Experts brief Nevada committee on EV fees, mileage charges and delivery/charging levies as revenue options

National and local experts presented a range of options lawmakers could use to replace eroding fuel‑tax revenue as electric and highly fuel‑efficient vehicles grow in Nevada.

Douglas Schinkel of the National Conference of State Legislatures summarized national trends: states use a mix of indexed fuel taxes, EV registration fees, road‑usage charges (RUC), kilowatt‑hour charging levies and retail delivery fees to shore up transportation trust funds. Schinkel noted four states operate voluntary RUC programs (Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Hawaii) and several states impose per‑kWh charges at public charging stations.

Mark Krompotic and Jill Toles of the Guinn Center presented a Washoe County study that evaluated registration fees, VMT (vehicle‑miles‑traveled) taxes and charging‑station taxes. The Guinn Center found registration fees are the fastest to implement because DMV already collects registration data, while VMT and charging taxes pose larger administrative and equity challenges. The Guinn Center recommended an additional EV registration fee as a practical near‑term option, while noting it does not fully address the fuel efficiency gains among conventional vehicles.

Travis Dunn of CDM Smith outlined recommendations developed by an advisory working group: begin with a flat parity fee for zero‑emission vehicles, move toward a mileage‑based parity fee for new vehicles by 2035, and in the near term maximize existing revenue sources (indexing, fees) while agencies regularly assess needs. CDM Smith provided modeling that showed a Nevada EV/hybrid fee designed to capture state, federal and county fuel tax equivalents could generate roughly $80 million in 2028 and, under assumptions about indexing and EV adoption, could grow to about $1.6 billion per year by 2050; the consultants cautioned those long‑range projections depend on indexing choices and adoption scenarios.

Lawmakers pressed on fairness and implementation: Chair Watts and committee members raised concerns about double taxation (residents already paying flat EV fees), the technical challenge of metering public and at‑home charging, installment payment options for registration surcharges, and the distributional effects for low‑income and rural drivers. Experts agreed the policy choice requires balancing revenue sufficiency, user equity and administrative complexity.

Next steps: presenters offered to connect the committee to state revenue administrators and other jurisdictions for implementation details. The Guinn Center noted statutory options at the county level (supplemental governmental services tax, county optional sales tax) that could be pursued locally, while CDM Smith emphasized phased approaches and indexing to protect purchasing power over time.

Attribution: Douglas Schinkel (NCSL), Lexi Elio (NCSL slides cited), Jill Toles and Mark Krompotic (Guinn Center), Cammy Dempsey and Travis Dunn (Accretive/CDM Smith) to the Growth & Infrastructure Committee, March 12.