Find Bill
Find Your Legislator
Legislative Deadlines
April 18, 2025
RSS Feed Permanent URL -A +A

Minutes for HB2121 - Committee on Transportation

Short Title

Increasing the annual license fees of electric and hybrid passenger vehicles and trucks and electric motorcycles and distributing the fees to the state highway fund and the special city and county highway fund.

Minutes Content for Tue, Mar 11, 2025

Chairperson Petersen called the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m. and opened the hearing on HB2121.

Assistant Revisor Adam Siebers briefed members on the bill (Attachment1).  He explained that the bill increases the annual license fees of electric and hybrid passenger vehicles, trucks, and electric motorcycles, and he listed the registration fees for each category of vehicles.  Commenting on current law that remits license and title fees to the State Highway Fund, he said the bill would provide fees collected for electric vehicles to be credited to the State Highway Fund and the Special City and County highway funds in the same proportion and specified for the motor fuel tax distributions (66.7%/33.63%). 

Representative Nick Hoheisel, District 97, testified as a proponent for the bill (Attachment 2).  He assured members that the bill was not intended to punish electric vehicle (EV) owners.  He recognized the economic and environmental impact of the EV industry, but he also noted the imbalance that these vehicles contribute to funding roadways.  He said the bill addresses the imbalance by adjusting the annual registration fees for electric and hybrid vehicles by raising the registration price to $165 for EVs $100 for plug-in hybrids, and $85 for standard hybrids.  He explained that the standard registration fee of $30 to $40 was incorporated into increased EV fees.  He also noted that the bill recognizes the heavier EV trucks by increasing EV registration fees to $200 and $125 for hybrids. 

Representative Hoheisel responded to questions:

  • Cities and counties are included in the funding by using the same formula as the motor fuels tax.
  • A bill currently in the House Transportation Committee is addressing alternative funding through a fee added to the charging stations.

Catherine Magana, Legislative Liaison, Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), spoke in support of the bill (Attachment 3).  Commenting that KDOT's State Highway Fund has been declining as more vehicles switch to electric; she said the bill will provide additional revenue for the State Highway Fund and the Special City and County Highway Fund to compensate for this decline.  She cited data from 39 states that have increased registration fees for EVs, and she stated that the proposed increase in fees will generate $2.7 annually for KDOT.

Brian Posler, Executive Director, FuelTrue, spoke in favor of the bill (Attachment 4).  He referenced the increased weight of EVs. and their concomitant impact on roadways as a reason to support the bill.  He noted that the current imbalance requires standard vehicle owners to subsidize EVs; the bill corrects this imbalance.

Michael White, Executive Director, Kansas Contractors Association, testified as a proponent (Attachment 5).  He commented that the revenue generated from the motor fuels tax and registration fees has remained flat for many years due to increased fuel-efficient vehicles as well as EVs.  He stated that in order for the state to maintain its road infrastructure the EV owners need to pay their fair share.  He referenced a variety of data to illustrate the changes in fuel efficiency.

Wendi Stark, Legislative Liaison, Kansas League of Municipalities, spoke in support of the bill (Attachment 6).  She said the intent of the bill is to supplement losses in revenue from the motor vehicle fuels tax by capturing additional revenue from EV license fees.

John Federico, Federico Duerst Consulting, representing General Motors, testified in support of the bill (Attachment 7).  He cited the local impact that the Kansas City General Motors plant has had and its continuing benefit by investing an additional $ 390 million to retool their assembly line for the next-generation Chevrolet Bolt EV.

The Chairman commented on two written-only proponents:

Travis Lowe, Legislative Liaison, Economic Lifelines (Attachment 8); and

Claudia Hissong, Kansas Farm Bureau (Attachment 9).

Zach Pistora, Kansas Director, Kansas Chapter of Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to the bill (Attachment 10).  He commented that since EV drivers drive fewer miles than standard vehicle owners and thus have less negative impact on roadways, the increase in registration fees is punitive for EV drivers.  He recommended an increase in fees for heavy-weight vehicles as a more fair way to address highway wear.

Tad Kramar, Citizen, Big Springs, Kansas, spoke as an opponent to the bill (Attachment 11).  He stated that the amount of the fee increase is punitive and, because of the various ancillary benefits, EV owners should be encouraged--not discouraged--for purchasing an EV.  He noted the increase in taxes from purchasing and owning an EV and the fact that EV drivers drive fewer miles than standard-vehicle owners are reasons not to increase registration fees.

The following opponents to the bill provided written-only testimony:

The following neutral written-only testimony was submitted:

Jill Shelley, Kansas Legislative Research Department referenced two memos:

  • Ms.Shelley provided data regarding other states' fees for electric and hybrid vehicles--fees ranging from$30 to $400 based on weight, age, or value.  She cited other states' statutes dealing with EVs (Attachment 16).
  • Ms. Shelley reviewed various states' data regarding taxes on EV charging requirements by comparing the equivalency between a gallon of gasoline and a Kilowatt hour and calculating electricity as a vehicle fuel, and she commented on the fiscal effect of the various ways to calculate fees (Attachment 17).