What The Concrete And Asphalt Innovation Act Recycles from the IRA

In March of 2025, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) reintroduced the Concrete And Asphalt Innovation Act (CAIA) as a companion to House bill H.R. 1534, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support to the tune of 350-73. Currently, it awaits further action by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee before going to a possible vote on the floor. 

The bill's core aim is to reduce the carbon footprint of many vital construction materials utilized in state and federal infrastructure projects, as well as boosting American manufacturing and supply chain competitiveness. To get there, the bill sets up Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) grants that reward state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) for specifying and sourcing lower-emission mixes, essentially paying contractors a premium to bid using greener materials and suppliers.

A Policy Double-Take

Reading that, some of you might be experiencing the faintest amounts of deja vu. If you paid attention during the formation and passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, then you already know that the bill appropriated roughly $4.5 billion for a wide-range of cleaner construction materials as part of the larger Federal Buy Clean Initiative. The goal of which was to jump-start demand for green concrete and asphalt, as well as other essential building materials, by subsidizing projects that use them and settings new standard for federal purchasing. 

Ironically, the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act (BBB) that was passed earlier this month (July 2025), clawed back billions in unspent IRA funds, practically defunding the bill's low-carbon materials grants for roads. Over $1.8 billion meant for cleaner concrete and asphalt infrastructure was rescinded before it could be used. The CAIA's funding in this regard is extremely modest by comparison, equalling only $15 million (only 0.9% of rescinded funds) spanning 2025-2027 for the FWHA low-carbon incentives pilot. 

The new bill is more about setting up frameworks (it creates program authorities and pilot funding), which Congress could expand in the future (possibly in the next Highway Bill which the National Asphalt Association is currently help craft). So, the new legislation is less a giant spending package and more a policy foundation for sustained support. It adds tools (contracts, research initiatives, task force) that IRA didn’t have, but it doesn’t currently match IRA’s scale of investment.andrew_shots (AdobeStock_494419953)

What's interesting to note, however, isn't so much the differences between the two pieces of, arguably, green-legislation, but how similar they are in spirit, aim, and desired outcomes. The CAIA, in some ways, reads more like a second-draft of the IRA's sustainability ambitions. Rather than a complete change of course or direction, it wants to take a different route to get to the same destination. 

Two Road Maps, One Goal Ahead

Imagine the IRA as a single major highway, made with one hundred lanes for traffic, between two states on opposite ends of the country. It has no exits, no additional on-ramps, and no rest stops (this is fictional, remember). While it might be a fast way to get from state "A" to state "B" it ultimately is not that practical or functional. It's a bottleneck with only one place to get on, forcing everyone to the same entrance point.

Now, the CAIA might look like that one gigantic highway, just scaled down to four traffic lanes, but it has plenty of connections, exits, and ways for people to utilize it from wherever they are along the way. It might take a little longer, but, from a long-term perspective, it's building a functional foundation that might better withstand the shifting political winds of Washington.

For asphalt producers, the CAIA seemingly means more ways to plug into federal funding over time, rather than racing to qualify for a single round of short-lived grants.

How The CAIA Picks Up Where The IRA Left Off

While the objectives between the two bills aligns, the most significant addition created by the CAIA are long-term market commitments in the form of advance purchase authorizations. This is one of those metaphorical and literal on-ramps. Rather than the one-time cash infusion of the IRA, the CAIA sets up a system for ongoing, multi-year procurement contracts for low-carbon materials.

By giving suppliers a more predictable roadmap for future demand, it directly responds to a gap noted by experts during the post-IRA period, which were, perhaps, too short-term to convince asphalt and cement producers to invest in deep decarbonization. With CAIA's multi-year contracts to lower the financial risk for such investments, producers have the stability to innovate knowing that states will buy their product over a period of years. 

Vadim (AdobeStock_308116482)

Research And Development For The Future Of Roadbuilding

Another big difference here is a focus on future needs and impacts, not just the issues in the extreme present. The IRA's provisions largely focused on immediate deployment. Shovel-ready projects and the procurement of existing low-carbon materials were primed to take immediate advantage of the glut of funding. 

By contrast, the CAIA heavily emphasizes new research and development methodologies, pipelines of innovation, time for proper testing of new materials, and scaling-up demand along with production. To accomplish this it requires the creation of a Department of Energy (DOE) led research program covering everything from new forms of carbon capture to novel mix designs. 

Additionally, it calls for the creation of not one, but two manufacturing institutes devoted solely to low-emission concrete and asphalt. This is intended to ensure the industry doesn't settle for current techniques and products, but is future-focused on new technologies. 

