As federal funding for electric vehicle infrastructure shifts, US states are left to figure out how to continue such investments themselves—and how to get the most public benefits from those investments.
Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, the infrastructure that directly supports the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles, have been rolling out over the past few years at an increasing rate. Though primarily led by private investments, this rollout also has been supported more recently by federal and state investments. In 2022, the federal government allocated over $7 billion through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to support investments in EV infrastructure across the country—both along major road corridors and within cities. However, less than $5 billion has been doled out to states so far, and the future of this current funding stream is unknown: On February 6, 2025, the Trump administration ordered a suspension of all funding for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program until new guidance for the program is released. Even though some NEVI funds already have been obligated to states, the funds are available on a reimbursement basis, and the status of those reimbursements is unclear due to the executive order.
Several states have supplemented these federal investments with their own funds, too. For example, in early January 2025, California announced an investment of $1.4 billion for charging stations across the state. In February, New York announced a $60-million investment in charging stations.
Because the future of federal investments in charging stations is in flux, US states are facing a future in which they may become the sole provider of support for EV charging infrastructure.
EV owners rely upon a network of charging stations that is well-connected, affordable, and reliable. EV adoption is not widespread, necessitating the public investments that supplement private-sector activities. To date, EV ownership has skewed heavily toward higher-income, higher-educated, white, younger vehicle buyers, and private operators have located their charging stations in neighborhoods where similar characteristics predominate.
Credit: Around the World Photos / Shutterstock
Because private-sector investments have led to an uneven distribution of charging stations across the country, a significant portion of government investments have attempted to target funds toward under-resourced neighborhoods. But this new pattern of investment prompts a question: How can these underserved neighborhoods fully benefit from the charging stations, especially if people who live there don’t own EVs? In fact, some communities are concerned that these ostensibly positive investments may bring more harm than good, due to potential gentrification, increased traffic congestion, or even increased electricity prices due to a need for grid expansion.
To that end, in a working paper released by RFF in August 2024, RFF researchers and coauthor Rachel Wilwerding explored how states and local governments can work to ensure that these investments in charging stations—particularly those that are made in under-resourced communities—maximize the benefits to surrounding communities. Solutions include expanding access to both EVs and charging stations in underserved communities, maximizing opportunities for economic development, addressing the affordability of public charging services, and incorporating community voices into such planning.
To access their NEVI funding, states were required to complete an infrastructure plan that addressed a multitude of questions around how and where new charging stations would be placed. One section of the plan template, titled “Equity Considerations,” required the applying state to describe how it would incorporate community voices into the planning process and to identify how 40 percent of these benefits would accrue to disadvantaged communities, given the Justice40 requirements that were tied to the grants. States also were required to discuss the nature of these benefits, which could include a focus on issues such as accessibility, jobs, mobility, and air quality.
All 50 states (plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico) submitted plans, which subsequently were approved by the Biden administration. Texas, California, Florida, and New York (in that order) received the largest allocations, with funds ranging from $175 million (New York) to almost $408 million (Texas) (Figure 1). The plans that these four states submitted in 2022 are enlightening—particularly regarding how they approached equity considerations.
Figure 1. State Distribution of Federal Funding through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program
Source: Federal Highway Administration
How Are States Approaching Disparities in Access to Electric Vehicle Charging Stations?
Each of these four states were explicitly relying upon NEVI funds to increase accessibility to EV charging stations in areas where private-sector investment has lagged. The states identified these underinvested places in qualitatively similar ways.
Texas notes in its plan that early investments in charging stations have been concentrated largely in urban and wealthier neighborhoods, leaving rural communities behind. To address this disparity, the state allocates approximately half of the NEVI funds to targeted investments in rural communities, with a focus on enabling long-range travel.
Florida mentions in its plan that 50 percent of the state’s alternative fuel corridors are located in disadvantaged communities, noting that NEVI funds will help create a well-functioning corridor of chargers and “fill in the gaps and identify innovative solutions that support charging in rural, disadvantaged, and underserved areas.”
New York, similarly, identifies coverage gaps in its existing network of charging stations and determines that the state’s best approach is to target investments in rural areas and certain urban locations to serve the needs of drivers who live in multi-unit dwellings.
Finally, California’s infrastructure plan states that at least 50 percent of the funding will go toward charging stations in underserved and low-income communities, helping to ensure greater accessibility for communities that have lagged in EV adoption and thus have not seen private investment in their neighborhoods.
Rural communities, then, have become a particular geographic focus of these states, despite their widely varying demographic composition and local political structures.
How Are States Incorporating Community Voices into Their Planning?
Investments in EV charging stations can have measurable effects on surrounding communities. The requirements for submitting the infrastructure plans revealed the importance of community engagement as one way to ensure these effects are positive. Bringing these communities to the table can help identify the locations and types of investments that will maximize the community benefits, above and beyond basic access to charging stations for their EVs. Yet the approaches vary widely for how these states engage with communities and incorporate community views into the infrastructure plans.
