Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Electric Vehicles

We Should Be Talking About an EV Tax — But Not This One

The math behind a $1,000 EV fee is specious to say the least.

John Barrasso.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

When Elon Musk became a major backer of President Trump last year, some in the electric vehicle camp saw a glimmer of hope. Perhaps, with the CEO of the world’s top EV maker in his corner, Trump would soften some of his anti-electric rhetoric and come around on EVs.

Musk has been the most visible member of the new Trump regime during its chaotic first few weeks. Yet even with his outsized role, the new government’s pushback against electric vehicles continues full steam ahead. On Wednesday, Republican senators introduced double-barreled anti-EV legislation: The first bill would kill every kind of tax credit for buying electric, whether new, used, or lease, as well as incentives for charging stations. The second would place an extra tax of $1,000 on all EV purchases.

The first measure is no surprise given that Trump and the GOP have railed against EV incentives for years and promised to take the country back to the good old days of oil drilling. The second is, at least nominally, an attempt to tackle a legitimate question about the transition to electric vehicles — who pays to fix the roads — albeit with a solution that’s clearly meant to punish the kind of people who want to buy an electric car.

A federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon helps fund highway maintenance, and states add their own taxes on top of that. But EV owners don’t buy gasoline, which means they don't contribute to road repair in this way. Economists have floated various solutions to make this situation more equitable and see EVs pay their fair share. States have tried more blunt tactics, such as tacking on hundreds of dollars to the cost of an electric car’s annual registration.

The senators’ proposed fix is to slap on a $1,000 fee to every electric vehicle purchase at the point of sale. The argument is that people who drive gas cars contribute about $100 in gas taxes annually, so charging EV buyers $1,000 brings in a decade’s worth of what they should be paying.

This is an unsophisticated and antagonistic answer to a serious question. The gas tax, while imperfect, at least has the effect of charging people based on how much they drive, which is correlated with how much wear and tear they cause to the public roads. It has the bonus of incentivizing people to drive lighter and more fuel-efficient vehicles. Charging per mile is trickier to do with EVs. The government could impose some kind of tax per kilowatt-hour at public charging stations, but most owners do most of their charging at home, where there’s no simple way to charge them more for the electricity that powers their car versus the juice that’s used for the refrigerator or the vacuum cleaner.

Charging EV drivers a flat thousand bucks at the point of sale, however, forces them to pay for a decade’s worth of taxes up front, something gasoline drivers would never be asked to do. It also presumes the buyer is going to keep the vehicle for at least 10 years, and includes no provision for any other scenario. (It’s not like the government is going to refund you $500 if you sell the vehicle after five years. You’re footing the bill for the second owner.)

Not that the bill’s proponents have any problem trotting out specious math. Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska justified the dubious tax by arguing that “EVs can weigh up to three times as much as gas-powered cars, creating more wear and tear on our roads and bridges."

This is bogus. As Heatmap has noted numerous times, EV weight is a serious matter with implications for issues including pedestrian safety and tire wear. But “three times as much” is a reach that rests on an impressive feat of cherry-picking, akin to comparing a monstrous vehicle like the GMC Hummer EV to a Toyota Corolla. Here’s a more accurate comparison: The nation’s and the world’s top-selling EV, Tesla’s Model Y, has a curb weight of around 4,400 pounds. That’s almost exactly the same as the base curb weight of the Ford F-150 — which, by the way, is the most popular vehicle in Senator Fischer’s state of Nebraska.

As usual, the only substance at play is identity politics. There is a grown-up discussion to be had about taxing EVs, and whether they ought to enjoy benefits such as federal incentives and lower taxes because of the public good they create by lowering carbon emissions. What we continue to get instead is a naked attempt to punish the kinds of Americans who want to drive electric.

On some level, it still feels weird that all this is happening alongside Musk’s public turn as de facto U.S. president. But with so much power to influence the federal government, Tesla’s CEO has convinced himself he doesn’t have to care about the state of the EV market and whether ordinary Americans can afford his cars — at least, not while he’s puttering around the Oval Office and his company is reportedly winning $400 million contracts to build armored electric vehicles for Uncle Sam.

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Energy

How the Interconnection Queue Could Make Qualifying for Tax Credits Next to Impossible

A renewable energy project can only start construction if it can get connected to the grid.

Power lines, money, the Capitol, and a map.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The clock is ticking for clean energy developers. With the signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, wind and solar developers have to start construction (whatever that means) in the next 12 months and be operating no later than the end of 2027 to qualify for federal tax credits.

But projects can only get built if they can get connected to the grid. Those decisions are often out of the hands of state, local, or even federal policymakers, and are instead left up to utilities, independent system operators, or regional trading organizations, which then have to study things like the transmission infrastructure needed for the project before they can grant a project permission to link up.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Climate

AM Briefing: NOAA Nominee Vows to Fill Forecaster Vacancies

On Neil Jacobs’ confirmation hearing, OBBBA costs, and Saudi Aramco

Would-be NOAA Administrator Vows to Fill Forecaster Vacancies
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Temperatures are climbing toward 100 degrees Fahrenheit in central and eastern Texas, complicating recovery efforts after the floodsMore than 10,000 people have been evacuated in southwestern China due to flooding from the remnants of Typhoon DanasMebane, North Carolina, has less than two days of drinking water left after its water treatment plant sustained damage from Tropical Storm Chantal.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Trump’s nominee to head NOAA vows to fill staffing vacancies

Neil Jacobs, President Trump’s nominee to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, fielded questions from the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on Wednesday about how to prevent future catastrophes like the Texas floods, Politico reports. “If confirmed, I want to ensure that staffing weather service offices is a top priority,” Jacobs said, even as the administration has cut more than 2,000 staff positions this year. Jacobs also told senators that he supports the president’s 2026 budget, which would further cut $2.2 billion from NOAA, including funding for the maintenance of weather models that accurately forecast the Texas storms. During the hearing, Jacobs acknowledged that humans have an “influence” on the climate, and said he’d direct NOAA to embrace “new technologies” and partner with industry “to advance global observing systems.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Climate Tech

What’s Left of the LPO After the One Big Beautiful Bill?

Some of the Loan Programs Office’s signature programs are hollowed-out shells.

Blurred money.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

With a stroke of President Trump’s Sharpie, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is now law, stripping the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office of much of its lending power. The law rescinds unobligated credit subsidies for a number of the office’s key programs, including portions of the $3.6 billion allocated to the Loan Guarantee Program, $5 billion for the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program, $3 billion for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, and $75 million for the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program.

Just three years ago, the Inflation Reduction Act supercharged LPO, originally established in 2005 to help stand up innovative new clean energy technologies that weren’t yet considered bankable for the private sector, expanding its lending authority to roughly $400 billion. While OBBBA leaves much of the office’s theoretical lending authority intact, eliminating credit subsidies means that it no longer really has the tools to make use of those dollars.

Keep reading...Show less