Oregon's Attorney General Dan Rayfield is taking a stand against what has been described as an overreach by the Trump administration, filing a lawsuit to block the halting of federal funding earmarked for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. The funding in question, which amounts to billions of dollars nationwide, with Oregon risking a loss of $26,190,446, was authorized by Congress through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. A coalition of states joins Rayfield in this legal fight, as reported by the Oregon Department of Justice.
According to the lawsuit, the problem began with an executive order signed by President Trump on January 20, which instructed federal agencies to freeze funding related to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Subsequently, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) informed states early in February that it would revoke all previously approved plans to implement the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (NEVI), crucial for receiving the authorized funds. Oregon analysis suggests that to meet the growing EV adoption, an increase in public EV chargers along highways by fivefold is needed by 2030.
Attorney General Rayfield highlighted the urgency of maintaining this momentum in infrastructure growth. "Oregon’s own analysis shows we need five times more public EV chargers along our highways by 2030 just to keep up with the number of electric cars hitting the roads. If federal funding is delayed or cut off, it puts us at serious risk of falling behind on our climate goals and leaves drivers without the charging infrastructure they need," Rayfield said, in a sentiment echoed across the coalition of states seeking to ensure the preservation of these essential funds.
The coalition backing Rayfield is an assembly of attorneys general from across the nation, specifically Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont. They all seek a court order against FHWA's actions, which they claim are unlawful, and advocate for a restoration of the EV infrastructure funding that had been agreed upon by Congress. The implications of this are far-reaching, seen as not only a state-level crisis but also as an impediment to national progress in sustainable transportation and a stumbling block in the collective journey towards decarbonizing the environment.
As the suit moves forward, it underscores a significant moment in the conversation around infrastructure, climate commitments, and the interplay between state needs and federal authority. The outcome has the potential to shape the future of transportation and set a precedent on how executive power is wielded in contrast to legislative intent. For those keeping their ear to the ground on environmental and governance matters, this could be a definitive case with sweeping implications.
