logo
Republicans say EVs don't pay their fair share. Here's the math.

Republicans say EVs don't pay their fair share. Here's the math.

Boston Globe05-05-2025

'It overburdens one particular group of vehicles and consumers,' said Ben Prochazka, executive director of the Electrification Coalition, a nonprofit group that promotes EVs. 'And frankly it won't solve the problem because it won't generate enough revenue.'
Advertisement
Republicans counter that EV owners don't pay the federal gas tax, a major source of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, which covers the costs of road repairs nationwide. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993 or adjusted for inflation. At the same time, EV adoption has increased, and gas cars have become more fuel-efficient, drying up revenue. The Highway Trust Fund is projected to become insolvent by 2028 unless Congress intervenes.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'For far too long, EVs have operated on our nation's roads without paying into this system,' said Rep. Sam Graves (R-Missouri), who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 'Plain and simple, this is a fairness issue, and it's time these roadway users pay their share for the use of the road.'
Advertisement
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Arkansas), who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, also framed the measure as a matter of fairness.
'There's zero tax on the EVs,' Westerman said. 'They're paying nothing to use the infrastructure. EVs drive for free on the roads, whereas if you're driving an internal combustion engine vehicle, every time you fill up, you're putting money into the Highway Trust Fund.'
The proposal comes as EVs face increasing headwinds.
Congressional Republicans are likely to revoke the federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for new EV purchases. At the same time, the Trump administration has ordered a halt to a nationwide EV charging program and moved to repeal tailpipe emissions rules that would have pushed automakers to make more EVs.
The Transportation Committee voted last week to approve the proposal, which would also impose an annual $100 fee on drivers of hybrid vehicles. If enacted, these fees could help raise more than $38 billion over the next decade, according to committee aides.
But according to calculations by Consumer Reports, the $250 fee is more than double what the owner of even the most gas-guzzling vehicle would pay in fuel taxes - and more than triple the amount paid by the average new gas car driver.
At a federal gas tax rate of 18.4 cents per gallon, a new gas car getting 28 miles per gallon and driving around 11,000 miles a year would pay $73 annually into the Highway Trust Fund.
'EV drivers want to pay their fair share,' said Ingrid Malmgren, senior policy director for Plug In America, a group that advocates for EV drivers. 'But they don't want to be punished.'
Advertisement
Regardless of what Congress decides, at least 39 states have already imposed registration fees on residents who drive EVs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Those fees vary widely. In some states, such as Texas, the EV fee is $120 more than the equivalent gas tax levied by the state. In others, such as California, EV drivers pay $170 less than the equivalent gas tax.
EV fees far outstrip the gas tax in several states that typically elect Republicans, including Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming. But this phenomenon also persists in some blue states, such as New Jersey, which began charging EV drivers a $250 fee last year.
The Transportation Committee initially planned a $200 annual fee for EV drivers and a $20 annual fee for drivers of gas cars. But the panel eventually increased the fee on EV drivers and abandoned the tax on gas car drivers altogether due to opposition from some Republicans.
'It's easy to pick on a small minority,' said Chris Harto, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, noting that EV drivers represent just 2 percent of drivers on the road. 'But this is a much bigger problem and needs a much bigger solution.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'
Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'

The 'one big, beautiful bill' may not be so singular, after all. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is teasing follow-up legislation to the megabill of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that Republicans can push though using the same special budget reconciliation process that requires only GOP votes. That tool can be used once per fiscal year, with the current fiscal year ending on Sept. 30. So after Republicans are done with the 'big, beautiful bill,' the GOP trifecta has, in theory, two more shots to muscle through party-line legislation before the next Congress comes into power after the midterms. Johnson floated plans for a second reconciliation bill while rebutting concerns from deficit hawks on the budget impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which includes an extension of tax cuts and boosts to border and defense funding, with costs offset in part by new requirements on low-income assistance programs like Medicaid and food aid. 'Everyone here wants to reduce spending,' Johnson said Friday morning on CNBC. 'But you have to do that in a sequence of events. We have a plan, OK? This is the first of a multistep process.' 'We're going to have another reconciliation bill that follows this one, possibly a third one before this Congress is up, because you can have a reconciliation bill for each budget year, each fiscal year. So that's ahead of us,' Johnson continued, also pointing to separate plans to claw back money based on recommendations from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'We're also doing rescissions packages. We got the first one delivered this week from the White House, and that will codify many of the DOGE cuts.' The promise of another reconciliation bill is somewhat surprising given the crux of the debate that dominated the early weeks of the year: Should Republicans divide up their agenda into two bills, passing the first quickly to give Trump an early win on boosting funding for border enforcement and deportations? Or would putting all of Trump's priorities into one bill — which would contain both bitter pills and sweeteners for different factions of the razor-thin majority — be a better political strategy? Trump eventually said he preferred 'one big, beautiful bill,' a moniker that became the legislation's official title in the House last month. It's not clear what would be in a second piece of legislation. Multiple House Republicans who spoke with The Hill were unaware of plans for more reconciliation bills and were not sure what could be included in them. 'I think we need to see what's left on the table after the first one,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said. And to muster through multiple reconciliation bills is a delicate prospect. If members know more reconciliation bills are coming, that complicates the argument that everything in the current package — even policies some factions dislike that others love — need to stay in one megabill. The Speaker declined to elaborate on what might be in such a package when asked in a press conference last week. 'I'm not going to tell you that,' Johnson said. 'Let's get the first one done.' 'Look, I say this is the beginning of a process, and what you're going to see is a continuing of us identifying waste, fraud, abuse in government, which is our pledge of common sense, restoring common sense and fiscal sanity. So we have lots of ideas of things that might be in that package.' Republicans had started planning for the current legislative behemoth months before the 2024 election so they would be prepared to quickly execute on their policy wish list if they won the majority. 'This isn't something we just drew up overnight. So, we'll go through that same laborious process,' Johnson said. But some members have ideas of what else they'd like to see. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said that he'd hope a second bill would do more to tackle rolling back green energy tax credits and make further spending cuts. Ultimately, though, it will be Trump's call, Norman said: 'I know when the president gets involved, it adds a lot of value.' And Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) speculated that passing the 'big, beautiful bill' would inspire members to keep going with another bill. 'People like the feeling of winning,' Pfluger said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Republicans Offer Cowardly Lack Of Pushback To Hegseth Suggesting Marines Could Quell Protests
Republicans Offer Cowardly Lack Of Pushback To Hegseth Suggesting Marines Could Quell Protests

