Sec. 60024. Rescission of low-carbon transportation materials grants | Impact

One Big (not so) Beautiful Bill over the U.S. Capitol

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 60024: Rescission of low-carbon transportation materials grants

Executive Summary

Section 60024 rescinds the unobligated balances of funding for the Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants program under 23 U.S.C. 179.[1] That program was created by the Inflation Reduction Act with $2 billion in fiscal year 2022 General Fund budget authority, available through September 30, 2026, for Federal Highway Administration reimbursement or incentive payments to eligible recipients using construction materials with substantially lower embodied greenhouse gas emissions.[2]

The practical effect is to remove remaining federal support for a transportation-materials decarbonization program that was designed to help states, local governments, Tribes, territories, metropolitan planning organizations, and other eligible public transportation entities absorb the higher or uncertain costs of lower-carbon concrete, asphalt, steel, glass, and related products.[2] CBO’s June 2025 estimate identified Section 60024 as reducing budget authority by $1.8 billion.[3] Outside transportation analysts estimated that only about $147 million had been obligated before enactment, leaving more than $1.85 billion subject to rescission, while other city and infrastructure policy sources described the rescission as up to about $1.9 billion.[4]

The environmental and climate impact is negative. Section 60024 does not directly approve a polluting project, but it cuts off a grant and incentive pathway specifically intended to reduce embodied greenhouse gas emissions in federally supported transportation construction. That weakens public-sector demand for cleaner materials, slows market learning, reduces incentives for suppliers to document and lower embodied emissions, and makes conventional higher-emissions materials more likely to remain the default in transportation projects.

What Section 60024 Actually Does

Section 60024 is short but consequential. It states that the unobligated balances of amounts made available to carry out 23 U.S.C. 179 are rescinded.[1] The referenced statute is the Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants program, which originally appropriated $2 billion for fiscal year 2022 to the Federal Highway Administration, available until September 30, 2026.[2]

The original program allowed FHWA to reimburse eligible recipients for the incremental cost of using lower-embodied-carbon construction materials, or to provide an incentive equal to 2 percent of the cost of using qualifying low-carbon materials on a Title 23 transportation project.[2] The federal share could be up to 100 percent, making the program especially useful for public agencies that wanted to test cleaner materials without shifting new costs to state or local budgets.[2]

Program or activity	Amount	What the money supports
Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants, 23 U.S.C. 179	$2 billion originally appropriated	FHWA reimbursements or incentives for use of construction materials and products with substantially lower embodied greenhouse gas emissions in eligible transportation projects.[2]
State DOT awards announced by FHWA	$1.2 billion	Grants to 39 State Departments of Transportation to use cleaner construction materials and establish implementation processes for low-carbon materials in Federal-aid construction projects.[5]
Non-State DOT funding opportunity	$800 million	Funding intended for eligible non-State recipients, including cities, Tribes, metropolitan planning organizations, and other agencies, to incorporate lower-pollution materials such as steel, concrete, cement, glass, and asphalt.[6]
Estimated rescission effect	$1.8 billion in reduced budget authority	CBO-estimated reduction in budget authority from Section 60024.[3]

Because the section rescinds only “unobligated balances,” it does not by its own terms cancel amounts that had already been validly obligated before enactment. The legal and fiscal effect depends on the obligation status of funds as of the rescission date. Funds awarded in announcements but not formally obligated are at risk because federal award announcements, selections, and press releases do not necessarily equal legally binding obligations.

Legislative Mechanism

Section 60024 uses a rescission mechanism. It does not rewrite every operational paragraph of 23 U.S.C. 179; instead, it removes the remaining unobligated budget authority that allowed FHWA to carry out the program.[1] In budget execution terms, that means FHWA and the Department of Transportation must identify unobligated balances in the relevant account or program line and remove them from availability.

This is different from a prospective policy limitation. The section does not merely say that FHWA may not make future awards. It cancels remaining budget authority itself. Once the rescission is executed, FHWA cannot use the rescinded balances for new grants, reimbursements, incentives, administration, or related implementation activity under 23 U.S.C. 179.

