Are We Building Infrastructure Or Ideology?

Almost half of the working days the T&I Committee has spent in session for 2025 have been spent sifting through the Biden Administration's landmark infrastructure bills (the IIJA and the IRA) to find budgetary measures that don't conform the current Administration's idealogical taxonomy. 

I say it that way, because it remains the best way I can make sense of what motivates what they seem interested in cutting, rescinding, and cancelling. Basically, any program that contains words like: Environment, efficiency, equity, green space, low-carbon, emissions, and a handful of others I'm sure you can guess at have been dealt heavy blows.

Whether or not the programs, grants, and funding opportunities in question were creating quality jobs, bringing money into hard-hit economic areas, or resulting in net-positives for communities all over the nation seems irrelevant. None of the arguments have brought forth any serious data to analyze their impacts, either good or bad. But they all share one irrefutable reality, these were dollars intended for our industry that are now being taken away.

And the thing that remains the most baffling is that the laws that contained these provisions, these SAME provisions they are now rescinding, were passed into law by the same Republican controlled House and Republican led committees. They passed these into law. They voted, "Yes," to these. These were BI-PARTISAN pieces of legislation. 

Here's a great example of the unserious nature of things going on. Last year, there were several hearings held by in regards to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which I covered here and here. These included many days of testimony from both industry experts, as well as city/state officials from across the country. 

The explicit purpose of these hearings was to discuss the future of funding for the HTF, how to keep it solvent. It has been operating at a general deficit for long time, surviving on transfers. While multiple reasons were given for why the fund can't keep pace with spending,  here are a few big ones:

• The federal fuel tax hasn't changed since 1993, this was historically how the HTF was primarily funded.
• An greater focus on new construction rather than quality maintenance of existing assets.
• The rise of electric vehicles (EV), which sidestep the fuel-based taxes.

The T&I Committee focused on only a single one of these factors, ignoring the others. Can you guess which was their target? If you guessed EVs, then you win the prize! 

Their big solution? An annual registration fee of $250 on EVs and $100 on hybrids. On the surface you can squint your eyes and see a sort of logic here. The average American driving traditional vehicles pays about $150 in fuel taxes a year, and since EVs are heavier and can do more wear-and-tear to surfaces, a bump to $250 makes sense. The problem is that fuel taxation alone was already falling short by $18 billion a year, as of 2023 (most recent data). 

As of 2024 data, there are approximately 4.1 million registered EVs driving in the U.S. This new fee would generated about $1.025 billion. So, an $18 billion problem will not magically be solved with a $1 billion solution. And they're touting this as a big win.

The T&I Committee projects it will raise $38 billion over ten years, so, at their own estimates, that's $3.8 billion a year. The FHWA projects that outlays will surpass $90 billion by 2033, and that the shortfall in HTF funding could hit in excessive of $40 billion. 

Should EVs pay into the system? ABSOLUTELY! No question. But to put this fee on them, but ignore the other fundamental factors contributing to the problem long before EVs even came on the scene, and all while slashing previously earmarked monies for our industry -- doesn't really scream "America First" to me. See you on the road!