A Unified Strategy And Approach

While the IRA did inject hefty funds into various government agencies (DOT, EPA, GSA, etc) to use low-carbon materials, it did not explicitly outline a unified strategy on how to go about doing that. 

The "how" was largely left up to each standalone entity. The CAIA changes that by bringing the agencies together (Energy, Transportation, Defense, GSA, NIST) to share data, construct a set of common goals, set clear plans in place, and clear whatever regulatory hurdles might arise jointly. 

How this might benefit contractors is through the alignment of military and civilian standards and pooling federal and state purchasing power through a more coordinated Buy Clean effort than what was present in the IRA.

Climate Reform Ambition Vs. Politically Conscious Framing

This new bipartisan bill explicitly aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). It is a green bill by any other name, and as we've detailed here, it includes much of the same language, if not similar architecture, to its legislative predecessor. And it has large bi-partisan support, as well as support from the broader industry.

Nile Elam, VP of Government Affairs for NAPA, who worked on the CAIA's parent bill (IMPACT Act) from its origination said:

[It's] a great example of industry and policy stakeholders coming together to identify and execute an idea that strives for environmental stewardship without sacrificing the great work asphalt producers have prioritized, and continue to prioritize, regarding low-carbon pavements and innovative technology deployments. We will continue to work on the IMPACT Act in the Senate and work with our friends in Congress on more pragmatic bills to achieve our industry's sustainability goals.

Brad Townsend, VP of Policy and Outreach at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), spoke regarding the bills tools to help the industry decarbonize: 

The Concrete and Asphalt Innovation Act provides critical tools needed to decarbonize concrete, cement, and asphalt while ensuring continued U.S. leadership in the production of materials that are vital to the buildings and infrastructure that supports our economy. Importantly, the legislation recognizes the role that the federal and state governments play in unlocking innovation and addressing regulatory barriers to low-carbon materials as the largest buyers of concrete, cement, and asphalt.

While both legislative efforts aim to cut emissions, where they, perhaps, diverge the most is in its messaging and constraints. The IRA's low-carbon material grants were attached to strict climate safeguards, for instance: The low-carbon materials grants could not be utilized for projects that were intended for road or lane expansions which have shown to increase overall local emissions through things like induced demand. 

Vadim (AdobeStock_342500043)The CAIA does not have such explicit prohibitions attached to its' funding, it doesn't matter how the roads are built or expanded, because it's focus is solely on that of the emissions related to the materials themselves. What happens downstream is not taken into account.  The bill is framed in a bipartisan manner to emphasize its job creation, industrial strengthening, and, for lack of a better term, American production exceptionalism by-way-of improved production efficiencies. 

If these terms were on a recipe card and I was cooking dinner, you might think I was cooking up climate change goals for supper. That's because while the substance of the bill aligns with familiar, and much needed, climate goals, the messaging is implicitly targeting more economically-driven language, compared to the IRA's specifically climate-focused messaging.

This type of rebranding, while it can be politically effective, it does have some potential drawbacks out in the real world. The federal clawback of unspent IRA funds practically defunded low-carbon grants for roads all together, and effectively gutted a lot of the IRA's "buy clean" monies upon taking office. The CAIA, while sharing the same policy goals (to make concrete, asphalt, etc. greener) is going about it with a lot less funding.

Also, voluntary adoption by state DOTs may be softer than anticipated in the absence of federal mandates, resulting in policy underachievement. An additional, related risk if that happens is that the CAIA, as well as its substantive goals, may later come under attack and be deemed "ineffective" when, in reality, the mix-messaging and significantly reduced funding put it at a greater disadvantage. 

For example, the GSA and DOT were already implementing several IRA-funded low-carbon procurement pilots, but then those funds were cancelled. However, states may soon be told to start up new pilots of their own through the CAIA. One hand removed the funding, while the other offers new (smaller) funds for essentially the same projects.

Taking The Good With The Bad

A concerning problem that both the IRA and the CAIA share is a practical one: verification. How do these low-carbon materials get classified and confirmed as such? Who decides these thresholds? This is where the creation of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) come into play, made from voluntarily submitted data sets for individual mix-designs, and lifecycle analysis. These rely heavily on participation and accuracy, and thus are open to possibly flawed data and/or gaps in regionally specific information.

Without a doubt, The IRA set the template for using federal spending to drive a "buy clean" paradigm shift, and the CAIA follows closely in its footsteps.  The changes mostly involve changes to strategy and longevity, hopefully creating a more sustainable framework that will outlast both pieces of legislation. 

In effect, the "buy clean" initiative has undergone a reboot, shifting away from heavy investment toward a more phased, business-friendly approach. Whether or not this accelerates the type of technological innovation and climate progress the CAIA was written for remains to be seen.