House republicans have proposed putting a $200/year federal registration tax on EVs, with the false rationale that it will help to close a supposed budget shortfall that has in fact been caused by Congress’ refusal to raise the federal gas tax since 1993.
The proposal was announced by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, chaired by Sam Graves (R-MO), who received $163,300 in bribes from the oil & gas industry in the last campaign cycle.
It proposes a massive tax hike on the nation’s electric vehicles, not just increasing taxes on those cars far beyond what is reasonable by any measure, but also adding yet another abusive tax on EVs that is yet again higher than the tax that polluting, damaging gas vehicles have to pay.
We’ve already seen these ridiculous laws pass state by state, and every one we’ve seen has been abusive or overpriced in some way.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
In many states, EVs not only have to pay a registration tax far in excess of the amount a similarly-efficient gas vehicle would have to pay, they also have to pay taxes on the energy going into that EV.
Rather than going for fairness and actually calculating the amount of road use that any given EV does, and attempting to charge a fair fee based on that (as one might rightly do with a weight/mileage fee, applied to all vehicles, as Washington state kind of tried to do), these taxes instead just add a large penalty to EV drivers in order to disincentivize EV ownership. No wonder, given that the push for them started with the Koch brothers, who became billionaires by poisoning you with their oil and gas products and have then spent those proceeds lobbying to ensure that they continue to be able to poison you further.
But now House republicans want to add yet another tax, meaning that EVs nationwide would have to pay not only taxes on the energy that goes into the car (at least in regions where electricity is taxed), but also both state and federal registration taxes. And the number associated with that tax is just as insane as you might expect out of this current Congress.
The $200/year tax hike is equivalent to the federal gas taxes that would be paid on 1,087 gallons of gasoline. With most EVs being quite efficient and achieving something on the order of 120MPGe, the amount of energy from those 1,087 gallons of gasoline would be enough to pilot those EVs over a hundred thousand miles in a year. Quite a bit more than the average driver. You may claim that efficiency isn’t a fair way to figure these taxes, but that’s how they’re figured on gas cars, entirely, so if it’s fair for them then why isn’t it fair for EVs?
Even if we were to give the EV a handicap and pretend that it’s the same efficiency as the average gas-powered vehicle (it’s not), a 24mpg vehicle would have to drive over 26,000 miles in order to pay that much in gas tax, which, again, is much higher than the average driver.
But if we claim it only has to do with road damage caused, and not with efficiency (despite that that’s how the gas tax is levied), then we must look at what actually causes road damage: big trucks. A heavy duty tractor-trailer loaded to 80,000lbs does 9,600x as much road damage as a 4,000lb automobile, and these trucks tend to run higher average mileage.
If a truck does 10,000x as much damage and runs 5x as many miles as the average EV, then a road usage fee of $10 million a year must be fair, right? And if you balk at that number, then you must also balk at a $200/year registration fee. (Not to mention, in most states, gas taxes don’t pay for a majority of road costs anyway).
So regardless of the method we go about figuring fairness, this tax is too high. Unsurprising, from a bought-and-paid oil stooge like Graves.
Graves’ release goes on to state the sort of nonsense you might expect from a recipient of bribes from the oil industry, claiming that the purpose of this tax is to make up for a budget shortfall which he blames on electric vehicles (nevermind that it started to come about well before EVs showed up on the US’ roads). In his desperate quest for justifications for his massive tax hike, though, he fails to mention that the federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, when it was set at the 18.4 cents that it remains at today.
As costs of just about everything have gone up since then, strangely, the gas tax hasn’t increased – if it kept up with inflation, it would be around 40 cents today. So that’s 32 years worth of free ride that gas cars have gotten on roads, with their taxes gradually decreasing relative to the inflated dollar.
I wonder if that might contribute to any sort of shortfall, and not the roughly 1.4% of the US vehicle fleet that runs on electricity?
But, hey, I guess if we need to raise funds, we can surely milk a lot more out of those ~4 million EVs (times $200/year, that’s less than a billion dollars) than we can out of the ~290 million gas cars on the road (a single penny increase in the federal gas tax would increase federal revenue by twice the amount the proposed EV tax will – and if it was indexed to the level of inflation, it would raise more like $30 billion this year).
Add another failure of simple math to this proposal, but tack on a mark of cowardice for targeting a smaller group who won’t complain as much, and who won’t rock the boat of the industry responsible for your political bribes, Mr. Graves.
The document goes on to betray its lack of interest in good governance or basic math and to show that it is motivated by partisanship and an attempt to buoy gasoline vehicles, not budgetary concerns.
For example, it talks about the “wasteful” spending of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). But here’s the rub: the IRA was actually revenue-positive, reducing the federal government deficit by $90 billion over 10 years. That differs from the current republican House budget, which Graves supports, and which will increase the deficit by $6 trillion in a decade.
So much for caring about the deficit, but math never got in the way of good propaganda from Graves’ oil industry benefactors.
