Even Gov. Inslee doesn’t like the state’s proposed road usage charge bill

The latest bill on a pay-by-mile plan, or road usage charge (RUC), received its first hearing before the state House Transportation Committee last week, and there was some very surprising testimony.

It was somewhat of a surprise to those watching the hearing that Gov. Inslee does not support the pay-by-mile plan as written.

Inslee’s senior transportation policy advisor, Debbie Driver, told the committee that the governor does not support the provision that requires all new electric vehicle owners use the system.

“Pairing these programs and incentives with a requirement that new EV owners must participate in a road usage program is problematic, in part because it could dissuade consumers from choosing an EV if they are hesitant toward participating in a mandatory program,” she said.

The bill would eliminate all of the current fees those EV owners would pay.

Driver went on to say that the governor does support transitioning the public vehicle fleet to the RUC.

“The governor is open to implementing a RUC with a mix of state fleet vehicles, and he’s also appreciative of the inclusion of an equity approach, a privacy policy, and an approach that would ensure a vehicle owner is not paying both a fee or a tax and a RUC,” she said.

Without Gov. Inslee on board, it’s unlikely this bill moves out of the House this session.

Several trade groups also voiced opposition to parts of the bill, including the Association of General Contractors. The agency’s Jerry Vanderwood testified that the association cannot support the legislature unless there is language specifically saying the money raised from the RUC would be protected under the 18th Amendment, which currently requires any money from the gas tax be dedicated to roads. Vanderwood believes a RUC should have the same protection.

“AGC cannot support any RUC proposal that does not clearly provide 18th Amendment protections,” he said. “Giving early RUC funds Constitutional protection is the only way to ensure that a RUC closely replicates the gas tax’s advantages as a funding mechanism.”

There are concerns from many groups that the money could be siphoned away from roads to fund transit or other non-road repair or maintenance programs, if not protected by the 18th Amendment.

But it wasn’t all testimony against the idea.

Tom Thiersch has owned an EV for four years, and he likes the idea.

“I think it hits all the right notes, even though the imposition of a per-mile charge would actually increase my per-mile cost of driving substantially,” he testified.

Market expert: Consumer confidence in electric vehicles is on the rise

So it sounds like there are too many questions about how the system will be set up, where the money will go, and who will be forced to participate to make this viable this session. And we haven’t even discussed the privacy issues, how much data will be collected, and how the miles would be tracked.

While a lot of lawmakers believe this is the future of a more reliable funding source, it doesn’t sound like now is the time.

Check out more of Chris’ Chokepoints.

Follow @https://twitter.com/newsguysully