(The Center Square) – A companion Senate bill to a House proposal setting Washington on a course toward a compulsory pay-per-mile program has generated similar skepticism over its ultimate form, including whether it would replace the state gas tax or simply become another source of transportation funding.
Like House Bill 1921, Senate Bill 5726, sponsored by Sen. Bill Ramos, D-Issaquah, would create a road usage charge program at 2.6 cents per mile, which would initially be voluntary. The program would then go on to make it mandatory for vehicles depending on their fuel efficiency; the program would apply to vehicles that weigh 10,000 lbs. or less, which means semi-trucks would not be subject to the charge. The legislation allows for exemptions for certain types of vehicles, such as those publicly owned.
While the RUC revenue itself would be deposited into a state account that can only fund state highway projects, the bill imposes a separate 10% “assessment” of the total RUC charge a vehicle owner owes, which would be used for “multimodal transportation system purposes” such as transit.
The RUC is intended to act as a replacement for the state gas tax, which has experienced a decline in revenue that is only expected to continue moving forward due to a combination of higher fuel efficiency vehicles and an increase in the number of electric vehicles on the roadways. EVs currently pay an annual fee, and starting in 2035 it will be illegal for residents to register a new vehicle that runs on fossil fuels.
Ramos told colleagues at Tuesday’s Senate Transportation Committee public hearing that it’s “misinformation” for people to claim that “we’re going to have gas tax and road usage charts. It’ll be one or the other.”
He added that for those concerned about driver privacy, which has been a persistent source of apprehension by skeptics, the RUC can be paid simply by having the odometer reading checked during annual vehicle tab renewals. However, the bill does contain provisions related to data privacy protections, as the program would permit drivers to have more technically advanced ways of tracking their mileage.
However, Sen. Leonard Christian, R-Spokane Valley, questioned whether the RUC would replace the gas tax based off remarks made during a work group presentation prior to the public hearing.
“I just can’t get that in my mind, that the two testimonies do not agree,” he said.
Ramos replied that the two will exist at the same time, and drivers who still pay the gas tax will be able to deduct it from any RUC they owe.
“That’s that piece that’s further out … but it is an either/or, not both,” he explained.
Sen. Phil Fortunato, R-Auburn, argued that the real problem facing the state transportation budget isn’t declining gas tax revenue as much as inflation driving up costs.
“While this is nice for electric cars,” he said, “it’s not a solution to fully fund transportation to where we need.”
The bill drew support from officials from various transportation-related public entities and local government advocates, including the State Transportation Commission, the Association of Washington Cities, and the Washington State Association of Counties.
Thurston County Commissioner Carolina Mejia, a board member of the County Road Administration Board, told the committee that “without a replacement for the motor vehicle fuel tax, CRAB will one day cease to exist, leaving the state’s 39 counties without a vital resource for infrastructure investment.”
“This is an opportunity to move forward toward a more sustainable and equitable system for funding our roads,” she said.
However, others expressed skepticism that the bill would retain its existing form indefinitely.
Commercial trucker Richard Shilling told the committee that while the bill exempts his vehicle from the RUC, “this is clearly a bill just to establish a rate and work out the details later.”
“I will have to work 125 hours a year one month to pay for this tax,” he said. “That’s on top of the three months I work of work I have to do to pay federal tax.”
Jeff Pack with Washington Citizens Against Unfair Taxes told the committee that it “sounds like you’re just throwing something up against a wall and see if [is] sticks. [There’s] too many ‘we don’t know,’ or ‘to be implemented.’”
SB 5726 is currently not scheduled for further committee action.