logo
EV owners don't pay gas taxes. So, many states are charging them fees.

EV owners don't pay gas taxes. So, many states are charging them fees.

Boston Globe27-01-2025

Advertisement
The fees are an attempt to make up for declining revenue from gasoline taxes that electric cars, for obvious reasons, don't pay. They're an example of how governments are struggling to adjust to technological upheaval in the auto industry.
Environmentalists and consumer groups agree that electric vehicle owners should help pay for road maintenance and construction. But they worry that Republicans, who control Congress, would set the fee at extremely high levels to punish electric vehicle owners, who tend to be liberals.
That has already happened in Texas and other states, said Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports who focuses on transportation and energy.
'EV owners should contribute to paying for the roads that they use,' he said. But, he added, 'in some cases, states are implementing fees that are pretty punitive to EV drivers, significantly more than what the owner of a gas vehicle would pay.'
Flat fees are also unfair to low-income drivers or people who don't drive very much, making it even harder for them to buy cars that pollute less, Harto and others said. Federal and state gasoline and diesel taxes are levied per gallon, so that people who drive more — or own gas guzzlers — automatically pay more.
The main reason that revenue from fuel taxes has declined is that internal combustion engines have become much more efficient, while political leaders have been reluctant to raise fuel taxes to keep up with inflation.
Advertisement
The federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon has not been increased since 1993. The Highway Trust Fund, which finances transportation projects from proceeds of that tax, could become insolvent by 2027 without new sources of funding, analysts say. A list of tax and spending policies that Republicans in Congress are considering includes imposing fees on electric vehicles to help replenish the Highway Trust Fund.
There are 5.4 million electric vehicles on US roads, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an industry group. But that is roughly 2 percent of the total and not the main cause of revenue gaps.
'Lawmakers are finding a convenient scapegoat, and penalizing the cleanest vehicles on the road while ignoring the real cause of the shortfall,' said Max Baumhefner, director for electric vehicle infrastructure at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Some of the highest electric vehicle fees are in states that usually elect Republicans, like Texas, Wyoming and Ohio, all of which charge $200 a year on top of the regular registration fee.
Robert Nichols, a Republican state senator in Texas who sponsored legislation in 2023 establishing a fee, said that the amount was determined by analyzing how much the average owner of a gasoline vehicle pays.
'It's not an anti-EV thing. We've got Tesla right here in Texas and we're very proud,' he said, referring to the electric car maker, which has its headquarters and a factory in Austin. 'But everybody needs to pay for the road.'
Texas is among the states singled out by Consumer Reports for overcharging electric vehicle drivers. The organization cites Texas' relatively low gas tax of 20 cents a gallon, well below the national average of about 50 cents.
Advertisement
Nichols acknowledged that lawmakers were reluctant to raise taxes on drivers of gasoline cars. 'Nobody wants that on their tombstone: 'Raised the gas tax,'' he said.
But increasingly, electric vehicle fees are not just a red state phenomenon. New Jersey, where the gasoline tax is more than twice as high as in Texas, began charging electric vehicle owners a $250 fee last year. Washington, which charges $150 and an additional $75 'transportation electrification fee,' is as progressive as any blue state.
In Vermont, lawmakers passed a fee law last year because they were concerned that growing numbers of electric vehicles posed a risk to state finances, said Patrick Murphy, state policy director at the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
'Legislators recognized that we are nearing the tipping point where EV adoption has become mainstream in Vermont,' he said.
Electric vehicles accounted for 12 percent of new car sales in Vermont last year, above the national average of 8 percent. Murphy noted that fees collected from electric vehicle owners are earmarked for infrastructure like chargers. At $89 a year above the standard registration fee, Vermont's fee is also at the low end of what states charge.
People on both sides of the debate agree that a fairer system would charge electric vehicle owners per mile driven. But doing that is complicated. Some states are experimenting with technology that tracks mileage and bills owners accordingly. But the systems are expensive and raise privacy issues.
A flat fee is 'not perfect,' Nichols acknowledged. 'But it makes a big step forward. It's fair without setting up a huge bureaucracy.'
Advertisement
Some states, including Iowa, Georgia and Kentucky, tax electric vehicle chargers. But that system misses a lot of cars. Most people charge at home, using public chargers only occasionally.
States that don't charge electric cars higher fees include Alaska, Arizona, New York and Massachusetts, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In 2026, Vermont plans to be among the first states to try to charge electric vehicle owners based on how much they drive.
That will be relatively easy in Vermont, Murphy said, because officials already collect odometer readings when owners bring their cars in for annual safety checks. That's not the case in many states.
Even a system that tracks mileage has flaws. It taxes owners for trips in other states, and does not collect revenue from out-of-state visitors.
'The whole approach we have had is to keep things as simple as possible in the beginning, to get something in place where all vehicles are paying something for our infrastructure,' Murphy said, 'and then to evolve over time to continually make it a fairer system.'
This article originally appeared in
.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fulbright board resigns over alleged Trump administration interference
Fulbright board resigns over alleged Trump administration interference