The section also works against the original Inflation Reduction Act design. The original program was structured as a temporary but multiyear appropriation, available through September 30, 2026, to help accelerate the use of lower-carbon materials in transportation infrastructure.[2] Section 60024 ends that remaining funding runway before the original availability period expires.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

The rescission should be traceable through federal budget execution systems, but project-level public visibility may be uneven. The original program involved FHWA budget authority, grant or reimbursement execution, possible award-level reporting through USAspending.gov, agency announcements, and oversight by DOT, OMB, Treasury, Inspectors General, GAO, and Congress. Section 60024 removes unobligated balances rather than creating a new public-facing rescission dashboard.

Likely tracking sources include:

Tracking source	What it may show	Visibility limitation
Treasury and OMB budget execution data	Cancellation of unobligated balances and changes in available budget authority	May be aggregated by account rather than clearly labeled by Section 60024.
DOT and FHWA budget materials	Program-level changes, implementation status, and rescinded availability	May appear in budget justifications or operating plans after a delay.
USAspending.gov	Obligated awards, recipients, and award modifications where reportable	Rescinded unobligated balances may not appear as award-level cancellations if no award was obligated.
FHWA grant and program records	Selected recipients, obligated agreements, reimbursements, and incentives	Detailed internal grant status may not be fully public.
CBO estimates	Estimated budget authority and outlay effects	CBO estimates are budgetary projections, not live execution records.
Inspector General, GAO, and congressional oversight	Reviews of DOT implementation, rescission execution, and affected awards	Oversight may occur later and may focus on samples or high-profile disputes.

flowchart TD
    A[Section 60024 rescission] --> B[FHWA program balances]
    B --> C[DOT budget execution]
    C --> D[OMB apportionment controls]
    C --> E[Treasury account reporting]
    C --> F[Grant award records]
    F --> G[State DOT awards]
    F --> H[Local and Tribal applicants]
    F --> I[USAspending data]
    C --> J[FHWA budget materials]
    D --> K[Congress oversight]
    E --> K
    I --> L[Public visibility]
    J --> L
    K --> L
    L --> M[Likely delayed or aggregated]

For already obligated awards, tracking may continue through grant agreements, reimbursement requests, award modifications, and closeout records. For funding that was selected but not obligated, the practical impact may be harder for the public to isolate because the rescission cancels the federal budget authority before money flows through an award record. That creates a common visibility gap: communities may experience the loss as a canceled or stalled project opportunity, while public spending databases may show little or no award-level transaction because the money was never fully obligated.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For FHWA, Section 60024 changes day-to-day administration from program implementation to rescission execution. Staff who would otherwise manage applications, grant agreements, reimbursements, technical assistance, materials eligibility, emissions documentation, and project oversight must instead identify unobligated balances, stop or narrow pending award activity, coordinate with DOT budget officials, and update applicants or recipients.

For state departments of transportation and local transportation agencies, the section disrupts planning around cleaner materials. Agencies that expected federal support may need to revise project budgets, remove low-carbon material specifications, delay procurement, seek state or local replacement funds, or reduce the scale of pilot projects. The effect is especially acute where lower-carbon materials had been integrated into bid documents, design assumptions, pavement programs, bridge projects, or construction schedules.

For non-State applicants, including cities, Tribes, MPOs, and local governments, Section 60024 may eliminate the practical funding pathway before projects reach obligation. FHWA had announced an $800 million funding opportunity for non-State recipients to incorporate lower-pollution materials in transportation projects.[6] Rescinding unobligated balances reduces or eliminates FHWA’s ability to proceed with those awards unless funds had already been obligated before rescission.

The section also reduces federal administrative work related to low-carbon material verification. Under the original program, recipients and FHWA had to determine incremental costs, verify eligibility, and connect materials decisions to embodied greenhouse gas criteria.[2] With unobligated funding rescinded, fewer projects will require those federal determinations, which may slow the normalization of low-carbon procurement practices across transportation agencies.

Effects on Consumers

The direct consumer effect is limited because Section 60024 does not change household taxes, fares, tolls, vehicle standards, or consumer rebates. Most individuals will not see a line item labeled “low-carbon transportation materials grants” on a bill.

The indirect effects are more meaningful. Transportation infrastructure costs are ultimately borne by taxpayers, road users, transit users, and communities. The original program helped public agencies cover incremental costs or receive incentives for lower-carbon materials.[2] Removing that support may make agencies less willing to use cleaner materials when they appear more expensive, unfamiliar, or administratively harder to document.

