NSW Parliament publishes report into forthcoming road user charge for electric vehicles

New South Wales (NSW) looks set to be the next jurisdiction to implement a distance-based road user charge (RUC) on electric and plug-in hybrid light vehicles, from 1 July 2027.  From that date, EV owners will be subject to a charge of A$0.03095/km (US$0.0347/mile) and PHEVs A$0.02476 per km (US$0.0278/mile). It won't be the first in Australia to do so, as the state of Victoria implemented RUC on EVs and PHEVs in 2021, but this was cancelled in 2023.

The Parliament of NSW has now published a report into the forthcoming RUC.

Background

In Australia, RUC is a complex topic. For years the Commonwealth (Federal) Government studied and even piloted distance/weight based RUC for heavy vehicles, largely because multiple reports indicated that there would be economic productivity benefits from introducing it, alongside a wide range of associated funding and charging policy measures.  In the meantime, heavy vehicles pay registration fees to the States and Territories, at unified rates, and when paying fuel excise duty on diesel, they can claim a 100% refund for diesel not used on public roads and a partial refund of the remainder (with the part that is retained called the "fuel based road user charge"). Since 2024, heavy vehicle RUC has largely been off the political agenda in Australia. 

Then came electric vehicles (EVs), in sufficient numbers that it started to be a concern for future fuel excise duty revenues. Fuel duty is a Commonwealth tax (the States and Territories are not constitutionally permitted to levy such a tax), but is not hypothecated. States and Territories started being interested in whether they could charge a RUC for light EVs, so Victoria did so in 2021, only for a court case to go as far as the High Court of Australia, which struck it out as unconstitutional in 2023.  That court case was supported (but not led) by the Commonwealth Government. I wrote about the decision (known as Vanderstock) at the time, as I agree with the dissenting opinions of the court.  It was quite the stretch of interpretation to treat the Victorian RUC as an "excise tax" that influences the supply of electric vehicles (and therefore only within the Constitutional scope of the Commonwealth Government), but the decision stands.  

However, parallel to Victoria, the NSW Government passed the Electric Vehicles (Revenue Arrangements) Act 2021, with nearly identical language to the legislation used in Victoria.

That Act means that from 1 July 2027, EVs in NSW will be subject to a distance based RUC.

The obvious conflict is that the Vanderstock decision essentially indicated that RUC should be implemented nationally by the Commonwealth Government, not by the states. but since the decision there has been relatively little said at the Commonwealth level about RUC. 

A series of statements have been made by a few Ministers ranging from how important it is to charge EVs for road use eventually, to concern that legislation to enable this might not get passed by the Senate. 

While there has been some work behind the scenes undertaken by officials, no decisions have yet been made. Meanwhile, sales of EVs in Australia (as in many countries) are at a record high. In the year to August 2026. 18.5% of new light vehicle sales in Australia have been EVs, with it being over 26% in the month of August alone. 

NSW's legislation has not been amended or repealed (although the election in 2023 saw a change in State Government from the Liberal/National Coalition to Labor). 

Public Accountability and Works Committee

Earlier this year, the NSW Legislative Council delegated to its Public Accountability and Works Committee a review into the operation of the Act, and in particular:

(a) whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid, and

(b) whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives. 

It undertook its inquiry and has now published its report and recommendations.  Most of the ten recommendations should not be a particular problem to implement. Two of them are not good ideas, but not impossible to implement.

The NSW Government needs to respond to the report by January 2027, which gives essentially no time to amend the legislation, especially since on 13 March 2027, there is a state election. 

Report details

I’ve read more than a few reports from elected committees about various forms of road user charging and road pricing over the years, and I’m glad to say this is one of the better ones. By and large, most of the conclusions drawn are at least practical, and have some rational public policy basis for them, although a handful of them are not. 

The report is overall positive and supportive of the implementation of RUC for EVs in NSW, notwithstanding some concerns.  

Issues considered in the report include:

• Implications of the Vanderstock High Court of Australia decision on the legislation, including possible amendments to distinguish the NSW proposal from the Victorian policy
• Effects on EV sales
• Impacts of distance based RUC on different geographical communities and vehicle operators including rideshare, delivery drivers and dealerships
• Impacts on plug-in hybrid drivers
• Merits of pure distance based RUC vs including weight, fuel efficiency and congestion
• Hypothecation of net revenues
• National RUC for EVs vs. states going first
• Administration of a RUC

I won't summarise the whole 88 page report here, but it is worth a read (PDF). 

The concerns expressed are understandable and not unreasonable. It is worth noting that the Committee was chaired by a Green MLC (Member of Legislative Council), with the deputy chair from the Liberal Party.  Besides them, there were three Labor, one National and one independent (Mark Latham) on the Committee. Only Latham made a dissenting statement, and that was to support weight based vehicle registration for EVs as an alternative.

A key recommendation was to proceed, regardless of progress at the federal level, which I believe is sound, albeit risky.

At the very least, it is clear that States and Territories could wait for a national RUC system and still be waiting one, two, three or even five years from now, mainly because the political will to proceed is tepid at best. That may be proved wrong in the coming months, but it is more likely than not that NSW pushing on with RUC will catalyse action from the Commonwealth Government which is more rapid than simply waiting for something that shows few signs of progressing fast.

I have summarised the recommendations below with comments in italics.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

That the NSW Government ensure that any future road user charge for electric vehicles is designed and operationalised in a way that does not dampen or impede the uptake of electric vehicles in New South Wales.

