Highway Funding Bill Includes $130 Annual Fee on Electric Vehicle Owners
This is bipartisan. Yes, even the Democrats are okay with it.
The Washington Examiner reported that the bipartisan highway funding bill includes a surprise for electric vehicle owners.
Those owners could face a $130 annual fee with a $5 increase every two years until the fee hits $150 for electric vehicles and $50 for plug-in hybrids:
Section 1129. Registration fee on motor vehicles.
This section requires the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to impose an annual registration fee to be collected by each state of $130 for a covered electric vehicle (EV) and $35 for a covered plug-in hybrid vehicle. Beginning in 2029, the Administrator is required to biennially increase both fee amounts by $5, stipulating that the fee for covered EVs will not exceed $150 and the fee for covered plug-in hybrids will not exceed $50. To ensure compliance with the requirements of this section, the Administrator is directed to withhold an amount equal to 125 percent of the amount owed from the state’s highway apportionment if a state does not comply.
“The bill also strengthens the Highway Trust Fund by ensuring all highway users pay their share for the use and improvement of the nation’s roads,” the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure wrote in its press release. “As a result, the BUILD America 250 Act injects the Highway Trust Fund with its first new stream of revenue for infrastructure in over three decades.”
Apparently, electric vehicles hinder the government’s ability to make money:
Infrastructure experts have long warned that the increased use of electric vehicles could severely deplete funding for the nation’s roads and bridges. That’s because the federal government funds upkeep for infrastructure projects through the federal gas tax — 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel.
Critics of electric vehicles have long argued that their owners use the nation’s roads and bridges, but don’t pay for the upkeep.
Remember, this is bipartisan. Yes, even the Democrats are okay with it.
“You can’t have a big-league economy with little-league infrastructure,” said Committee Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-WA). “The BUILD America 250 Act makes key investments in the nation’s transportation – from restoring aging bridges and repairing crumbling roads to building out safe, accessible transit and bike infrastructure. A commitment to bipartisan lawmaking means finding compromise; while this bill does not include every priority, I am committed to building on the last bipartisan infrastructure law by creating good-paying transportation jobs, growing the economy and safely transporting people and goods across the country by road and rail. Thank you to Chairman Graves for his partnership. I look forward to marking up this bill soon.”
Amazing.
Electric vehicle owners in Illinois already pay $100 more for a standard vehicle registration, which is $151.
The Democrats want them to pay a $320 surcharge. That means the EV owners would pay $471 per year in Illinois.
I’ll stick with my 100% gas-powered Toyota 4Runner.
Here’s a report from North Carolina. The states already get to you. Here comes Uncle Sam!
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
less taxation! is better
want to destroy the communistnazi dnc??
more capitalism lower taxes and non stop ads on their hate for blks!
A use fee for a constitutionally mandated purpose such as federal infrastructure is well… constitutional.
This is EV paying its fair share for road use.
The only reference I see to “federal infrastructure” in the constitution is Congress’s authority to establish post roads, which I guess would cover the highway system.
Since the postal service runs on pretty much every inch of roads in America I guess they could all broadly be construed as “post roads” although there is an actual Post Road, Rt 1.
I say we should have a day when every state votes for one local/state and federal politician to be included into the road paving in the upcoming year.
In Michigan we had a politician in the upper peninsula who was the ranking road chairman. He played heavy favorites for the UP.
As for the rest of the politicians I’m not sure they weren’t taking gas tax money to cover their vote buying. Look at rush hour and ask yourself how the taxes can’t be funding world class road work every year.
Good! About time.
My son will go crazy, he has a Tesla
Gas tax
.45 /gallon in TN
1.26 / gallon in Wa
Moderate miles per year 10k (so more some less)
20 miles/ gallon for a SUV / non hybrid… 12 for a truck
4o for your garden variety hybrid
use the 20 for the math….
in TN that 225/year in gas taxes for the SUV
in Wa thats 650.
ot interesting story: a jewish fundraising commercial put on hold:
Orange County Superior Court Judge Gassia Apkarian issued the May 8 ruling against Kars4Kids and its jingle featuring children dancing and singing. The decision came in a lawsuit filed by a California man who argued that the ad prominently features young children, even though some of the proceeds are directed toward programs benefiting Israel trips for elder teens.
…. to stop broadcasting in California.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-bans-kars4kids-jingle-california-citing-misleading-advertising-rcna345648
Ridiculous decision. Only an idiot would see an ad featuring 10-year-olds and assume that the funds being raised were only for kids of that age and not anyone younger or older. Suppose most of the money were going to preschools, or neonatal clinics, would the donors have been misled?!
