbonization? And how hot is the planet set to get in 2100, really? (Among other queries.) Their answers — as summarized and tabulated by my colleagues — are available in these pages.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
The Insiders Survey

Will Data Centers Slow Decarbonization?

Plus, which is the best hyperscaler on climate — and which is the worst?

A data center and renewable energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The biggest story in energy right now is data centers.

After decades of slow load growth, forecasters are almost competing with each other to predict the most eye-popping figure for how much new electricity demand data centers will add to the grid. And with the existing electricity system with its backbone of natural gas, more data centers could mean higher emissions.

Keep reading...Show less