Understandable, and easy to address. The basis for this was evidence that RUC when introduced in Victoria and applied to EVs in New Zealand, had no apparent impact on sales. Evidence in New Zealand is blurred by the removal of a major subsidy scheme that saw levies on some new cars used to subsidise the sales price of low emission ones.  That brought forward EV sales, and meant that when RUC was applied to EVs in mid 2024, there was no effect on sales. There remains scant evidence that charging a few cents per kilometre for road use deters a purchase of an EV compared to a ICE vehicle that is already charged the same or more through fuel tax.

Key to complying with this recommendation is perhaps two elements:

• Ensuring administration and compliance for RUC for EVs is simple with minimal friction for owners. It should be easy to buy, have distance reported and be compliant, without prospective EV owners fearing not being able to understand or being fined inadvertently for getting it wrong.  There are plenty of models for doing this  - see New Zealand, Hawai'i and Oregon.
• Setting a rate for RUC, for now, that is cheaper than fuel excise.  A rate commensurate to around half of the average paid by a light ICE vehicle may be appropriate, not least because it would around the same for a battery-electric hybrid vehicle.  The proposed A$0.0395/km seems like it would do that. 

Recommendation 2

That the NSW Government, in consultation with industry stakeholders, monitor the implementation of any future road user charge for electric vehicles in New South Wales with a view to:

• assessing any impact on electric vehicle uptake, and

• promptly identifying other unintended consequences that would undermine the strategic transition to electric and low emissions vehicles.

Agree. There is considerable merit in undertaking impact monitoring, perhaps for the first two years, of RUC on sales and any unintended consequences on users.  Related to this is having flexibility to make regulatory changes at short notice to address any of these, and to take lessons from other jurisdictions about what to avoid (e.g. avoid over-complicating the passage of liability of RUC on vehicle sale or vehicle scrappage).

Recommendation 3

That the NSW Government consider an electric vehicle road user charge exemption for registered dealers of new 'in scope' low and zero emissions vehicles, to be applied up to a prescribed number of kilometres travelled on demonstrator models, and that the threshold be determined in consultation with industry stakeholders.

Disagree.  The objective of this appears linked to Recommendation 1, but this is not a good idea. The best time to educate vehicle owners about RUC is when they purchase a vehicle new.  This appears to be a call for a subsidy for new EVs, when similar exemptions don't exist for fuel duty or even tolls.  It is likely to mean "demonstrator models" get used more by proprietors and staff of dealerships, and then when sold it is a transfer from taxpayers to buyers of those vehicles. 

No other jurisdiction does this (noting Victoria had such a provision). In New Zealand, dealerships buy a block of RUC distance in advance and it is effectively included in the sales price. There is no great burden in having newly registered vehicles including a prepaid block of RUC kilometres, which is essentially like fuelling the vehicle. By contrast, in Oregon the initial OReGO program did not make provision for dealerships to offer RUC to vehicle owners, so they needed to be followed up around a year later to get enrolled with RUC or pay a higher annual registration fee. This is now being amended.

Recommendation 4

That the NSW Government consider hypothecating the future revenue collected under the Electric Vehicles (Revenue Arrangements) Act 2021 towards road maintenance and infrastructure.

Agree. This will help differentiate the RUC from the Victorian programme, but also allow for charges to be more closely linked to what is spent on the network, treating roads as a network utility. This could be done notionally, matching the net revenue collected to a specific allocation of funds for roads maintenance, or more formally (which would progressively grow in scale as RUC expands).  Treasuries hate hypothecation because they want maximum flexibility over the use of tax revenue, but if NSW's RUC is to be treated not as a tax, but as a user fee, it should have a relationship to what is spent on the network.  Furthermore, it is more likely to obtain public acceptability, if it is not treated as just another new source of revenue.  I'll note that the now virtually stalled Heavy Vehicle Road Reform programme includes hypothecation for a future national heavy vehicle RUC.

Recommendation 5

That the NSW Government investigate fairer distance-based options for electric vehicle road users in rural, regional and outer suburban communities and light commercial vehicle operators without creating loopholes or adding to the administrative burden or complexity for drivers.

Agree, pending clarification of the problem.  The report assumes that people living in rural, regional and outer suburban communities drive more distance in aggregate on average, than those in inner city communities. There is no evidence provided to support this. I'll note that in the United States, RUC America undertook a study comparing the impacts of introducing distance-based RUC to replace fuel excise for people in urban vs. rural locations and it was published in 2022. It concluded that in many cases people in rural areas did NOT drive greater distances, because they drove less frequently than residents in urban areas. Similar research in NSW would be informative and useful.

Some of the commentary in the report around delivery and gig worker drivers seems to ignore that such drivers face these fees now with ICE vehicles, paying fuel duty for driving more.  Research might indicate that delivery drivers pay more in fuel duty per kilometre driven than the average, because of the amount of starting and stopping compared to private vehicle trips. It seems particularly questionable to want to cap what is charged for such vehicles, when EVs are likely to deliver considerable savings in energy costs already.

Notwithstanding this, there is merit in enabling the registration and certification of third-party service providers to collect RUC using telematics systems either as equipment already installed in vehicles or third-party devices, to measure distance by location. This would enable exemption of distance travelled off public roads and out of state, and for measurement to be automated.  This could provide options for rural drivers and drivers located in border communities to avoid paying for travel in adjacent States and Territories. Note that Vermont has agreed to implement RUC for EVs, but requiring such an option be implemented two years later.

Recommendation 6

That the NSW Government amend the Electric Vehicles (Revenue Arrangements) Act 2021 to reframe the road user charge to have the character of a licence fee or fee for service, rather than a tax or excise.