Consumers may also lose public-health and climate benefits that would have come from lower-emissions construction supply chains. Cement, concrete, steel, asphalt, and other heavy construction materials are emissions-intensive. A program that increases public demand for cleaner alternatives can help reduce upstream industrial emissions and improve the learning curve for lower-carbon materials. Rescinding the program does not immediately raise consumer prices, but it makes it less likely that public infrastructure spending will accelerate cleaner material markets.

Local residents near industrial facilities, asphalt plants, cement plants, freight corridors, and construction sites may be affected indirectly. If public procurement remains more dependent on conventional materials, communities may see fewer incentives for lower-emission production, cleaner supply chains, and better environmental documentation.

Effects on Businesses

Section 60024 has mixed business effects depending on the type of business.

For producers of conventional materials, the section may reduce near-term pressure to change production methods, document emissions, or compete for public projects based on embodied-carbon performance. Contractors that prefer familiar materials and specifications may face fewer federally funded low-carbon procurement requirements or incentives.

For businesses investing in low-carbon concrete, cement, steel, asphalt, glass, environmental product declarations, materials testing, carbon accounting, and cleaner industrial processes, the section is negative. The original program created demand-side support by helping public agencies pay for or incentivize lower-carbon materials.[2] Removing unobligated funding weakens that demand signal and may reduce the number of transportation projects willing to pay for cleaner materials.

Engineering firms, construction-material suppliers, testing laboratories, environmental consultants, and software providers that support embodied-carbon documentation may also lose opportunities. The program encouraged agencies to build procurement processes around verified lower-carbon materials. A rescission reduces the pipeline of federally supported projects that would have required those services.

Small and regional suppliers may be particularly exposed. Larger materials companies may have more internal capital to continue developing low-carbon products without federal demand support. Smaller firms often rely on public procurement signals, pilot projects, and grant-supported demonstrations to justify investments in new mixes, production methods, documentation systems, or certifications.

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is negative. Section 60024 rescinds unobligated funding from a program specifically designed to reduce embodied greenhouse gas emissions in transportation construction materials.[1][2]

The immediate legal effect is fiscal: FHWA loses the unobligated balances available to reimburse or incentivize low-carbon transportation materials. The section does not itself mandate the use of higher-emissions materials, approve a highway project, or repeal all environmental laws. But it changes the implementation baseline by removing federal financial support that would have made cleaner materials easier and cheaper for public agencies to use.

The reasonably foreseeable implementation effect is reduced use, testing, and normalization of lower-carbon materials in transportation projects. The original program targeted materials such as concrete, cement, steel, glass, and asphalt—categories that are central to transportation infrastructure and associated with substantial upstream industrial emissions.[6] Without federal reimbursement or incentive funding, agencies facing budget pressure may revert to lowest-bid conventional materials or postpone low-carbon procurement practices.

The contingent effects depend on state, local, Tribal, and private-sector choices. Some agencies may continue low-carbon procurement using state funds, other federal funds, or internal policies. Some suppliers may continue decarbonization investments because of market demand, state standards, or corporate commitments. But the rescission materially reduces the federal demand signal and removes a dedicated support mechanism for overcoming cost and verification barriers.

The cumulative and downstream impacts are important. Transportation construction is recurring and material-intensive. Even if any single project has modest emissions effects, repeated procurement decisions across pavement, bridges, transit facilities, ports, and road reconstruction can shape industrial production. A federal grant program can help create market scale for cleaner materials; rescinding it can slow that market transition. The result is directionally higher embodied emissions than under the funded-program baseline.

Existing safeguards are not a substitute for the rescinded funding. NEPA, procurement law, Buy America rules, and state environmental requirements may still apply where relevant, but those safeguards generally do not require agencies to choose lower-embodied-carbon materials or pay incremental costs for cleaner products. Section 60024 therefore leaves many procedural safeguards intact while weakening the financial mechanism that encouraged climate-beneficial material choices.

Environmental justice concerns are plausible. Communities near cement plants, steel facilities, asphalt plants, ports, rail corridors, and truck routes often bear localized pollution burdens from industrial production and freight movement. A weaker low-carbon materials market may slow investments that could reduce emissions intensity and improve environmental documentation in those supply chains. The harm is not evenly distributed because industrial pollution and transportation construction burdens often fall more heavily on workers, nearby neighborhoods, and communities already exposed to cumulative pollution.

