A proposed bill brought before Connecticut’s Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee that would triple the state’s registration fees on electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids received considerable opposition during last Friday’s public hearing before the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee. The bill intends to offset a looming deficit in the state’s Special Transportation Fund (STF).
“HB 5568 is simply unfair and would impose a significant financial hardship on the very consumers we are trying to motivate with better charging infrastructure and rebates,” wrote Lori Brown, Executive Director of the CT League of Conservation Voters. “If anything, electric vehicles should be incentivized, not penalized because they don’t use gasoline.”
Revenue from vehicle registration fees goes directly to the state’s Special Transportation Fund (STF), which pays off bonds issued for state transportation-related infrastructure projects. It also covers the operational costs, salaries, and pensions of the Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Motor Vehicles (DMV). While the Office of Fiscal Analysis has projected the STF to net a $29.8 million surplus this year and a $31.5 million surplus the next, the STF is also projected to fall off a cliff in 2028, when the OFA projects it to operate at a $222.9 million deficit. That deficit is projected to grow to $360.5 million in 2030.
“The budget results in STF operating surpluses in FY (Fiscal Year) 26 and FY 27 followed by deficits in each of the out years, which are anticipated to deplete the fund’s reserves by the end of FY 29,” reads the OFA’s analysis of the 2026-2027 biennial budget. “It is anticipated that future legislative action will be needed to maintain the STF’s solvency beyond the biennium.”
HB 5568 is one example of such legislative action. It would raise the registration fees for EVs to $345 and the fees for plug-in hybrids to $233. Under the state’s current laws, EV owners must pay $57 to register, and plug-in hybrids do not have a separate vehicle registration category, meaning owners pay the same fees as owners of all-gas passenger vehicles, which is $120.55. Residents and organizations submitted testimony in opposition to the bill, decrying it for the added costs it would bear on consumers and the counterintuitive impact it may have on reaching the state’s sustainability and envrionmental goals.
“This bill would substantially increase registration fees on electric vehicles (EVs) at a time when Connecticut should be reducing barriers to cleaner transportation, not adding new ones,” wrote Peter Cyr, Program Manager of the Clean Transportation Communities of Southern CT. “HB 5568 is a disproportionate response to a limited revenue issue, and it risks slowing adoption of cleaner vehicles in a state that still struggles with unhealthy air.”
Cyr cited the Office of Policy and Management’s more generous STF projection for 2026, which estimates the fund will operate at a $47.4 million surplus this year, to argue that “stabilization does not appear to be an immediate concern.” He also cited findings by the state’s Department of Public Health, which assert that around 11% of the state’s adults and around 8% of the state’s children have asthma, noting that vehicle-born emissions have been determined by state Department of Energy and Environmental Policy (DEEP) officials to play the largest role in state air pollution.
According to the latest statistics from DEEP’s EV Registration Fact Sheet, 12,667 new EVs were registered in Connecticut last year, bringing the total number of EVs registered in the state up to 73,156. Cyr estimated that the change would stand to “generate roughly $4.6 million more per year,” an impact he said, “appears modest relative to the scale of the increase.”
Ahna Johnson, a Hamden resident and EV owner, also submitted testimony in opposition to the bill. Johnson said EVs help offset gas shocks by reducing the demand for gas, and argued that decreasing state gas tax revenues are owed more to the increase in fuel-efficient vehicles than to the increase in EVs, which still only make up about 3% of the state’s registered passenger vehicles. She argued that the state’s gas tax is “not indexed for inflation.”
“While it makes sense for EV drivers to contribute to the transportation fund like everyone else, this bill would more than double the current registration fee and place an unfair burden on EV drivers while doing little to address our current affordability problems, and little to shore up our transportation fund,” said Johnson.
The only person to testify in support of the bill was Keith Bishop, the President of Bishop’s Orchards in Guilford and an EV owner himself. He viewed the increased fees as a “necessary short-term solution,” arguing that by not paying gas taxes already, EV owners aren’t paying their fair share of the state’s transportation costs. Bishop recommended that moving forward, the state should consider taxation based on vehicle mileage and class.
“I think it’s fair for EV vehicle owners to partake and participate in the road maintenance and funds that the gas tax goes to,” said Bishop. “Long-term wise, I think it even more important that we relate back to miles driven by different vehicles, in terms of how road infrastructure is needed, and so those who need to drive more would pay more, and pay a registration fee based upon their mileage. Bishop also urged lawmakers not to cut the gas tax, as given the “current economic situation,” he though it was a “no-go.”
Sen. John Fonfara (D-Hartford), Chair of the Committee, complimented Bishop for his “generous position” regarding the proposed bill.
“It reminds me of a predecessor, the minority ranking member on the committee, Senator [William] Nickerson,” said John Fonfara. “He was fond of the phrase, ‘Don’t tax me, don’t tax thee, tax the man behind the tree.’ And that’s not your position here today. You’re saying tax me, and we don’t get a lot of people testifying in that regard.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