Agree, noting that the timing to do this seems challenging at best. It should be a user fee for the use of public roads in New South Wales, and it could include a means to grant refunds for distance off of public roads or in other states, if evidence is given of proof of such travel. This could only be done after the event, and have an administrative cost to it.

Recommendation 7

That the NSW Government amend the Electric Vehicles (Revenue Arrangements) Act 2021, or use future regulations or any other appropriate mechanism, to introduce a differentiated distance-based regime in which the per kilometre rate takes into account:

• a vehicle's size and weight

• differences in battery performance and life for battery electric vehicles

• differences in emissions performance among low-emissions hybrid vehicles.

Disagree. This appears to be based on a misperception as to wear and tear on road surfaces generated by variations in weight among light vehicles. This is not supported by research commissioned by the National Transport Commission or seen overseas. Beyond the impacts of weather, there is very little impact of vehicle weight on road maintenance below the level of heavy vehicles (GVM >4.5 tonnes).  Note New Zealand did use to charge light vehicles at one tonne intervals, with the rates varying by a tenth of a cent per kilometre. One tonne increments were scrapped for light vehicles some years ago to simplify administration.

The proposal to charge differently according to battery performance and life are highly problematic not least because such data is not collected in the motor vehicle register. It would be difficult to measure this and unclear the basis for varying charges, particularly as performance and battery life varies over time.  The proposal to take into account emissions performance among hybrid vehicles (which in this case would be plug-in hybrids) also has problems around getting a reliable source of data to classify vehicles, and to incorporate it into the motor vehicle register.  It is common to charge vehicles differently by Euro class, in heavy vehicle RUC systems in Europe, but that is for vehicles almost all of which are powered by diesel.

The relative impacts and merits of such proposals seem likely to be not worth the cost and complexity to implement.

Recommendation 8

That, with respect to the administrative arrangements to operationalise any future road user charge, the NSW Government commit to:

• keeping it as simple as possible for drivers to minimise the administrative burden

• fully integrating the charge within the existing administrative scheme for vehicle stamp duty, registration fees and licensing.

Agree. There should be a base level simple product for vehicle owners to interact with, such as a prepaid licence (as in New Zealand), an annual fee based on an estimate confirmed at registration time, or a regular invoice based on an average or submitted distance. It makes perfect sense to integrated with registration fees, but there needs to be a rapid commitment to the base level product that provides the most flexibility to users, while enabling alternatives either immediately or within a couple of years.

Recommendation 9

That the NSW Government continue to work with the Federal and state governments on road user charging policy, with a view to working towards a national road user charging system.

Agree, it should go without saying that a national system or nationally co-ordinated system is preferable to a patchwork of policies that risk incoherence.

Recommendation 10

That, absent a national road user charging framework and regime, the NSW Government proceed to implement the electric vehicle road user charge established by the Electric Vehicles (Revenue Arrangements) Act 2021 subject to the amendments outlined in Recommendations 1 to 8 above.

Agree.

Next steps

The NSW Government is expected to provide the Government Response to this report by 11 January 2027.  This should give a clear indication of what happens next.

In the meantime, it is not impossible to expect that there might be an announcement from the Federal government in Canberra about RUC policy nationally (although few would bet on it). The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook is due to be issued in December 2026, which would cut it fine indeed, but be timely to signal what might happen nationally.  However, it is also quite likely that nothing will be signalled, given other government priorities.

UK announces further details of its electric vehicle road user charging proposal (eVED)

I wrote in December 2025 about the proposals from the UK Government for what it is called eVED or Electric Vehicle Excise Duty.  Elsewhere, this would be known as a distance-based road user (or road usage) charge, and is intended to apply to EVs, PHEVs and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles that are light passenger vehicles.

The UK is following Iceland and New Zealand, which are the first two countries to mandate distance-based road user charging for EVs and PHEVs. It is also following in the US, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Hawaii and Vermont all of which have or are introducing opt-in distance based charges (with the option of an annual fixed fee) for similar vehicles. 

The significance of the UK is it will, when implemented, be the largest light vehicle road user charging system in the world (based on numbers of vehicles it applies to). 

There are around 2.8 million vehicles today in the UK that it will apply to, which is larger than the number light vehicles that are subject to RUC in New Zealand (currently the largest - which is around 1.2 million light vehicles). That number will be exceeded when New Zealand shifts all remaining petrol powered light vehicles to RUC (which will mean around 4.3m light vehicles on RUC).  

What is VED?

In order to avoid confusion in terminology, what is meant by Vehicle Excise Duty in the UK is broadly equivalent to annual vehicle registration or licensing fees in most other jurisdictions. This are broadly fixed fees for a duration (one year or smaller increments), based on a vehicle classification which may be by size, type of vehicle, gross maximum weight, engine size, fuel type or emissions class, or some combination of those.

The eVED proposal is for a fee based on distance travelled to apply to BEVs and PHEVs.

What's happened now?

The UK Government has now published its response (PDF) to consultation on the proposal.

The details of the proposal have been updated on the UK Government website here.

In short:

• On 1 April 2028, light BEVs, PHEVs and hydrogen-fuel cell cars will be subject to eVED. It only applies to "light passenger vehicles" so not light commercial vehicles.
• The charge will be £0.03/mile (US$0.025/km) for BEVs and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles and £0.015/mile (US$0.0126) for PHEVs. 
• Charges will be increased in 2029 and 2030 in line with the Consumer Price Index.
• Drivers will be required to provide an odometer reading when they re-register their car for VED from that date, and to estimate mileage for the YEAR ahead.
• Drivers can choose to pay for the entire estimate upfront in advance, or in instalments spread through the year.  Reconciliation of the correct amount will happen at annual VED time.
• It is expected to generate £1.1b (US$1.48b) in revenue in the first full year, increasing to $1.435b the subsequent year and £1.865b in the year after that.
• The effect on EV sales is expected to be a 2% reduction over a five year period.

