US: "Senate Republicans Propose $1000 Tax on EVs to Fund Road Repair" - article

[Gino]

Meh. Sounds like ruse to discourage EV sales. And the Senator from Nebraska should be intelligent enough to know the cancelled spendings from the DOGE findings are far more beneficial for the US Treasury than the revenue from this new tax.

Oh, wait...

Assuming intelligence of Senators is a scary proposition…

 

[Elroy]

Senate Republicans Propose $1000 Tax on Electric Vehicles to Fund Road Repair

But it's not just closing the flow of tax credits on these senators' minds. Going forward, EV owners would be charged a one-time $1000 fee at purchase under the proposed rules.

Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) explained that this fee would recoup around 10 years' worth of federal gas tax revenue per car. Federal gas taxes, which were first imposed under the Hoover administration in 1932, are almost exclusively used to maintain and repair roads. The same is true for many states around the country — which poses a future funding problem for transportation agencies as EV adoption increases and gas tax revenue decreases.

"EVs can weigh up to three times as much as gas-powered cars, creating more wear and tear on our roads and bridges," Fischer said.

Why the Proposed $1,000 EV Fee is Shortsighted and Counterproductive





The proposed $1,000 fee on electric vehicle (EV) purchases is an unfair and shortsighted measure that undermines the transition to cleaner transportation. While lawmakers justify this fee as a way to recoup lost gas tax revenue, they fail to consider the broader environmental, public health, and economic benefits of EVs over internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Here’s why this proposal is flawed and counterproductive:





1. EVs Reduce Pollution and Improve Public Health





ICE vehicles are among the largest contributors to air pollution, emitting carbon dioxide (COâ‚‚), nitrogen oxides (NOâ‚“), and particulate matter (PM2.5), which degrade air quality and contribute to respiratory diseases, heart conditions, and premature deaths. Studies have shown that vehicle emissions cause tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. annually, especially in urban areas where air pollution is concentrated.





By contrast, EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, significantly reducing air pollution and associated health risks. Shifting to EVs leads to cleaner air, lower healthcare costs, and a better quality of life. Penalizing EV owners with a $1,000 fee effectively discourages people from choosing a cleaner and healthier alternative to gas-powered cars.





2. The Climate Crisis Demands Immediate Action





Transportation accounts for nearly 30% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest single source of climate pollution. The science is clear: we need to drastically cut carbon emissions to mitigate climate change. EVs, especially when powered by renewable energy, have a far lower carbon footprint over their lifetime than ICE vehicles.





By discouraging EV adoption, this tax props up an outdated, polluting transportation model at a time when we need to accelerate the shift toward sustainability. Instead of penalizing EVs, lawmakers should focus on policies that encourage renewable energy use, expand EV infrastructure, and incentivize cleaner transportation.





3. EVs Are More Energy Efficient and Reduce Dependence on Fossil Fuels





EVs convert about 77% of the energy from the grid to power at the wheels, while gasoline vehicles operate at only 12-30% efficiency, losing the majority of their energy as heat. This means that EVs require far less energy to operate, reducing overall resource consumption.





Additionally, ICE vehicles perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels, increasing energy volatility and geopolitical risk. EVs, on the other hand, promote energy independence by allowing consumers to power their vehicles through domestic renewable sources such as wind and solar.





4. EVs Already Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes





One of the main arguments for the $1,000 fee is that EVs don’t contribute to road maintenance through gas taxes. However, many states already impose EV registration fees specifically to offset lost gas tax revenue. These fees range from $50 to over $200 per year, meaning that EV owners are already paying their fair share.





Moreover, while some EVs may weigh more than their gasoline counterparts due to battery packs, they do not cause disproportionate road damage. The majority of road wear is caused by heavy commercial vehicles, such as semi-trucks, not passenger cars. If weight-based road wear is truly the concern, lawmakers should focus on taxing the actual culprits—heavy freight trucks—not penalizing consumers choosing a cleaner mode of transportation.





5. The U.S. Risks Falling Behind in EV Adoption and Innovation





While other countries are aggressively supporting EV adoption, this proposed fee would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. Nations like China and European Union members are heavily investing in EV infrastructure and incentives, recognizing that the future of transportation is electric.





By discouraging EV adoption with unnecessary fees, we risk losing leadership in the global EV market, stifling domestic innovation, and ceding economic growth to other nations. Instead, the U.S. should be investing in the expansion of charging networks, battery technology, and sustainable energy sources.





Conclusion: The Fee is a Step Backward





Instead of imposing an arbitrary $1,000 fee that discourages EV adoption, lawmakers should seek innovative, fair funding solutions for transportation infrastructure, such as:


• Mileage-based user fees that charge all vehicles equitably based on actual road usage.


• Reallocating funds from oil subsidies to road maintenance, given that the fossil fuel industry still benefits from billions in tax breaks.