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Republicans Offer Cowardly Lack Of Pushback To Hegseth Suggesting Marines Could Quell Protests

Congressional Republicans have offered a disturbing lack of pushback to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggesting that active-duty Marines could be sent to quell immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles. 'I don't think that's heavy-handed,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said when asked about Hegseth's proposal on ABC News's 'This Week.' Hegseth raised the idea in a post on X Saturday evening, writing, 'If violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized.' His remarks come after President Donald Trump ordered National Guard troops to Los Angeles on Saturday, a move that's not typically made without the support of a state's governor, which he does not currently have. The White House has claimed that it took this step because it's addressing violence at these protests that targeted ICE offices and agents, while California leaders have said that they don't needthe troops. The deployment of active-duty Marines would be another major escalation and a move that's rarely employed by a president in response to protests. 'The deployment of active-duty troops under federal authority in response to civil unrest is a rare step, one that usually requires the president to find under the Insurrection Act that they are needed to enforce the law or restore order,' write The Wall Street Journal's Eliza Collins and Nancy A. Youssef. 'The George H.W. Bush administration deployed US Marines to help restore order after violent protests erupted in California in the wake of the 1992 acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King…[marking] the last invocation of the Insurrection Act.' During Trump's first term, Defense Secretary Mark Esper stated that active duty military should only be used to respond to protests in 'the most urgent and dire of situations,' and that 'we are not in one of those situations now,' breaking with the president. Rather than criticizing Hegseth's post about Marines, however, Johnson and other Republicans have either been open to the idea or declined to denounce it. 'You don't think sending Marines into the streets of an American city is heavy handed?' ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl asked Johnson. 'We have to be prepared to do what is necessary and I think the notice that that might happen might have the deterring effect,' Johnson responded. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) also declined to repudiate the idea directly, when asked about it on CNN's 'State of the Union.' Instead, he said 'it won't be necessary,' because the National Guard's response will be sufficient. And Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) downplayed the role of the Marines in a possible response without rejecting Hegseth's statement out of hand. 'Active-duty Marines are not going to be put into local law enforcement,' Lankford said on NBC News's 'Meet the Press.' 'They would be in support roles on it, as we have at the border. We have active-duty military at the border, but they're not doing law enforcement tasks. They're doing logistical tasks behind the scenes.' 'Local law enforcement should take care of this, but again when you're seeing burning cars and federal law enforcement and law enforcement being attacked on the streets…we want to make sure those protests don't spiral out of control,' Lankford said. Democrats have emphasized that Trump's use of the National Guard is only adding tension in Los Angeles, and have been incredulous at the possibility of active-duty military being sent in as well. 'The Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens,' Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote in a Sunday post on X. 'This is deranged behavior.'

DNC chair on leaked call says Hogg ‘essentially destroyed' initial credibility
DNC chair on leaked call says Hogg ‘essentially destroyed' initial credibility

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

DNC chair on leaked call says Hogg ‘essentially destroyed' initial credibility

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said in a recent party meeting that Vice Chair David Hogg has 'essentially destroyed' his chances of leading the DNC successfully, according to leaked audio obtained by Politico. Martin seemed to get choked up as he addressed Hogg, who rose to national prominence as a gun control activist and has pledged to primary Democrats he sees as ineffective in pushing back against President Trump and the GOP. 'No one knows who the hell I am, right? I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to, to put ourselves in a position to win,' Martin told other DNC leaders on the call. 'And again, I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership what I need to. It's really frustrating,' Martin said. Politico reported that the conversation took place on a Zoom meeting of DNC officers on May 15, a few days after the DNC recommended new elections on procedural grounds for seats held by Hogg and one other vice chair. Members will decide on Monday whether to hold new elections. In the recording, Martin told Hogg that he respected the progressive activist but said the intraparty drama has led him to question whether it's worth continuing in the post. 'I'll say, look, it has plenty of warts, and we're all trying to change those, for sure, but the longer we continue this fight, the harder it is for us to actually do what we all want to do, which is make a difference in this country again,' Martin said in the meeting. 'So I deeply respect you, David. I, too, was looking forward to working with you, but this has created a situation, and I'll be very honest with you, for the first time in my 100 days on this job … the other night, I said to myself, for the first time, I don't know if I want to do this anymore.' In a statement to The Hill, Martin said, 'I'm not going anywhere.' 'I took this job to fight Republicans, not Democrats. As I said when I was elected, our fight is not within the Democratic Party, our fight is and has to be solely focused on Donald Trump and the disastrous Republican agenda,' he said. 'That's the work that I will continue to do every day.' Symone Sanders Townsend, an MSNBC host and former Democratic adviser, came to Martin's defense in a post on the social platform X on Sunday. 'Ken Martin had a vulnerable moment w/his vice chairs & other leaders on a call. Someone recorded it + shared it. Seems to me THAT anonymous person has no business anywhere near the DNC,' she wrote. 'As a former DNC member, it's quite clear there are too many people currently in roles for the wrong reasons. From the outside looking in, I don't think Ken Martin is one of them.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store