So the fee will not apply to any other BEVs or PHEVs (i.e. light commercial or heavy vehicles)

Several other important elements include:

• Net revenues will be treated as general tax revenue. It will not be hypothecated for road spending or transport spending.  This reflects fuel duty, but does not reflect practice in any other jurisdiction, which generally sees it hypothecated for road spending or to support further vehicle electrification.
• No provision has been made to require that there be a location-specific option for measuring distance available for vehicle owners who want it. This means that such vehicles located in Northern Ireland which cross the Irish border, will be subject to the fee for any distance driven in the Republic of Ireland. Likewise, driving such a vehicle outside the UK will see the fee charged at the same rate. Officials may say it is the same case with fuel duty, except that fuel duty isn't paid infinitely on travel outside the UK. At some point the vehicle will need refueled, and would be subject to fuel duty in the country of purchase.  If the Republic of Ireland or say France introduced a similar fee, imposed on visiting vehicles, then it would mean UK registered vehicles are double taxed.
• The fee only applies to UK registered vehicles, so visiting BEVs. PHEVs and hydrogen fuel cell cars will pay nothing.
• Verification of odometer readings only occurs when safety inspections are undertaken ("MoTs") , which only needs to happen after a vehicle is three years old. This raises the real risk of vehicle owners facing a very high initial EVED bill if their estimate of miles for the previous three years has been low. This is particularly the case if it has changed ownership, as the incentive will be for the owner for the first two and a half or so years to estimate a very low mileage and pay (and lie about mileage when renewing VED), and to sell the car, with the subsequent owner receiving the first MoT and the verified odometer reading being much higher.  This might be resolved if change of ownership includes records of reported mileage to be compared to actual mileage on sale.

The proposal continues to upset the EV retail lobby which sees it as risking EV sales overall, but it is a fairly simple plan, and it does only partially recover revenue that would otherwise have been collected from fuel duty if the cars were petrol or diesel powered.

Nevertheless, assuming it proceeds it means the UK will be introducing a road user charge from July 2028 which is distance based, largely as a partial revenue replacement for fuel duty.  This will follow Vermont in January 2027 and New South Wales in July 2027.

We will await to see if the new British Prime Minister, and Chancellor of the Exchequer will see these plans change, once again. However, given the experience of multiple other jurisdictions, it appears the UK has gone for an excessively simplistic approach, when it should have been more bold. 

What could the UK do instead?

1. Allow odometer self-reporting via app, to spread out payments:  The average car in the UK is driven around 7,200 miles per annum.  That means £216 a year if charged 3p a mile. It should be possible for those who want to spread that out up to four times a year to do so, if they submit odometer readings (either through an app or to an independent third party).  Iceland bills motorists (in fact all vehicle owners for all vehicles) monthly, with an estimate which can be corrected through submission of an actual reading.  This added flexibility will better suit some users, and avoid the pressure of a higher annual fee.
2. Allow the market to enable third parties to provide distance measurement and account management services, including the option to exclude distance off public roads including outside the UK: Complaints about driving to Ireland or France are valid, so the option to avoid paying for distance in other countries should be available, although not government led. Likewise, some people in rural areas may want to avoid paying for distance travelled on private properties. Some Treasury officials will insist this is fair because fuel duty is consumed for such trips, but if the UK is not interested in moving more towards user pays in road charging then it is missing out on an opportunity for more efficient and fairer pricing
3. Hypothecate the revenue and subject increases to regulatory review: Treating it like just another tax prevents there being more flexible charges and pricing in future, and also undermines its potential acceptability. If net revenues were used to help pay for road maintenance, then the rates they are set at can be based on the cost of providing that infrastructure allocated proportionately to those vehicles. This becomes the embryo of a national road user charging system for all vehicles that recovers infrastructure costs much more fairly and efficiently than the status quo. Not doing this leave it as just another tax, and provides no link between what is paid and what service is delivered.

It is easy to see why this proposal might be scrapped, except that the government will urgently want over £1b in revenue per annum, and will also want to start sending the message that driving is not "free" if you have an EV.  Surely it would not be difficult to enable the private sector to provide solutions to make it easier both for fleet operators, and for vehicle keepers whose vehicles leave the UK regularly to not have to be subject to paying for distance travelled outside its jurisdiction? (even if such solutions are not necessarily available to all vehicles on day one).

Vermont will be the next US state to implement RUC

Following in the footsteps of Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Hawai'i, Vermont has passed legislation implementing a distance based road user charge (PDF) (called a Mileage Based User Fee - MBUF) from 1 January 2027.  This of course makes Vermont the sixth US state to introduce a road usage charge for light electric vehicles.

It will apply to battery-electric vehicles registered in Vermont (so not vehicles visiting from other states) charging US$0.014 per mile (US$0.0087/km). The maximum payable within a 12 month period is US$178 which is around 12714 miles (a relatively high cap).  

All US states that have implemented RUC for light vehicles have implemented a cap, unlike jurisdictions in Europe and New Zealand (and unlike fuel tax!).