Impact Summary

Section 60024 cancels unobligated funding for the Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants program, cutting off remaining FHWA budget authority for reimbursements and incentives that were intended to help public transportation agencies use lower-embodied-carbon construction materials. The original program had $2 billion in available funding, and CBO estimated that Section 60024 would reduce budget authority by $1.8 billion.[2][3]

The government-process impact is immediate: FHWA must stop using rescinded balances for new or pending program activity, while DOT, OMB, and Treasury must reflect the cancellation in budget execution. State and local project sponsors may need to revise budgets, specifications, procurement plans, and climate-related materials strategies.

Consumers are affected indirectly through the public infrastructure system. The section does not directly change household prices, but it reduces support for cleaner infrastructure materials and may limit public-health and climate benefits associated with lower-emissions construction supply chains.

Business impacts are uneven. Conventional material suppliers may face less immediate federal pressure to decarbonize, while low-carbon materials producers, engineering firms, testing labs, environmental documentation providers, and public-sector contractors pursuing cleaner materials lose a major demand-side federal support program.

The environmental and climate effects are negative and risk-increasing because the section rescinds funding that would otherwise support lower-embodied-carbon construction materials in transportation projects. The harm is immediate as a funding cancellation, reasonably foreseeable as reduced use of cleaner materials, and cumulative as public infrastructure procurement continues to shape emissions from concrete, cement, steel, asphalt, glass, freight, and industrial supply chains.

Key References and Sourcing

Source	Relevance
Public Law 119-21, One Big Beautiful Bill Act	Primary statutory text for Section 60024 and its rescission of unobligated balances under 23 U.S.C. 179.
23 U.S.C. 179, Low-carbon transportation materials grants	Codified source for the original program’s $2 billion appropriation, eligible uses, reimbursement and incentive structure, and federal share.
CBO, Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 1 Senate Reconciliation Amendment	Budget estimate identifying Section 60024 and showing a $1.8 billion reduction in budget authority.
FHWA, Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants fact sheet	Agency explanation of the program purpose, $2 billion funding level, eligible recipients, reimbursement structure, and administrative features.
FHWA, USDOT awards $1.2 billion to State DOTs	Agency announcement of $1.2 billion awarded to 39 State Departments of Transportation.
FHWA, $800 million funding opportunity for non-State recipients	Agency announcement describing non-State recipient eligibility and materials covered by the program.
Transportation for America, Congress’s new budget reconciliation bill takes back billions from locally led projects	Secondary analysis estimating obligated and rescinded amounts and describing project-level implications.
NACTO, Federal Policy Updates for Cities	City-focused policy analysis describing rescission of up to $1.9 billion in Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Program funding.
Georgetown Climate Center, Understanding Recent Federal Actions	Secondary legal and policy context for federal transportation climate funding rollbacks after enactment of H.R. 1.

[1] Public Law 119-21, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Section 60024, rescinding unobligated balances made available to carry out 23 U.S.C. 179, https://iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/2025.07.04_Pub._L._No.119-21-_One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act.pdf.

[2] Office of the Law Revision Counsel, “23 U.S.C. 179: Low-carbon transportation materials grants,” describing the $2 billion appropriation, eligible uses, reimbursement and incentive structure, and federal share, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title23-section179.

[3] Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” June 2025, showing Section 60024 budget authority reduction of $1.8 billion, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-06/61534-hr0001-Sen-2025Recon-CLB.xlsx.

[4] Transportation for America, “Congress’s new budget reconciliation bill takes back billions from locally-led projects across the country,” July 8, 2025, estimating about $147 million obligated and more than $1.85 billion rescinded for the Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Program, https://t4america.org/2025/07/08/congresss-new-budget-reconciliation-bill-takes-back-billions-from-locally-led-projects-across-the-country/.

[5] Federal Highway Administration, “INVESTING IN AMERICA: USDOT Awards $1.2 Billion in Grants to Help State Departments of Transportation Utilize Cleaner Construction Materials,” November 14, 2024, https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/investing-america-usdot-awards-1-billion-grants-help-state-departments-transportation.

[6] Federal Highway Administration, “FHWA Opens Applications for $800 Million in Funding to Reduce Climate Pollution from Transportation Construction Materials,” August 27, 2024, https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/fhwa-opens-applications-800-million-funding-reduce-climate-pollution-transportation.