Likewise no one automatically assumes a charity they give to is based in their state, and will be spending its money in that state. It doesn’t work that way. A California charity is entitled to raise money in New York, and a Florida charity is entitled to raise money in Illinois.
Helping underprivileged kids (whether they’re 6 or 16) go to summer camp and learn something about their heritage is a legitimate charitable purpose, and it makes no difference if those are Christian camps, or sport camps, or whatever.
I actually donated a car last year to Kars4Kids. They were very professional with multiple calls, emails explaining the process, follow ups and the guy who came to tow it was also really nice. That the money goes to fund jewish causes was a surprise to me as none of the ads point it out but when I went to the website it’s right there in black and white.
Yes. It’s not a detail that has to be prominently advertised, because it shouldn’t matter to most people.
Most Americans have a benevolent view of religion in general, regardless of which specific one it is, so long as it doesn’t make any demands of them; and they see sending underprivileged kids to any kind of camp as a good thing.
Well sure, sending kids to ‘summer camp’ is great. Though invoking ‘summer camp’ for most people conjures an image of kids at ‘Camp Hiawatha’ somewhere in rural USA for kids aged 8-14. It definitely doesn’t extend to international trips for teenagers old enough to hold a job. IMO that seems a bit deceptive. More transparency and disclosure of exactly who, what, when, where, how funds are used by ALL charities is needed across the board. I’d also argue for a cap on ‘admin costs/salaries’ to qualify as a charity set at 10%. Far too many examples of grifters fundraising by tugging heartstrings/ideology then spending 1/2 or more on themselves.
Didn’t matter to me. The entire lawsuit is silly to me because, although they don’t put it in the radio jingles, it’s right there on their website for everyone to see. They are not hiding the ball.
Imus regularly deplored that ad on his show as a ripoff, nothing charitable about it. They certainly have had funds to run the add all over for more than two decades.
Electric cars are heavier than their gas-powered equivalents, because of their battery packs. It follows that they cause more road wear, as a result, and thus their owners should pay more, for road maintenance.
This is just paying normal since they don’t pay gas tax.
It’s not even that because the amount they drive along with the excess road damage doesn’t equal the gas tax everyone else pays. Throw in the electric vehicle tax rebate and they have been getting off scott free for a long time.
guyjones:
This is true but also irrelevant. The weight of ANY passenger car (or even ginormous SUV’s) is completely negligible for causing damage to pavements.
Essentially 100% of the road wear and damage caused by vehicles (as opposed to freeze/thaw cycles) is from heavy truck traffic. Semi-truck/trailers cause almost all of the damage, and on smaller roads a significant portion of the damage comes (curiously enough) from construction vehicles like dump trucks, side-dumpers, and front-end loaders.
If we want vehicles to pay “their fair share” based on how much damage they do to the roadways then it should be based strictly on gross (fully-loaded) weight divided by the number of wheels. This would, of course, literally make over-the-road trucking impossibly expensive, so we just have to accept the fact that the gas and diesel taxes paid by passenger vehicle owners are subsidizing the interstate freeway system.
My touring motorcycle, bare, weighs in at around 800 pounds; fully loaded (two people and gear) it’s probably upwards of 1,200 pounds…divide that by two wheels and it’s 600 lb/wheel. Compare that to a Miata at 2,100 pounds over 4 wheels for 525 lb/wheel, and my bike should be paying more than that car.
Run those numbers for a 40-foot semi and see what you get.
“ The bill also strengthens the Highway Trust Fund by ensuring all highway users pay their share for the use and improvement of the nation’s roads”
Is that something like the social security lockbox?
Have changed it back to that the highway trust fund? They called it the transportation trust fund so they could raid for bicycle paths, and mass transit systems.
Yeah. Desperately need to get the Feds out of the subsidy business for supporting subways, busses and passenger trains. If the States along the Acela corridor want to retain passenger rail service they can pony up the needed funds to pay for it.
Nope, at least not in design. Fuel taxes and user fees (commercial trucks/big rigs pay lots of extras with fees for trailer, tires and so on. The funds are basically collected and go out the door to cover spending on projects. It’s more of an escrow account than a TF. Though in 2032 when the SSA has redeemed all the bonds from Treasury from past years the SSA will likewise be operating on current year funding basis from payroll taxes but will come up about 25% short of what is needed to pay benefits. Medicare likewise but that will only be roughly a 10-12% shortfall.
It’s a good thing the government be lookin out for the common folk like this. A real good thing they done it.
If you bought electric, you’re an idiot. Call it a dumbass tax.