California makes a considerable effort to ensure that the voices of local communities are heard and community concerns are addressed through these investments in charging stations. The state benefits from existing structures that allow for this type of community input, as both the California Energy Commission and the California Department of Transportation, which jointly are responsible for implementing the NEVI Formula Program, have their own separate approaches to engaging with priority populations. Three distinct groups—the Disadvantaged Communities Advisory Group, the Interagency Equity Advisory Committee, and the Native American Advisory Committee—had been established previously to provide a link between community voices and decisionmakers in the state. California also has received written input from other, less formal groups about which types of charging stations would provide maximum benefits to the surrounding communities. All broad public engagement happens through a series of virtual webinars that are announced 10 days in advance.
New York also benefits from existing frameworks for community involvement that have been established through the state’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The law created seven advisory panels, two of which were leveraged in the development of the state’s infrastructure plan: the Climate Justice Working Group and the Just Transition Working Group. These panels receive input and have representation from a variety of community stakeholders, and the findings from these panels have been leveraged to develop targeted strategies for maximizing the community benefits of EV infrastructure investments.
Florida’s approach to gathering community input on its plan was administered through eight listening sessions, 18 surveys, and a public comment period that was open for 13 days. The state received less than 200 comments, and the plan does not mention the involvement of any community groups in the state’s decisionmaking process.
Similarly, Texas allowed a 15-day comment period after holding a virtual public meeting to discuss the plan. Texas conducted a multistate Tribal outreach and consultation shortly after the virtual public meeting. Information was shared with the public via online sources, including a webpage and social media. The infrastructure plan provides no further information about which, or whether, community groups provided input.
How Are States Envisioning Economic Development Around These Investments?
All four of the states with large NEVI funds identify workforce development as a benefit of investing in charging stations; however, only Florida’s plan addresses local employment. Florida indicates that the state will seek to “[e]mploy a workforce that comprises residents that are geographically approximate to the location of the charging station site(s)” and requires contractors to include monthly reports on the number of its locally hired employees.
The other three states do include a focus on broader workforce-development goals. For example, Texas notes that each proposal for a NEVI contract needs to submit a “disadvantaged business enterprise plan” to be competitive. New York’s infrastructure plan discusses the development of EV maintenance curricula that can be implemented in trade schools across the state. Finally, California’s plan discusses the state’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Market Development Strategy, which has workforce development as one of its four key pillars (along with vehicles, infrastructure, and end users).
Credit: Amani A / Shutterstock
In terms of broader economic development, California’s plan introduces a competitive grant-funding opportunity to install charging stations along the state’s alternative fuel corridors, which “may encourage applicants to utilize small businesses that meet the eligibility requirements as site hosts.” This type of investment can provide benefits to small businesses for hosting a charging station, in the form of an increased customer base. Furthermore, the infrastructure plan describes how California will engage with rural and small businesses across the EV supply chain, thereby potentially increasing revenues for businesses beyond where the charging stations are sited.
Are States Addressing the Affordability of Charging Services?
Public charging stations can be much more expensive than at-home EV charging, which creates a challenge for EV owners, as EV adoption generally is marketed as a way to reduce refueling costs. The higher the price at the charger, the less affordable the EV transition will be. This cost calculation is particularly important for the distribution of benefits associated with investments in charging stations, as lower-income households tend to have less access to at-home charging. High prices for public charging mean that lower-income households would continue to face a less affordable transition to EVs.
However, none of the four states address the affordability question in their infrastructure plans. The plans from California, New York, and Texas do not include the words “affordable” or “affordability” with respect to prices at charging stations. And Florida’s focus on affordability is mostly aspirational, without providing many details about implementation. Specifically, the plan notes, “Florida is committed to leading the nation in providing a statewide network of convenient, equitable, affordable, reliable, and accessible EV charging infrastructure.” Florida’s plan also says that “evaluation is underway to deploy sites in a manner that drives competition while fostering innovation from the contracting industry.”
Conclusion: Can States Fill In Funding Gaps and Maximize Public Benefits?
Achieving widespread access to EV charging stations will require government investment through charging station subsidies and operational support, particularly until EV adoption ramps up. The NEVI funds were designed to enable states to expand access to charging stations in places where EV adoption is low or profits from charging stations may not be immediately sustainable, thereby expanding the benefits of electric transportation. By reviewing the infrastructure plans from the four states that have received the most NEVI funding to date, we’ve found clues about how these states approach public investments.
As their plans demonstrate, stakeholders in US states are concerned about the lack of a well-distributed EV charging network and see clear benefits from increasing accessibility to charging stations. They also are aware of benefits that can accrue in the siting, permitting, construction, and use of charging stations—yet their approaches to including community input in the planning process are highly variable. Importantly, actively engaged communities can help states identify ways to maximize the benefits of these investments.
However, few states actively pursue actions to ensure the affordability of EV charging services. This lack of action is not just an issue that affects EV drivers’ wallets—affordability issues can be problematic for achieving widespread economic benefits from these investments. If the price of public charging remains high, then the use of those chargers can decline and, in turn, reduce the spillover benefits to local communities. With access to additional research, states can help make the market more competitive, regardless of their ongoing investments.
In sum, with input from communities and policies grounded in research, states can move the needle toward achieving a decarbonized transportation sector and their own goals for social and economic development.
