Committee hears update on EV infrastructure fee, ACCD funding and mileage‑based user‑fee timeline

Patrick (Agency of Transportation presenter) briefed the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 7, 2025, on statutory changes in the prior transportation bill that created an annual EV infrastructure fee and directed revenue to the Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD) for community charging programs.

Patrick summarized the statutory structure (sections 36–39 in the transportation bill): the EV infrastructure fee is separate from the standard registration fee and is set equal to the registration fee for battery electric vehicles (and one‑half that amount for plug‑in hybrids), a public outreach plan was required (DMV outreach and website updates), revenue from the fee was directed to ACCD for multiunit‑dwelling and workplace charging programs, and the statute provides for repeal of the fee for battery electric vehicles upon implementation of a mileage‑based user fee (MBUF). Patrick said plug‑in hybrids are not expected to be subject to the MBUF in the repeal language and that their fee would remain.

On implementation, Patrick said the fee is being phased in at registration renewal rather than charged to all owners immediately; the statute directed outreach (DMV mailed a letter and added website language) and DMV began collecting the additional EV registration fee on Jan. 1, 2025. He said owners will receive the fee at renewal and that DMV estimated about $500,000 in revenue in the partial first year and approximately $1.4 million the following state fiscal year; the Joint Fiscal Office estimate for state fiscal 2025 was $1.7 million, which included a portion repurposed earlier from the central garage fund (about $1.1 million).

Patrick said the EV infrastructure fee revenue will flow to ACCD until a mileage‑based user fee is implemented. "Section 38 then actually repeals this infrastructure fee upon implementation of a mileage based user fee, and that's for battery electric vehicles only," he said. He described the MBUF concept under discussion: building on existing annual vehicle safety inspections (which already capture odometer readings), reconciling miles at registration and offering options to pay monthly or quarterly, and including indexing or a per‑mile factor for administrative costs and inflation (the draft factor discussed in prior work was about 1.78 cents per mile).

Committee members raised implementation issues. Representatives asked whether level 1 charging referenced in the statute equates to a standard household outlet and how level 1 and level 2 would be applied for multiunit dwellings and workplaces; Patrick said the statute allows level 1 in some workplaces and housing if that is the viable option and that level 2 is the higher‑power charge point often seen in public stations. Representative White asked whether a per‑kilowatt‑hour surcharge on charging had been considered; Patrick said the agency considered a per‑kWh charge on public charging but found administration costs and the limited revenue yield made it not economically viable at current charging volumes.

Patrick also flagged implementation uncertainties: a $3,000,000 federal grant the agency was awarded in October is still held up by federal administration processes and access to those IIJA funds affects the timing and technical work needed to implement MBUF; out‑of‑state travel (estimated 20–25% of traffic) is not currently captured by the MBUF concept and remains an open policy question; and DMV estimates are still being reconciled because the fiscal note used an October 1 implementation date that was later changed to Jan. 1. Patrick said additional legislative discussion will be needed to secure funding for ACCD projects and to finalize statutory and administrative details for MBUF implementation.

Committee members indicated willingness to continue discussion and asked for ACCD to present on its community charging programs in a follow‑up session.