EV fees are now common across the country
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 41 states now require a special registration fee for battery-electric vehicles, also called BEVs, zero-emission vehicles, or alternative-fuel vehicles. These fees are generally charged in addition to standard vehicle registration fees. NCSL describes them as one way states are responding to declining gas tax revenue as electric, hybrid, and more fuel-efficient vehicles become more common on the road.[1][3]
That means the idea that EV drivers are “not paying for roads” is increasingly outdated. In most states, EV drivers are already paying an extra road-use fee simply because they drive an electric vehicle.
NCSL also reports that, of those 41 states, 34 charge a special registration fee for either plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, conventional hybrids, or both.[1][4]
This trend is easy to understand from a transportation funding perspective. Gasoline taxes were built for a vehicle fleet powered almost entirely by gasoline and diesel. That is no longer the fleet states are planning for. However, the challenge is not simply whether EV drivers should contribute to transportation funding. They should. The more important question is whether those fees are proportional, fair, and aligned with state climate and electrification goals.
Registration fees are only one part of the picture
A September 2025 report from Atlas Public Policy found that, as of June 2025, 39 states had additional EV registration fees. The same report also found that 9 states had energy-based EV charging taxes, and 35 states applied sales or utility taxes to electricity used for EV charging.[2][5]
The difference between the Atlas count of 39 states in mid-2025 and the NCSL count of 41 states in early 2026 appears to reflect how quickly this policy area is changing. States are actively revising their transportation revenue systems, and EV fees are being added, expanded, indexed to inflation, or paired with new charging taxes.
The policy question is fairness, not free riding
The public conversation around EV fees often starts from a simple claim: EVs do not use gasoline, so EV drivers do not pay gas taxes. That is true. But it is incomplete.
EV owners still pay motor vehicle sales taxes, registration fees, local taxes where applicable, electricity taxes in many cases, and, in most states, special EV registration surcharges. In some places, drivers who rely on public charging may also pay taxes on the electricity used to charge their vehicles.
Atlas Public Policy found that EV drivers already pay more in road user fees than gasoline drivers pay in gas taxes in many states, and concluded that charging fees can be an economically inefficient way to raise additional revenue.
That matters for state and local policy design. If an EV fee is intended to replace foregone gas tax revenue, then it should be calibrated to the amount of revenue actually being replaced. If the fee is set too high, it does more than fill a funding gap. It penalizes drivers for choosing a vehicle that reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
EV drivers are paying. The question is whether they are paying the right amount.
The national trend is clear: states are no longer ignoring the transportation funding implications of electrification. At least 41 states have adopted special registration fees for battery-electric vehicles, and many have extended similar fees to hybrids and plug-in hybrids. A growing number are also exploring or adopting taxes on electricity used for EV charging.
These policies should be viewed in that broader context. EV drivers are not getting a free ride. In many places, they are paying special fees on top of the same basic vehicle taxes and registration charges that other drivers pay.
The goal should not be to exempt EVs from road funding. The goal should be to create fair state and local systems that maintain roads while continuing to encourage cleaner, lower-emission transportation choices.
As communities and states work to meet climate, transportation, and infrastructure goals, road funding policies should reflect all of those priorities. EV drivers should contribute to the roads they use, but they should not be overcharged for helping move the transportation system toward a cleaner future.
Footnotes
[1] NCSL reports that at least 41 states require a special registration fee for battery-electric vehicles or similar non-emission or alternative-fuel vehicles, and that 34 of those states also assess a registration fee for either plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or non-plug-in hybrid vehicles.
[2] Atlas Public Policy reported that, as of June 2025, road user fees for EVs included additional registration fees for efficient vehicles in 39 states, sales and utility taxes on electricity in 35 states, and taxes on EV charging in 9 states.
[3] The 41 states identified as having special registration fees for battery-electric vehicles or similar non-emission or alternative-fuel vehicles are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
[4] The 34 states identified as charging a registration fee for either plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or non-plug-in hybrids are: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
[5] The 9 states identified by Atlas Public Policy as having enacted energy-based EV charging taxes as of June 2025 are: Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin. Atlas also noted that Illinois had considered a similar tax but had not enacted it at the time of the report.