Vermont MBUF will be measured using odometer readings, initially. With options to pay:

• Annually, following one odometer reading (e.g., at safety inspections); 
• On a regular basis (at an interval determined by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles) known as "pay as you go"; or
• Flat fee at the level of the cap (US$178).

Part of the programme includes a transition plan to expand beyond battery electric vehicles.

It will be expanded to PHEVs from 1 January 2029 with work to be undertaken on "additional mileage reporting options" specifically referring to location based options so that distance travelled outside Vermont could be excluded.  Indeed, the legislation indicates that there should be at least one option for motorists to distinguish between distance travelled in state and out of state when it is extended to PHEVs. 

Inclusion of PHEVs is also dependent on developing a fuel tax credit system to refund fuel taxes, based on the vehicle's fuel economy. It is unclear if this simply allows for estimations of fuel consumption or actual fuel consumption.

Furthermore, the transition plan will also investigate expanding coverage to medium and heavy duty EVs and PHEVs, although no date has been set for such a transition or decision made to actually expand beyond light EVs and PHEVs.

Earlier discussion in Vermont's legislature considered MBUF applying to all vehicles, so it is clear that there is a path by which EVs and then PHEVs are paying by distance, with future application to heavier vehicles of the same motive power and then applied to other vehicles.

What is notable for Vermont is:

• No RUC pilot was run in Vermont, rather this has followed a feasibility study and the operation of an advisory committee.
• Explicit inclusion of a location enabled option for the next phase, indicating the importance of addressing vehicle owners not being charged for out-of-state distance.

There will be clearly be more forthcoming about this in future months, as the rollout date is short, but at least at first it will be a relatively simple low-cost system.

Challenges will be:

• Not charging out-of-state vehicles to use the roads (such vehicles pay fuel tax when filling in Vermont now, but won't be included, largely because of political reluctance and legal complexities in identifying and enforcing such systems for out-of-state light vehicles (note than Oregon's Weight-Mile Tax applies to trucks regardless of the state where they are registered, for driving on public roads in Oregon.
• Selecting a suitable location based system for PHEVs (which could presumably also apply to EVs).
• Obtaining public acceptability for the final approach to credit fuel taxes to PHEV owners (noting Oregon has been doing this for some time).

Does road user charging deter electric vehicle sales?

 

On 20 May 2026 I had the privilege of presenting a seminar at the University of Sydney, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies,  on the topic of "Road user Charging in Australia: Finally, after 20 years?".

One small piece of research I pulled together when preparing the seminar was to look at reported quarterly sales data for EVs (pure EVs, not hybrids) as a proportion of all new light vehicle sales, for New Zealand, Australia and Iceland. 

The reason being fairly simple. It is to identify any discernible impact on EV sales of the presence or absence of a distance based road user charge (RUC).

New Zealand introduced RUC for EVs on 1 April 2024.

Australia has no RUC for EVs.

Iceland had introduced RUC for EVs on 1 January 2024 and expanded it to all vehicles on 1 January 2026.

New Zealand's RUC rate for light EVs is the same rate for light diesel vehicles, and broadly equivalent to petrol tax.  That rate is NZ$0.076/km including GST of 15%.  Excluding GST this would be US$0.038/km or US$0.06 per mile.

Iceland's RUC rate for light EVs is ISK6.95 per km or around US$0.06 per km or US$0.1 per mile.

The result is fairly clear. There is no significant relationship between the introduction of RUC and EV sales.

Nine months after Iceland introduced RUC on EVs, sales grew and have continued to grow as a proportion of new light vehicle sales.  

In New Zealand there was no drop at all, although sales remained slow and only picked up recently, this is mainly attributable to poor economic growth and the after-effects of the removal of a major subsidy to buy EVs that was scrapped at the end of 2023 (bringing many sales forward before that time). 

Meanwhile, Australia, which has no RUC at all, has only slightly higher EV sales than New Zealand (although Australia has lower fuel tax, and higher incomes).

The oft-cited claim, seen in Australia, the UK and the US, is that requiring EV owners to pay to use the roads would deter their sales, relative to non-EVs, is largely specious. While lobbyists in those jurisdiction get political and media attention for their claims, the reality - in jurisdictions that actually have introduced mandatory RUC for EVs, is that it makes next to no difference.

When IS the right time for Australia to introduce road user charging?

RUC is a current issue in Australia

I was fortunate enough to be moderating a panel at this year's ITS Australia Roads, Tolling and Technology conference in Sydney on 25 March 2026.  I also presented on the topic separately.

It was a panel discussions about road user charging and I was honoured to be moderating such a stellar panel of expertise, namely:

• Professor David Hensher AM, Founding Member of University of Sydney's Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies;
• Bianca Slack-Smith, Director Legislative Reform and National Policy at Transport for New South Wales;
• Adrian Dwyer, CEO of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia;
• Hon Paul Fletcher, Advisor at Compass IOT and former Minister of Urban Infrastructure and Cities (2016-2018), and Minister of Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts (2019-2022);
• Daniel Antonello, CEO of Here Technologies. 

The panel discussed a wide range of issues. The broad conclusion was that distance based road user charges (RUC) should be introduced, starting with EVs, and be focused on replacement of fuel duty revenue. The rates should be set to be broadly equivalent to fuel duty, and it should be a simple, easy to implement system, with the potential to allow for more sophisticated solutions for those who want it.

Although RUC for EVs is an opportunity, especially for State and Territory Governments in Australia to access a new source of revenue, it should be focused on equity.  Equity being the point as to why people who can't afford to buy a new vehicle, let alone an EV, should pay to use the roads, but EV owners should not.