• Incentivizing clean energy sources to ensure EVs contribute to a truly sustainable grid.





This proposal does nothing to solve long-term transportation funding issues, and worse, it actively punishes consumers for making an environmentally responsible choice. If the goal is to ensure sustainable road funding, policymakers should focus on forward-thinking solutions—not regressive taxes that hinder progress.

 

[Murph7355]

...

Could be wrong but Europe is going full forward on electric because it needs to dump imported fossil fuel from a broad array of bad guys and it it quite capable of generating all the electricity it needs, if the eff'ing Germans would wake up.

UK has its fair share of Luddites too, and significant negativity over the last 12mths.

 

[Gino]

Why the Proposed $1,000 EV Fee is Shortsighted and Counterproductive





The proposed $1,000 fee on electric vehicle (EV) purchases is an unfair and shortsighted measure that undermines the transition to cleaner transportation. While lawmakers justify this fee as a way to recoup lost gas tax revenue, they fail to consider the broader environmental, public health, and economic benefits of EVs over internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Here’s why this proposal is flawed and counterproductive:





1. EVs Reduce Pollution and Improve Public Health





ICE vehicles are among the largest contributors to air pollution, emitting carbon dioxide (COâ‚‚), nitrogen oxides (NOâ‚“), and particulate matter (PM2.5), which degrade air quality and contribute to respiratory diseases, heart conditions, and premature deaths. Studies have shown that vehicle emissions cause tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. annually, especially in urban areas where air pollution is concentrated.





By contrast, EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, significantly reducing air pollution and associated health risks. Shifting to EVs leads to cleaner air, lower healthcare costs, and a better quality of life. Penalizing EV owners with a $1,000 fee effectively discourages people from choosing a cleaner and healthier alternative to gas-powered cars.





2. The Climate Crisis Demands Immediate Action





Transportation accounts for nearly 30% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest single source of climate pollution. The science is clear: we need to drastically cut carbon emissions to mitigate climate change. EVs, especially when powered by renewable energy, have a far lower carbon footprint over their lifetime than ICE vehicles.





By discouraging EV adoption, this tax props up an outdated, polluting transportation model at a time when we need to accelerate the shift toward sustainability. Instead of penalizing EVs, lawmakers should focus on policies that encourage renewable energy use, expand EV infrastructure, and incentivize cleaner transportation.





3. EVs Are More Energy Efficient and Reduce Dependence on Fossil Fuels





EVs convert about 77% of the energy from the grid to power at the wheels, while gasoline vehicles operate at only 12-30% efficiency, losing the majority of their energy as heat. This means that EVs require far less energy to operate, reducing overall resource consumption.





Additionally, ICE vehicles perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels, increasing energy volatility and geopolitical risk. EVs, on the other hand, promote energy independence by allowing consumers to power their vehicles through domestic renewable sources such as wind and solar.





4. EVs Already Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes





One of the main arguments for the $1,000 fee is that EVs don’t contribute to road maintenance through gas taxes. However, many states already impose EV registration fees specifically to offset lost gas tax revenue. These fees range from $50 to over $200 per year, meaning that EV owners are already paying their fair share.





Moreover, while some EVs may weigh more than their gasoline counterparts due to battery packs, they do not cause disproportionate road damage. The majority of road wear is caused by heavy commercial vehicles, such as semi-trucks, not passenger cars. If weight-based road wear is truly the concern, lawmakers should focus on taxing the actual culprits—heavy freight trucks—not penalizing consumers choosing a cleaner mode of transportation.





5. The U.S. Risks Falling Behind in EV Adoption and Innovation





While other countries are aggressively supporting EV adoption, this proposed fee would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. Nations like China and European Union members are heavily investing in EV infrastructure and incentives, recognizing that the future of transportation is electric.





By discouraging EV adoption with unnecessary fees, we risk losing leadership in the global EV market, stifling domestic innovation, and ceding economic growth to other nations. Instead, the U.S. should be investing in the expansion of charging networks, battery technology, and sustainable energy sources.





Conclusion: The Fee is a Step Backward





Instead of imposing an arbitrary $1,000 fee that discourages EV adoption, lawmakers should seek innovative, fair funding solutions for transportation infrastructure, such as:


• Mileage-based user fees that charge all vehicles equitably based on actual road usage.


• Reallocating funds from oil subsidies to road maintenance, given that the fossil fuel industry still benefits from billions in tax breaks.


• Incentivizing clean energy sources to ensure EVs contribute to a truly sustainable grid.





This proposal does nothing to solve long-term transportation funding issues, and worse, it actively punishes consumers for making an environmentally responsible choice. If the goal is to ensure sustainable road funding, policymakers should focus on forward-thinking solutions—not regressive taxes that hinder progress.

Very well said… Thanks