Committee backs $1.5 billion transportation bond package, funds it with registration hikes, heavier trailer weight‑distance tax and EV surcharge

The Senate Finance Committee adopted an amendment to House Bill 145 that changes how the committee will pay for a $1.5 billion transportation bond package: the amendment calls for a 25% increase in vehicle registration fees directed to the state road fund, a 35% increase in the weight‑distance charge for trailers, and a phased electric‑vehicle (EV) surcharge designed to approximate foregone fuel‑tax revenue.

Adrian (staff member) and the department’s secretary described the package as a revenue mix that would cover most of a roughly $110,000,000 unfunded general‑fund liability associated with the bond plan. Adrian told the committee the combined measures would produce “roughly 80 to 90,000,000 of the 110,000,000” unfunded portion and that the department expects to use federal dollars to cover the remainder.

Secretary (DOT) explained the rationale for the EV surcharge by equating average fuel‑tax contributions: "For a vehicle that performs at 22 miles per gallon, drives 15,000 miles a year, that roughly they contribute a $120 a year in fuel tax," the secretary said. The amendment phases in an EV surcharge over a multiyear period so EV owners approach that annual equivalency rather than paying the full amount immediately.

Other amendment features and fiscal controls described to the committee included: - A cap on bonding issuance in any single year and an average annual limit of about $290,000,000, intended to space projects over multiple years rather than issue all bond authority in one fiscal year. - A requirement that the Department of Transportation present planned bonding schedules to the Legislature (LFC) in advance rather than reporting only afterward. - Direction that revenue from the registration‑fee increase and EV surcharge flow to the state road fund to support road maintenance and debt service.

Public comment: Environmental and EV advocacy groups and community organizations testified in opposition to the EV surcharge level proposed in the amendment. Sierra Club (Rio Grande chapter) urged a formal stakeholder process and recommended a lower EV fee consistent with prior proposals (around $50–$65 annually). Western Resource Advocates and the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project said a $120 annual charge would be punitive and could disincentivize EV adoption. The governor’s office and local economic development representatives voiced support for the package as a way to fund infrastructure and economic development priorities.

Committee action: The committee adopted the amendment (motion to move amendment by Senator Brent, second by Senator Padilla). After public comment and discussion, the committee voted to report House Bill 145 with the amendment. A roll call produced 11 votes in favor and one opposed: Senator Brent (yes); Senator Brandt (yes); Senator Campos (yes); Senator Gonzales (yes); Senator Lanier (yes); Senator Padilla (yes); Senator Tobias (yes); Senator Trujillo (yes); Senator Woods (yes); Senator Shandoh (yes); Senator Muñoz (yes); Senator Steinborn (no). The committee recorded a do‑pass recommendation.

Why it matters: The amendment adopts a mix of user fees and a heavier commercial vehicle weight charge to fund road maintenance and bonding rather than relying solely on general‑fund transfers. Lawmakers debated equity and rural impacts, and public commenters warned that a high EV surcharge could slow adoption at a time when state policy supports electrification.

What’s next: The amended bill advances to the full chamber. Staff said they will continue work with DOT and stakeholders on implementation details, including how project lists will be prioritized under the bonding caps.