But, well, there’s one thing I neglected to discuss. Graves’ proposal also does propose a registration fee on gas vehicles… so it’s being fair, right?
Well, not quite, because the proposed tax on gas vehicles would be $20 per year, compared to the ten times higher EV tax of $200 per year, despite that both vehicles have similar effect on roads. The gas vehicle registration fee would only start in 2031, seemingly giving gas vehicles a free ride until then… but in fact the $20 fee would represent a decrease in total taxes paid by gas cars, because the suggestion is that the $20 fee should replace the gas tax, which Graves refers to as “broken” (perhaps because it hasn’t been raised in over 30 years, hmm?).
So it turns out we didn’t even have to do that math above about how these EV fees are unfair – because Graves is telling us, right out, that he wants to tax EVs at ten times the rate of gas cars.
Note that $20/yr would represent about a 4-5x decrease in tax paid per gas vehicle, compared to current levels, which means that government revenue would drop by a similar amount, while costs for construction are likely to continue to go up. This means that the deficits related to spending to fix the US’ broken infrastructure would increase drastically – but then again, we already know from their budget proposal that republicans love deficits.
What is perhaps most surprising is that one of the top supporters of the republican party that has proposed this massive tax hike on electric vehicles and giveaway to gas cars is Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, the largest EV company in America.
Musk gave, and continues to give, hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money, most of which came from his company that sells electric vehicles, to the party that wants to put disproportionately high taxes on those EVs. This does not seem particularly productive to Tesla’s mission, but it’s not the first bad business decision we’ve seen from him lately as he seems to have forgotten about that mission.
If Graves, or the republicans, or anyone wanted to actually solve this problem, the actual fairest solution remains a mileage tax on all vehicles, scaling significantly based on the weight of the vehicle involved (at least partially recognizing the fourth power law that makes heavier vehicles worse on roads); and a separate fee to account for the unpriced externalities of pollution created by vehicles, relative to the amount that each vehicle creates and the costs they foist on the populace – as proposed in the past by old guard republican leadership, along with basically every economist and Elon Musk himself.
To reduce your carbon footprint and live more sustainably, consider going solar. EnergySage is a free service that connects you with trusted, reputable installers in your area – without having to give up your phone number until you select an installer. Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way through EnergySage. Get started today! – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
One thing I love about this Plug-in Hybrid is that it has a relatively huge battery and could be ridden fully electric, outside of road trips. The two 45-52kWh battery options provide somewhere between 220 and 280 km of range using China’s optimistic calculator. That’s 137 – 174 miles of EV range before the gas motor kicks in and about six times the average daily commute.
Zeekr, Lynk & Co’s sister company, has an even bigger battery, but gawdier PHEV with a 380km/236 mile range before the gas kicks in. At this point, we are really talking about an EV with a range extender.
As with many Chinese luxury vehicles, the second row seats really stood out. They are as comfortable as a laz-y-boy and offer to electronically spin around 360 degrees to make the 2nd and 3rd row a conference area. I nearly fell asleep in them a few times. OK I did but that’s because of jet lag or something. I can’t get over how futuristic the back of this car is.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Lynk & Co 900 is 524 cm long, 199 cm wide, 181 cm high and has a wheelbase of 316 cm and uses the SPA Evo modular architecture.
The drive is smooth and quick and never once did that petroleum engine kick in.
The 900 comes with standard roof-mounted LiDAR, with higher-priced variants powered by Nvidia’s Thor smart driving chip enabling door-to-door navigation with G-Pilot H7.
Its sleek body isn’t just for looks as it hits the wind tunnel with an impressive drag coefficient of 0.291 Cd. It also boasts a top tier 0-100 km/h in 4.3 seconds.
Lynk & Co is making waves with its upcoming 900 model, which has already received over 40,000 pre-orders ahead of its official launch on April 28. Built on the SPA Evo architecture, the six-seater combines class-leading 88.2% space efficiency with innovative 180-degree rotating second-row seats, targeting premium family buyers seeking versatile cabin configurations. The intelligent cockpit features front and rear 30-inch 6K displays driven by dual Qualcomm 8295 chips, delivering 60 TOPS computing power for eight-screen coordination via the LYNK Flyme Auto system. Powering the SUV is a 2.0T plug-in hybrid (PHEV) powertrain with 3-speed DHT Pro transmission and dual rear motors, generating 650kW total output to achieve 0-100km/h acceleration in 4.3 seconds – positioning the 900 as one of the fastest electrified SUVs in its segment.
It turns out that there are other similar vehicles from other Chinese makers including the Li L9, Denza N9 and Aito M9.
Electrek’s take:
The Lynk & Co 900 is the Chinese EV market in a nutshell: 90% of the car at half the price of its western rivals. Compare to a Range Rover, Rivian R1S, the upcoming Scout, Hyundai Ioniq 7 or a Kia EV9 and it is hard to imagine how well these would sell in the US and Europe.
Something else I love to see is a huge battery PHEV with enough range for reasonable daily tasks before the gas engine kicks in. Scout has a similar idea so we might get to try something similar in the US.
