Kansas committee hears bill to raise electric-vehicle registration fees, change how revenue is split with cities and counties

House Bill 2,121, which would raise annual registration fees for battery-electric, plug-in hybrid and hybrid passenger vehicles and bring electric light trucks into the fee schedule, was the subject of a hearing before the Kansas House Transportation Committee.

Proponents said the change is intended to restore parity between drivers who pay motor fuels tax and those who do not because they charge with electricity. "I want to make it clear this legislation is not designed to punish EV owners," Representative Brandon Hoheisel told the committee. He and other supporters said current collections from motor fuels are eroding as vehicles become more efficient and as battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) do not pay per-gallon fuel tax.

The bill would alter current fees that, under Kansas law, are presently assessed in place of certain base registration fees for electric vehicles. Under current law, testimony noted, registration fees are: $100 for battery-electric vehicles, $50 for hybrid electric vehicles, $16 for electric motorcycles and $40 for light trucks under 12,000 pounds. Representative Hoheisel described the bill’s amended schedule as: $165 for all-electric passenger vehicles, $100 for plug-in hybrids, $85 for non-plug-in hybrids, $30 for electric motorcycles, $200 for all-electric light trucks under 12,000 pounds and $125 for hybrid/plug-in hybrid light trucks under 12,000 pounds.

The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) provided an estimate of fiscal effects tied to the amendment presented in committee. "Based on our vehicle registration data... it would generate about $500,000 for the state highway fund in fiscal year 2026 and $2,200,000 for the special city and county highway fund in fiscal year 2026 for an estimated total of about $2,700,000 annually," legislative liaison Catherine Magana said.

Supporters—including trade groups representing fuel retailers and contractors—called the increases modest compared with other states and argued the change is a step to keep highway funding stable as vehicle fuel efficiency rises. Brian Posler of Fuel True, a trade association for fuel distributors and convenience stores, testified that heavier EVs cause more wear and urged parity so that drivers who no longer buy gasoline still contribute to road upkeep.

Opponents warned the proposal could be punitive and said the committee should factor in that many electric-vehicle drivers currently drive fewer miles than owners of internal-combustion vehicles. "We stand opposed to House Bill 21 21," Zac Pastora of the Kansas Sierra Club told the committee, arguing that national studies show battery-electric vehicles can travel fewer annual miles and deliver air-quality benefits that are not reflected in the fee. Several opponents urged alternatives—such as user fees at public charging stations or higher fees on heavy commercial trucks—as fairer revenue sources.

The committee heard additional technical points in the hearing. Witnesses and staff explained that Kansas’s current practice differs from other states: the Kansas EV fee has been assessed in lieu of the regular base registration fee, whereas most states add the EV surcharge on top of standard registration. Jill Shelley of Legislative Research summarized those comparisons and noted a range of approaches in other states, including fees based on weight, vehicle age or value and per-kilowatt-hour charges at public chargers.

Committee members asked about details such as whether the special city and county highway fund would continue to split receipts between counties and cities under the same formula used for the motor fuels tax; Representative Hoheisel said the bill mirrors the motor fuels statute and would follow the same distribution formula. Members also discussed whether EV owners drive fewer miles, with committee members citing studies that show a gap that has narrowed as charging infrastructure expands.

No final committee vote on House Bill 2,121 was recorded in the hearing. The matter concluded with the committee receiving written testimony and memoranda for further review.