Not good before an election
The fundamental reason for a road tax is to obtain funding for bridge and highway construction and repair. Until the advent of the EV the fairest way to collect that money based on gasoline used, the assumption being that volume of gas used is a function of vehicle size and weight or miles traveled or a mixture of both. Since EV’s do use the roads they should contribute to their maintenance. The flat fee approach is much easier to administer than some calculated formula based on vehicle weight and miles traveled as that would require burdensome administrative needs.
Two thoughts. The average EV owner is a Democrat who wasn’t voting Republican anyway, and frankly most EV’s are in blue states .
Next, I believe that it will be the insurance companies who kill off EV’s because any accident which impinges on the battery area often results in the car being totaled since the battery must be replaced for liability reasons.
One thing the left has never explained in their insane fetish to force everyone into electric vehicles is how they are going to replace that gas tax which funds quite a bit of stuff. That dirty surprise would have waited until a critical mass was reached then the real fun would have begun as they would have switched to a mileage tax.
Don’t worry – a mileage tax is next on their list.
I think part of their think…scheme was that milage tax maybe that was even easier to obtain ( the info) via electric cars
These SOBs take over half my income in various taxes. They nickel and dime me more and more every year. I must pay tax on my catch up 401k deduction and put it in a Roth. I am phased out of deducting more than 10k for the SALT deduction, now they are phasing out the AMT exemption at twice the rate. They screwed us a few years back with the IRA stretch. Not content to just raise rates they invent every new fee imaginable and sneakily take away every benefit if you are just half-assed successful and call you rich.
The SALT deduction should have been abolished altogether. The 10K cap is a compromise, but it’s a bad idea. People in high tax states and cities should bear the full burden of those taxes, so they have an incentive to vote for politicians who promise to reduce them. The rest of the country shouldn’t be subsidizing them.
Philosophically agree 100%. SALT tax too high? Stop voting for local and State politicians who are putting on those taxes and stop looking for Federal government/taxpayer subsidies to lower the pain.
As part of the comprise last year the SALT deduction cap of 10K was raised to $40K. Rep Lawler, of NY was one of the prime movers for getting the increased SALT deduction cap.
Try again. The limit is still $10,000 if you make a decent income. Only relatively poor people can deduct the 40k- another sleazy trick! Nobody is subsidizing me if I deduct the money stolen from me by local hoodlums before paying juice to the federal crooks. It is my money! I am supposed to pay $37,000 in tax on the $100,000 Mass income tax I pay that never sees my pocket? Get stuffed.
You beat me to it. If folks paying thousands per MONTH in property taxes don’t like it, they need to deal with it.
1000%!
As noted above, their low gas usage reduces EV owners tax contributions to highways and bridges. EVs have magnets that require rare earth materials used in military weapons (e.g. F-35). Disposal is an environmental concern. And a large percentage of owners seem to be jerks on the road.
EV owners have to pay their fair share!
If we REALLY want EV’s to pay ‘their fair share’ we need to look into “disposal fees” for the costs of disposing of damage or worn-out lithium (et al) vehicle batteries. They can’t be disassembled and recycled, they can’t be simply buried in landfills and as for just piling them up somewhere like old tires, well they burn better, hotter, and longer than old tires with the bonus that sooner or later any stack of old EV batteries is likely to self-ignite.
Quite seriously the EPA should be establishing standards and procedures for disposal before this becomes a real problem.
EVs or hybrids should not be given subsidies by the government. Insurance companies are increasingly writing off these vehicles when they have any accident that damages any part of the battery, thus causing the vehicle to be a waste and the battery to go to a landfill. These vehicles are too rough on roads and tires making the extra costs to be valid. The only question is whether it should be done via Federal or by the state or by both. I think it should be by both, but I only own gas vehicles.
This seems about right for the fee
I sold my airplane in the 70s when the state and feds starting putting an annual tax on it and adding requirements. Okay not fun anymore.
In my humble opinion, one of the few legitimate purposes of government is to maintain the transportation infrastructure necessary for free travel, trade and national security.
With that in mind, notwithstanding that the money collected probably won’t be used for that, I approve. Why should EV owners be able to use the roads without paying for their share of upkeep and maintenance?
Of course, the alternative is tolls and with automated payment technology, that’s becoming more efficient, but then you run into privacy issues. Do you really want the government to be able to have a ready database of tracking information on you every time you drive on a federally maintained highway?
Anyway, the point is, however they do it, if the goal is to have people who use the roads pay to maintain them, an alternative to the gas tax for EVs is necessary…and people who pay the federal gas tax pay a heck of a lot more than $150 a year.