Even in China Lynk&co has noted it had 40,000 pre-orders before launch, so I think this is going to be a popular vehicle. I don’t think, even with the bananas current trade climate, this one will show up in the US. Europe on the other hand might want to keep an eye out however.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
If you’ve been holding off on going solar, now might be the time to revisit that quote. According to EnergySage’s new Solar & Storage Marketplace Report, prices for both home solar and solar + storage reached record lows in the second half of 2024.
EnergySage, an online solar shopping marketplace (and Electrek affiliate) analyzed millions of quotes from installers across the US in its 20th semiannual report. The data covers January through December 2024 and offers a detailed look at what homeowners pay for solar panels, batteries, inverters, and more.
Home solar and battery storage price quotes hit record lows
The median price for solar-only systems dropped to $2.65 per watt in the second half of 2024, down from $2.80 per watt earlier in the year. That’s the lowest price EnergySage has recorded.
Battery-backed systems saw an even bigger price drop: home solar + storage quotes fell from $2.59 per watt in H1 2024 to $2.40 per watt in H2 2024. Tesla’s Powerwall 3 is playing a big role in the storage price drop. The new version includes an integrated inverter, which shifts some of the cost from the solar quote (measured in $/W) to the storage quote (measured in $/kWh).
Advertisement – scroll for more content
These falling prices were driven by a mix of factors. Equipment costs have dropped – Wood Mackenzie reports that residential solar panel prices were down 30% year-over-year. High interest rates and stable electricity prices have softened demand, pushing installers to offer more competitive pricing. And in California, changes to the state’s Net Billing Tariff have also pressured installers to drop prices.
“Heading into 2025, solar and battery prices had never been lower on the EnergySage Marketplace, and for homeowners, that means more affordable and accessible clean energy solutions,” said Emily Walker, director of content and insights at EnergySage. “This creates a compelling record-low benchmark to measure against as we begin to see the effects of shifting policies and tariffs take hold this year.”
Say hello to high-wattage solar panels
Home solar panels are getting more powerful, faster. In H2 2023, 81% of quotes included panels rated under 400 watts. By H2 2024, that number had dropped to just 14%. The shift is thanks to advances in panel efficiency and design: Either the panels themselves are getting bigger, or they’re packing more power into the same space.
High-wattage panels can reduce the number of panels needed per home, saving space and installation time. But there’s a wild card in 2025: tariffs. Bloomberg reported in April that the US had a stockpile of 40-50 gigawatts of solar panels at the end of 2024, which may buffer the US solar industry from big price hikes. However, that could slow down innovation and complicate the supply chain.
“As panel technologies improve, more homeowners are being offered higher-output systems – meaning fewer panels, more power, and a better return on investment,” said Walker. “We’re closely watching how inventory strategies and upcoming tariffs may shape this trend.”
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check outEnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get startedhere. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Rivian (RIVN) is already preparing for changes under the Trump administration. In anticipation of Trump’s new auto tariffs, Rivian built a reserve of EV batteries from Asia as a countermeasure.
Rivian has a plan to overcome Trump’s tariffs
At this point, nearly every major automaker has acknowledged the damaging impact of tariffs on vehicle imports in the US.
GM, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, and Volvo all withdrew their financial guidance due to the uncertainty. Rivian wasted no time preparing for the changes.
According to a Bloomberg report on Wednesday, Rivian has been stockpiling lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) battery cells from Gotion High-Tech since last year. The battery cells are used in Rivian’s Commercial Van, initially used by Rivian and now open to other businesses.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Sources familiar with the matter said Rivian covered the upfront costs to stockpile inventory for later use. China’s Gotion paid for and built a separate reserve in the US.
The sources also said that Rivian is working with Samsung SDI to move a significant portion of its battery supply from Korea to the US. Battery cells from Samsung are used in Rivian’s R1S electric SUV and R1T pickup. All three vehicles are built at Rivian’s manufacturing plant in Normal, IL.
Rivian R1T (right) and R1S (left) Source: Rivan
The move is to ensure Rivian has enough supply while minimizing potential higher prices and other complications from the tariffs.
As it prepares to launch its smaller, more affordable R2, sources said Rivian is looking to secure similar deals for batteries and raw materials in the future. Rivian has reportedly already signed its first agreement, but no other details were offered.
Rivian’s next-gen R2, R3, and R3X (Source: Rivian)
The upcoming R2 will use cells from LG Energy Solution. Although they will initially come from Korea, LG will produce the next-gen batteries in Arizona.
Electrek’s Take
Although Trump eased some of the impacts on imported vehicles on Wednesday, many tariffs remain in place and are already causing havoc in the industry.
Almost every major automaker has withdrawn earnings guidance due to the expected impacts. Like Rivian, others are taking countermeasures, including boosting US inventory in preparation. However, how long can this last?
Trump claims that the “Golden Age of America” is here, but it looks to be the complete opposite. The tariffs will only put the US further behind as China and others emerge as global leaders in tech.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.