Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
  • The final cut of TMC Podcast #27 is available now with topics time-stamped. We discussed: Consolidation in LiDAR manufacturers; Volvo EX90 shipping with LiDAR; FSD Beta Full Release in N.A.; FSD detecting autopilot cheats, Gwen Shotwell directly overseeing SpaceX Starship; and more. You can watch it now on YouTube. We should have it published to podcast networks shortly.

Federal Highway Bill Extends New User Fee to Electric Vehicles

Lanny

Active Member
Nov 29, 2011
1,029
2,319
MD
The U.S. Senate’s long-term transportation bill called the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy (DRIVE) Act (H.R. 22) includes "user-based alternative revenue mechanisms" that are essentially user fees designed to support the Highway Trust Fund.

The following line is in the summary from the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee:
Extends new user fee to electric vehicles: The DRIVE Act ensures all users of the roads and bridges pay their fair share with a new federal share program initializing new state controlled user fees.

Lanny
 

cpa

Active Member
May 17, 2014
3,586
5,235
Central Valley
Section 11022 mandates money be set aside for identifying, developing and improving EV charging stations across the country, including improving electrical infrastructure. (I really do not know how to reproduce three pages of text in a 1000-page bill, sorry!)

If I read the text correctly, part of this requirement is to develop unified infrastructure and charging standard needs for utilities, charging stations and vehicle manufacturers. (At least there will be a report on same.)

It appears to me that Congress perceives the arrival of BEVs is here to stay, and they want to persuade manufacturers to start thinking along those lines.

I would be surprised if many of the target dates will be met--we all know how slow the bureaucratic process takes, and how much pressure will come from the various players involved directly or indirectly to develop these corridors and standards.
 

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
9,129
13,846
United States
The DRIVE Act ensures all users of the roads and bridges pay their fair share with a new federal share program initializing new state controlled user fees.

Lanny

I will resist any and all efforts to pay my 'fair share' for the roads while bubba and his corvette get a free ride dumping waste in my air....

I agree that roads aren't free.... neither is climate change... Carbon Tax FIRST... then I pay for road maintenance.
 

Dave EV

Active Member
Jun 23, 2009
2,415
2,977
Earth
pay their fair share
This seems to be a favorite phrase with politicians, yet it's only used when things are distinctly not fair.

If you wanted a fair road use fee, you'd simply make the tax based on vehicle weight (the heavier a vehicle is, the more damage it does, and heavier vehicles do dis-proportionally more damage than lighter vehicles) and highway miles traveled. Annual odometer readings would suffice.

As others have said, once all polluters pay their fair share for damage done, I'd be more than happy to pay a road use fee that is actually fair.
 

apacheguy

S Sig #255
Oct 21, 2012
5,151
1,336
So Cal
The following line is in the summary from the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee:
Extends new user fee to electric vehicles: The DRIVE Act ensures all users of the roads and bridges pay their fair share with a new federal share program initializing new state controlled user fees.

Lanny

Fair share? We did an analysis of this in another thread and determined it was the truckers who aren't paying their fair share. EVs are not responsible for any significant amount of road wear.

see SB 16 in California: $100 annual fee for ZEVs post 23
 
J

jbcarioca

Guest
We all are thinking of 'fair share' justifiably. Now we need to assess the financial impact of oil depletion allowances, US military expenses to protect the oil industry (how much is the US Coast Guard expense for patrolling oil rigs in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf from Bahrain? How about defense of Saudi Arabia? et al), not to mention all the tax and financing preferences given to oil companies, oil and gas pipelines, refineries, gas stations and assorted other infrastructure. And that is just the US. Worldwide fossil fuel subsidies are astounding. Even though EV's are charged typically using utility power that is still much more efficient than is ICE use. If the federal fuel tax Highway Trust Fund(HTF) portion is the issue they only need to think about the perverse rules now in place that fund the most from the least efficient vehicles, give large trucks a partial pass, and end out starving the HTF as CAFE and other factors improve fuel economy.

They really need to revamp the HTF rather than penalize anybody in particular. The problem is far deeper than just EV's.
 

Skotty

2014 S P85 | 2020 3 P19"
Jun 27, 2013
2,584
2,030
Kansas City, MO
The stuff about infrastructure needs to be looked over closely to see if any special interests are trying to legislate road blocks for Tesla Supercharging. As far behind as other automakers are in that regard, I definitely wouldn't put it past them.

-- UPDATE --
Upon first gloss over, everything looks innocent in regards to infrastructure, though it could become a future avenue of attack.
 
Last edited:

CHG-ON

Still in love after all these miles
I am OK paying a reasonable fee for using the roads, now that I don't pay gas taxes. But I have two requirements:

-It's reasonable
-They fix these completely F#$$%^* roads that are in lousy condition. If they did that, I'd be happy to pay a fee.

But they won't.

HEAR me REPUBLICANS! Fix our infrastructure. Show real results and I will be happy to pony up cash.
 
Again, the biggest problem is that the money collected from the gas tax that is supposed to be used for road repair does not go to road repair. Fix that first and we would not need additional money. Any taxes that will be charged to EV users need to go not to the general fund but only to road repair and maintenance. No problem paying to keep the roads I use in good shape if that's where the money collected is distributed.
 

ItsNotAboutTheMoney

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2012
12,460
11,046
Maine
Again, the biggest problem is that the money collected from the gas tax that is supposed to be used for road repair does not go to road repair. Fix that first and we would not need additional money. Any taxes that will be charged to EV users need to go not to the general fund but only to road repair and maintenance. No problem paying to keep the roads I use in good shape if that's where the money collected is distributed.

Because if none of the money went on transit, the 25% increase in available money would by itself more than cover all necessary highway expenditure.

Er, no.
 

jerry33

(S85-3/2/13 traded in) X LR: F2611##-3/27/20
Supporting Member
Mar 8, 2012
20,660
28,490
Texas
Agree. Funds should go towards actual roads then you'd have very little complaining from anyone.

Agreed IF the taxes are lowered when roads are up to par. They have this law in Japan and the result is that they build more and more unnecessary roads and bridges because they have all this extra money.
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top