Starting now with EVs was seen as making little difference to EV sales, but making it much easier to implement than a time when there might be substantially higher numbers of EV owners - who would be opposed.

There should be a nationally consistent system, with a basic product (manual distance measurement and reporting) available for all, and digital/location based options available for those who want them (e.g. to avoid charging distance travelled off public roads). 

Previous efforts to advance heavy vehicle RUC were seen as not the priority for now, as it is too politically difficult, although heavy EVs should be part of any RUC system.  

Any net revenues were proposed to be used, for the first few years, to support expansion of the public EV charging network, to help address range anxiety, although longer term such revenue might be used to support funding of road maintenance (noting fuel duty has not been hypothecated in Australia for over 30 years). 

So following that event, it is worth noting where Australia is right now:

• Federally, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure has set up a RUC Task Force to investigate policy options.
• Legislated is in force in New South Wales to implement RUC for EVs and PHEVs from 1 July 2027, and the NSW Government has indicated it would proceed to implement RUC whether or not the Commonwealth Government proceeds with a nationally consistent approach;
• A High Court of Australia decision (Vanderstock vs. the State of Victoria) ruled Victoria's RUC system for EVs and PHEVs was unconstitutional.

Many State and Territory Governments are supportive of RUC for EVs, not just for revenue, but also because it means EV owners pay to use the roads (whereas at present arguably bus passengers pay more to use the roads than EV owners), which will moderate driving particularly in cities. 

However, the big stumbling block is whether there will be a single national RUC charge, similar to fuel duty, which the Commonwealth will need States and Territories to collect, or if the Commonwealth might at least enable States and Territories to collect RUC.

The prospects for this have varied over recent years. Whilst Treasurer Jim Chalmers is reportedly in favour of it, Transport Minister Catherine King has been reported as being sceptical that any legislation could get through Parliament. She noted concern that any RUC would hinder EV sales.

This last point is argued by EV importers who, of course, support every single measure to subsidise or discount EVs and their use of the roads, and treat any measures to equalise their treatment with other vehicles as harming Australian progress towards reducing emissions.  Besides obviously being self-serving, there is not good evidence that RUC hinders EV sales.

Iceland introduced RUC for EVs in 2024, when EV sales were high. However today 33% of light vehicle sales are EVs in Iceland. In 2026 Iceland abolished fuel duty and put ALL vehicles on RUC, but it has had little apparent impact on vehicle sales, largely because EVs still cost 55% less to operate than petrol vehicles (see below from Iceland. 1 ISK = US$0.0082).

Hawaii introduced a choice of RUC or a fixed annual fee for EVs from 2025, and 7% of light vehicles sold in Hawaii are EVs (5% are PHEVs). New Zealand introduced RUC on EVs from 2024 (following abolition of a subsidy scheme that was signalled to be removed at the end of 2023), and EV sales were 6% of new vehicle sales (before the Iran-US conflict) with PHEVs at 5% of the market.  Since the beginning of the Iran-US conflict, EVs have reached 16% of new light vehicle sales in New Zealand, with a RUC of around A$0.06 per km.  It was just under 15% across Australia, with no RUC.

Essentially, paying a relatively small amount to use the roads has little real impact on the benefits that EVs provide in reducing running costs.

But there is a bigger issue.

How road vehicles are charged and taxed has little coherent basis in Australia. Australia has some of the highest vehicle registration fees in the world, primarily because these are fees collected by States and Territories (which don't collect fuel duty).  It's fuel duty, collected nationally, in usual conditions (it is half price because of current petroleum prices), it is neither hypothecated, and heavy vehicle owners pay a significantly reduced rate compared to light vehicle owners, because... heavy vehicles are subject to a fuel and registration based "road user charge" (which is just fuel tax and registration set at rates that are meant to try to reflect costs attributable to such vehicles). 

There is little political appetite let alone mandate for wholesale reform, as badly as it is needed, but a start would come from enabling States and Territories to charge the largest portion of the vehicle fleet that pay literally nothing to use the roads.

No one can rationally doubt the relative environmental benefits of EVs, but driving an EV in inner Sydney is not more environmentally friendly than taking the train or bus. It uses roadspace, it contributes to congestion, and relies on the maintenance and renewal of roads, which are enormous capital intensive assets.

There's little evidence that RUC on EVs affects sales. 

There is evidence that delaying RUC on EVs makes it harder.  In the UK it is highly controversial, in California it is approaching 10 years since it was first studied and piloted, and it seems as far away as ever.

The Commonwealth should set a date for a national EV RUC that is expects all States and Territories to collect. It should also allow them to collect their own, and might develop a framework within which that should operate. This should include rules about off-road use, about open standards for digital means of measuring, reporting and collecting RUC, rules around what account such revenue goes to, and around rate setting.  The NTC could have a role in this, as it does with the fuel/rego based "heavy vehicle road user charge".

Meanwhile, it should let States and Territories proceed themselves within such a framework, starting 1 July 2027 (to match NSW).  It should start with EVs and PHEVs, including heavy EVs, and the signal should be that it will be extended to other vehicles in due course, such as battery-electric hybrids and other new vehicles.

The easiest time to do this is now.

UK to implement road user charging for EVs and Plug-in Hybrids - called eVED

As was widely forecast, the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Honourable Rachel Reeves, announced in the 2025 Budget that the UK will be consulting on introducing a distance-based road user charge (RUC) called, confusingly (and of course deliberately) the electric Vehicle Excise Duty (eVED).