Washington Post

time14 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Fulbright board resigns over alleged Trump administration interference

The entire 12-person board tasked with overseeing the State Department's Fulbright Program resigned Wednesday, claiming political interference from the Trump administration. In a statement posted on the board's Substack, the congressionally mandated Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board said its members voted 'overwhelmingly' to resign from the board 'rather than endorse unprecedented actions that we believe are impermissible under the law, compromise U.S. national interests and integrity, and undermine the mission and mandates Congress established for the Fulbright program nearly 80 years ago.'

Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for

In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,

Poll: Majority of Democrats give thumbs-down to their leaders in Congress
Poll: Majority of Democrats give thumbs-down to their leaders in Congress

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Poll: Majority of Democrats give thumbs-down to their leaders in Congress

Most Democrats disapprove of how their party's lawmakers in Congress are handling their jobs, according to a new national poll. Fifty-three percent of Democrats questioned in a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday gave their party's congressional members a thumbs-down, while 41% approved of their performance. According to the poll, conducted June 5-8, just 21% of all voters approved of the way Democrats in Congress were handing their jobs, with seven in ten disapproving. Head Here For The Latest Fox News Polling The 21% approval is the same as in Quinnipiac's February national poll, matching "an all-time low since Quinnipiac University first asked this question of registered voters in March 2009." The survey indicates 79% of GOP voters approve of the way congressional Republicans are handling their job, with 13% disapproving. Read On The Fox News App Where Trump Stands In Fox News Polling 100 Days Into His Second Term Among all voters, 32% approved of how GOP congressional members were performing their duties, while just over six in ten disapproved. Overall approval for Republicans in Congress has dropped eight points since Quinnipiac's February poll, with disapproval jumping nine points. The Democratic Party has been in the political wilderness since November's elections, when Republicans won back control of the White House and the Senate and defended their fragile House majority. And Republicans made gains among Black, Hispanic and younger voters, all traditional members of the Democratic Party's base. Since President Donald Trump's return to power earlier this year, an increasingly energized base of Democrats is urging party leaders to take a stronger stand in pushing back against the president's sweeping and controversial agenda during the opening months of his second administration. And their anger is directed not only at Republicans, but at Democrats they feel aren't vocal enough in their opposition to Trump. And that's fueled a plunge in the Democratic Party's favorable ratings, which have hit historic lows in several surveys the past couple of months. The new poll from Quinnipiac also indicates a decline in Trump's approval ratings among voters nationwide. Thirty-eight percent of those questioned in the survey said they approve of the way the president is handling his duties, down three points from Quinnipiac's early April poll. Fifty-four percent in the new poll gave Trump a thumbs-down for his handling of his job as president, down one point from the April survey. Trump's approval ratings were mostly above water as he returned to the White House in late January, but his numbers soon slid underwater in many national surveys and remain in negative territory nearly five months into his second article source: Poll: Majority of Democrats give thumbs-down to their leaders in Congress

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