Got an EV? You Might Be Paying New Hidden Fees, Thanks to Congress
If you have listened to the evening news this week, you probably would have known that the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" early on Thursday, May 22, right before lawmakers are set to return to their districts.
The "beautiful" bill has already drawn a lot of attention due to landmark measures packed into the document, including significant tax reform based on major cuts, Medicaid and SNAP reform, increased immigration spending, and an increase to the national debt ceiling, to name just a few.
However, packed into the text of the nearly 1,000-page bill are some measures that will affect American motorists, especially those who seek to free themselves from the crutch of the gas pump. Hidden very deep in the bill's text is an amendment titled Section 10004, or "REGISTRATION FEE ON MOTOR VEHICLES." This amendment states that the federal government will impose annual registration fees of $250 for electric vehicles and $100 for hybrids, which individual states' motor vehicle departments will collect.
Lawmakers like Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), the chairman of the influential Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said after the bill was passed that such a provision would help fund the Highway Trust Fund, the main source of federal highway funding. He argues that as EV ownership increases and drivers adopt more fuel-efficient cars and hybrids, the gas tax could lose its relevance very quickly.
"The bill includes provisions from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to provide historic investments in the United States Coast Guard to strengthen our national and border security, as well as […] ensuring that electric vehicles begin contributing to the Highway Trust Fund," Graves said.
The Highway Trust Fund is funded in part through the gas tax, which is reflected in the price of gasoline and diesel fuel. Currently, the gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel, a rate that has not been raised since October 1, 1993. Graves originally tabled this provision in the US House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in late April, where it passed and was added onto the "Big Beautiful Bill" after a 36-30 vote.
Graves's proposal in the BBB will impose enforcement responsibility on the states. Specifically, states will be charged 25% on top of the calculated amount of funding they were expected to bring into the Highway Trust Fund if their motor vehicles departments do not collect the respective EV and hybrid fees.
"The Administrator shall withhold, from amounts required to be apportioned to any State under section 104(b), an amount equal to 125 percent to the amount required to be remitted under subsection (c)(2)," the bill says. "The Administrator shall withhold the amount on the first day of each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2026, in which the State does not meet the requirements of subsection (c)."
This is not the first time that congressional lawmakers have proposed some sort of "fairness" fee targeted at EV owners. In February 2025, Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) introduced the Fair Sharing of Highways and Roads for Electric Vehicles (Fair SHARE) Act, which would add a $1000 fee to EVs at the time of purchase, aimed at recouping around 10 years' worth of federal gas tax revenue per car.
However, it should be noted that this sort of doctrine has already been enforced at the state level. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 39 states have a special registration fee for EVs to recuperate lost gas tax funding.
For example, EV drivers in New Jersey, which has reached nearly 200,000 strong as of December 2024, will have to pay a $250 annual electric vehicle fee in addition to their registration fee. This fee will increase by $10 per year for four years and exceed $290 starting in 2028. New Jersey's yearly EV registration tax proceeds will fund the state's trust fund for transportation projects and NJ Transit.
It should be noted that this provision affecting EV and Hybrid drivers is sandwiched in the BBB along with dozens of other amendments affecting critical programs such as Medicaid and SNAP, as well as raising the debt ceiling. According to Politico, several Republican Senators say they'll be making changes to the BBB, as many of the provisions could affect constituents in their states.
Politics aside, looking at the numbers, it is easy to see how the shift from traditional to alternative fuels could upend decades-old rules and legislation, especially regarding the gas tax and the Highway Trust Fund. However, finding a straight-line solution will require a lot of time, work, and understanding of EVs and the needs of EV buyers by our leaders.
Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrat-controlled budget office wrongly analyzed Trump's big bill, missed record savings, White House says
The White House is challenging the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's assessment that President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and spending package will raise the federal deficit by trillions of dollars throughout the next decade. The national debt, currently $36.2 trillion, tracks what the U.S. owes its creditors, while the national deficit measures how much the federal government's spending exceeds its revenues. So far, the federal government has spent more than $1 trillion more than it has collected this fiscal year, according to the Department of the Treasury. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued an analysis Wednesday predicting that the so-called "big, beautiful, bill" the House passed in May would increase the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. But according to the White House, the CBO's analysis is based on a faulty premise because it assumes that Republicans in Congress will fail to extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts. Rather, the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) forecasts that the tax and spending measures would independently reduce deficits by $1.4 trillion. Senate Weighs Trump's 'Big, Beautiful, Bill' As Policy Group Backs Cbo, Projects $3 Trillion Debt Increase Read On The Fox News App Additionally, the White House argues that the measure, coupled with other initiatives like tariffs and other spending cuts, will lead to reducing the deficit by at least $6.6 trillion over 10 years. The "big, beautiful, bill" has faced criticism from figures including SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who labeled the measure an "abomination" and argued that the bill would increase the federal deficit. The measure now heads to the Senate, where lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-K.Y., have voiced opposition to the legislation. Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Faces Resistance From Republican Senators Over Debt Fears Meanwhile, OMB Director Russell Vought told lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday that he believed the CBO's analysis was "fundamentally wrong." "It will lead to reduced deficits and debt of $1.4 trillion," Vought said. "It will reduce mandatory savings of $1.7 trillion. I don't think the way they construct their baseline, not only does it not give a fair shake to economic growth, but it fundamentally misreads the economic consequences of not extending the current tax relief." Failure to pass Trump's tax package would trigger a recession, according to Vought. "We'll have a recession," Vought told lawmakers. "The economic storm clouds will be very dark. I think we'll have a 60% tax increase on the American people." Meanwhile, the White House has accused the CBO of employing those who've contributed to Democratic campaigns, even though CBO Director Phillip Swagel served in former President George W. Bush's administration. Price Tag Estimate For House Gop Tax Package Rises To $3.94T "I don't think many people know this: There hasn't been a single staffer in the entire Congressional Budget Office that has contributed to a Republican since the year 2000," Leavitt told reporters Tuesday. "But guess what, there have been many staffers within the Congressional Budget Office who have contributed to Democratic candidates and politicians every single cycle since. So unfortunately, this is an institution in our country that has become partisan and political." The CBO director is appointed according to the recommendations of the House and Senate Budget Committees. Then-Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, first recommended Swagel in 2019, and then Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, recommended Swagel again in 2023. The CBO did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital on OMB's analysis or claims from the White House about the office being full of staffers who've backed Democrats. Fox News' Deirdre Heavey contributed to this report. Original article source: Democrat-controlled budget office wrongly analyzed Trump's big bill, missed record savings, White House says
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sound Off: June 7, 2025
Sun Herald readers weigh in on local and national topics. My federal tax forms were filed on Feb. 6, and I was told the refund would take 'a few weeks.' Today is June 6, and still no refund. After repeatedly calling the 800 number, I personally drove to the local IRS office on Old Highway 49 in Gulfport. A security guard made me empty all my pockets and he frisked me. Then he sent me to the desk. The woman at the desk told me I had to call an 800 number to make an appointment. Is this any way to treat honest taxpayers? Orders and actions by the Trump Administration have been thwarted and obstructed by separate U.S. District Court judges around the country seven times in the past week alone. This was a publicly stated goal of left wing organizations during the election when it became clear that Trump would likely be elected. The American people are outraged by the blatant judicial overreach displayed by certain courts, issuing rulings far beyond their constitutional authority. This reckless abuse of power undermines the very foundation of our system of checks and balances and signals that parts of the judiciary have gone completely off the rails. If this continues unchecked, either the Supreme Court must intervene to restore order, or the people themselves will lose all confidence in the judiciary. Without accountability, even legitimate rulings on real crimes will be viewed with skepticism, threatening the rule of law itself. It matters not whether a judge is at the city level or a Supreme Court justice. Their job is to interpret the law and, ultimately, the constitution. Whether you, I or the president breaks the law, we are still subject to it and the ultimate law of the country, the constitution. I was wanting to give some information to the uninformed person who thinks law abiding citizens should be able to get full automatic weapons, since they say criminals have them. Law-abiding citizens already can get fully automatic weapons. They are just heavily regulated, limited in number, and very expensive. Criminals do not have them, and that is why we don't see them used in crimes. I apologize in advance for any harm caused by introducing facts and reality into your liberal echo chamber. The CDC says guns are the number one killer of children. Christians who claim to be pro-life need to really examine their position on gun safety regulations. How much money have you made betting on President Trump to flip-flop on tariffs? And if the answer is nothing, it's time to get on the train. Send your Sound Offs to soundoff@
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump loyalty is now part of job application
More than six million Americans are still looking for work, according to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Amid ongoing economic uncertainty, the federal government remains one of the country's most active employers, with open roles for nurses, actuaries, physicists, engineers and IT professionals listed at But prospective applicants may notice something different about the application process in 2025. Alongside typical questions about experience and qualifications, some federal job forms now ask about an applicant's alignment with presidential policy priorities, raising concerns about political screening in what are supposed to be nonpartisan civil service roles. Under guidance issued by the Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCOC), part of a broader federal hiring overhaul, applicants may be asked to explain how they would help implement specific executive orders or initiatives. One question currently being used reads: 'How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.' This directive is connected to an executive order President Donald Trump that emphasizes 'merit-based' hiring over previous diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations. The administration stated that these changes are intended to root out political bias and ensure a more ideologically aligned workforce. Critics argue that these practices resemble loyalty tests, particularly as questions of commitment to the Constitution and the President's policies appeared in job applications. Earlier this year, multiple government agencies experienced layoffs of employees who were seen as insufficiently aligned with current leadership, even in traditionally apolitical roles. Historical parallels have been raised. During the McCarthy era in the 1950s, public servants and private citizens alike were pressured to prove their loyalty to the U.S. government to root out suspected communists. Accusations and investigations often targeted personal beliefs rather than actions, leading to widespread firings, blacklisting and surveillance. Civil service roles in the U.S. were originally designed to serve the Constitution and the public, not individual officeholders. Federal employees take an oath to uphold the Constitution, a foundational distinction meant to separate American governance from monarchic or authoritarian systems. Whether the latest hiring guidelines are a temporary shift or a lasting transformation of the federal workforce remains to be seen. For now, job seekers interested in federal positions may want to prepare answers not just about their skills but about their stance on presidential policy.