This is distinct from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) which is essentially equivalent to annual vehicle registration fees seen in most countries worldwide.  Both electric vehicles (EVs) and plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have been subject to VED in the UK since April 2025 after many years of exemptions, although the rates for the initial registration of such vehicles are lower than for petrol and diesel vehicles (£10 (US$13.23) in the first year for EV/PHEVs, £110 to £5490 (US$146 - US$7262) depending on the CO2 emissions rating).  In the second and subsequent years, most cars are on the same rate for VED.  The concessionary rate for VED for EV/PHEVs is currently due to expire in 2030. 

VED raises £8.4b (US$11.11b) per annum, and used to be hypothecated to the National Roads Fund, which funds National Highways - the Crown company responsible for England's strategic road network (national highways!). This hypothecation was abolished in 2025.

However, eVED is not like the annual registration fee, in that it is not a fixed tax. The only parallel is that it will be collected at the same time as the registration fee (which is an echo of Hawaii's HiRUC programme which collects HiRUC at the same time as the annual vehicle registration). 

eVED is a distance-based RUC, presumably called so because in the UK, the term RUC was used to legally describe any congestion charging type scheme.  

(The one commonality around road pricing/RUC is that it appears to be absolutely impossible for many jurisdictions to use the same terminology to name the same concept)

eVED is proposed to apply from April 2028 and the consultation document on the proposal is here.

In one sense this is a huge leap forward. The UK has spent over 20 years with on and off debates about some form of national distance based road charging, and has mostly been focused on highly sophisticated distance, time and location based pricing (at once time known as TDP (time distance place) pricing). However, as much as academics, bureaucrats and technocrats have advanced how and why this should be done, they have proven completely incapable of developing a policy package and communicating such a package to the public, to make it acceptable.

eVED, by only charging EVs and PHEVs, and only being based on distance is a much simpler proposition, and might just happen.

Why?

Fuel tax revenue loss, pure and simple. Also, as EVs pay nothing to use the roads, they are likely to generate more demand for distance travelled than other vehicles, contributing more to congestion. 

Fuel tax raised £24.4b (US$32.3b) per annum for the UK Treasury in 2024. Noting none of it is hypothecated, unlike in the US. The average petrol or diesel car owner pays around £0.06 per mile (US$0.079 per mile or US$0.127 per km) per vehicle.  This equals about £480 (US$635) per year to use the roads in the UK.  Of course this is just an average, but is an indication of a point to compare to EVs and PHEVs.

Fuel duty revenue is forecast to halve by the mid 2030s.  Curiously the discussion paper depicts this as a loss of funding for 265 million General Practice doctor appointments (as the UK charges nothing for such appointments, for all residents, regardless of income, under its National Health Service), because fuel duty is not linked to any spending.  This is seen as perhaps more politically significant than funding for road maintenance (which is far exceeded by the income from fuel duty).

In short, eVED is to try to make up for this revenue loss for cars.

EV vehicle sales

Treasury reports that around a quarter of new car sales in October 2024 were EVs. The UK Government's policy is to ban sales of conventional ICE cars in 2030 with a further ban on sales of hybrid and PHEVs by 2035 for light vehicles altogether. 

How much will it be?

For pure EVs, £0.03 per mile (US$0.04 per mile or US$0.064 per km). Around half the average paid in fuel duty by petrol or diesel cars. Of course at that rate it only recovers half of what fuel duty currently does, which is in part a way to continue encouraging use of EVs relative to petrol and diesel cars.  It will be increased according to inflation annually. 

PHEVs will be charged at half that rate, at £0.015 per mile (US$0.02 per mile or US$0.032 per km). This is based on nothing more than a political call on what the rate should be, not any reflection of relative payment of fuel duty compared to pure electric use. 

How will it work?

eVED will be an addition to VED, and be paid annually.  Vehicle owners will be asked to estimate their annual mileage and pay either that whole amount upfront or in instalments throughout the year.  The actual mileage will be checked with the annual safety inspection (which only occurs when a car becomes three years old).  For the first two years of a car's life, the odometer will apparently need to be checked for the annual registration. This will be another inspection, which it is hoped can simply be combined with vehicle annual servicing (which most owners of new vehicles undertake regardless). 

Systems will need to be put in place so authorised MOT (safety inspection) garages can collect and pass on mileage data to the Driver and Vehicles Licensing Authority (DVLA). 

At the mileage inspection, if the estimate of the year's mileage is too high, then there will be a credit for the mileage for the following year. If it was too low, then there will be more to pay either in a lump sum or in higher instalments for the year ahead. 

When sold, any prepaid mileage will stay with the vehicle, and be visible to any new owners (so it can be factored into the price).

What about foreign vehicles in the UK?

They won't be subject to eVED, until they become subject to VED (which is when they remain in the UK for at least six months).  This will be quite an issue in Northern Ireland with its open border to the Irish Republic.

What about mileage driven outside the UK?

Tough. All mileage counts. The view is that there is no refund for fuel duty used in vehicles driven overseas, so the same applies here. Of course nobody pays fuel duty for an entire year, and few even pay as infrequently as monthly, so it isn't quite the same.

Is it just about odometers?

Yes, for now, but the consultation seeks advice on how OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) telematics might be used voluntarily to automatically report mileage.  The consultation is silent on whether it might be used to exempt mileage driven overseas.  

The consultation notes that 2.3% of vehicles have had their odometers tampered with to lower their readings. It is unclear whether this figure is applicable to EVs and PHEVs as much as other vehicles.

What's the money to be used for?

The consultation doesn't say, although there are references to contributing towards the "wear and tear on the roads" caused by cars (which is negligible). It seems likely to be treated as general Crown revenue, and not be hypothecated. This won't help public acceptability or indicate any actual link to what vehicles should pay based on a fair allocation of infrastructure costs to those vehicles (but that has never been the case for fuel duty either). 

What's next?

The scheme is not meant to start until April 2028, so the consultation responses will be the first check on the public mood for the proposal. There has already been some backlash, but that may be as much about the unpopularity of some general Budget measures around income tax as this measure. 

There are plenty of questions beyond those in the consultation document. The scalability of this proposal beyond EVs and PHEVs being one of them, especially to heavy vehicles.  I'll have to more to write about it in due course.

Switzerland consulting on RUC for electric vehicles

Switzerland has the longest record of any European country with distance based road user charging, being the first to introduce it (for heavy vehicles (GVW over 3.5 tonnes)) in 2001 with its LSVA system.  The LSVA charges virtually all heavy vehicles by distance and weight class across all public roads in Switzerland (and Liechtenstein), although the first generation system used the tachograph as the primary measurement of distance, it used one of the first GPS On Board Units (OBUs) to support that measurement, including detecting where vehicles entered and exited the country.  It is worth noting the LSVA is mandatory not only for Swiss registered heavy vehicles, but visiting heavy vehicles (with a manual odometer reading on entry and exit at the border for those not equipped with GPS approved OBUs, and a lump sum option for some classes of heavy vehicles).

Light vehicles were not subject to such a charge, but the vignette for use of the the motorway network applies to them (CHF40 per annum (~US$50), along with fuel taxes and registration fees as in most jurisdictions. This looks likely to change in the coming years for the same reasons as many other jurisdictions have been considering road user charges (RUC) - the inability of fuel tax as a way of charging for road use by electric vehicles (EVs).

Switzerland's Federal Council announced at the end of September that it is consulting on options to tax EVs, with the intention that it commence in 2030.

If successful, it is possible Switzerland could be the first mainland European country to introduce a light vehicle distance based RUC (given Iceland already has one).

Background

The press release from the Federal Council states that the Federal road infrastructure is 100% user pays, with the "mineral oil tax" being the main source of revenue for it.  It pays into the National Road and Agglomeration Transport Fund and the Special Financing for Road Transport Fund with half of the fuel tax revenue also being general revenue to the Federal Treasury. 

Tax on petrol is at CHF 0.7312 per litre (US$0.91)

Tax on diesel is at CHF 0.7587 per litre (US$0.94)

Any new tax on EVs would be expected to go to similar funds as the taxes on fuel. To implement such charges would require Constitutional Changes.

Options

The two options being considered are:

- Distance based RUC also based on vehicle weight (estimated to average at CHF 0.054 per km (US$0.067)

- Energy based tax on electricity used to charge EVs (estimated to average at CHF 0.228/kwh (US$0.028)

The proposed energy tax would apply to both public and private vehicle charging (which would raise questions about implementing and enforcing such a fee on vehicle charging at home).

Consultation

Documents on the consultation are available here (in German) and here (in French) and here (in Italian)

Consultation concludes on 9 January 2026.

Thoughts

I'm not a fan of levying the electricity used in EVs because it is fraught with the cost of implementing separate metering at homes primarily to recover a tax, and there remain issues around enforcement. It is also a highly inferior way of pricing road use, through a proxy tax, rather than one actually based around usage. Switzerland's long and successful operation of its LSVA system for heavy vehicles (which is not fuel specific) indicates it is possible to extend this to all vehicles, in an appropriate form.

Key to any distance charge when vehicles can cross borders is to provide an option to have distance measured by location, so this ought to be included but be optional.  How this is to be accomplished is worth exploring.

Likewise, only having such a fee for EVs, and not considering plug-in hybrids or battery electric hybrids would be a mistake, as those vehicles pay much less fuel tax, and it would be seem appropriate to ensure they are charged appropriately for using the roads. Ultimately it could apply to all vehicles in due course, but this is

UK likely to introduce road user charging for EVs and hybrids, and it doesn't resemble National Road Pricing

The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times and multiple other UK newspapers are reporting that the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, will announce on 26 November 2025 that she is implementing a distance based road user charge (RUC) to apply to light electric vehicles (EVs), plug in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric hybrid vehicles (BEHVs) from 2028.

EVs will be charged £0.03 per mile (US$0.024 per kilometre), with "lower rates" for PHEVs and BEHVs, reflecting their use of taxed fuel.  It is noted that current estimates are that the average petrol car pays around £0.06 per mile (US$0.048 per kilometre) based on fuel consumption. So the proposed EV rate aims to charge half the price of petrol cars, to help reflect the lower environmental impact and retain an advantage for such vehicles.

Fuel duty (officially called hydrocarbon oil duty) is at £0.5295 per litre (US$0.69 per litre). This is well in excess of fuel taxation in North America and Australasia, but not out of step with some countries in Europe.

Why?

25.4% of new light vehicle sales in the UK in October 2025 were EVs, 13.3% are BEHVs and 12.1% are PHEVs.  So there is clearly an issue emerging of declining fuel duty revenue. 

Estimated revenue from the new charge will be £1.8b (US$2.35b) per annum by 2031. This compares to around £24.8 billion in 2024 from hydrocarbon oil duty.  In 2025/2026 alone it is estimated that around £300m (US$392m) is lost in hydrocarbon oil duty revenue from the growth in use of EV and hybrid vehicles. One estimate is that by 2029 that annual loss of revenue will be at £3.5b (US$4.6b) per annum, although later estimates are predicated on bans on sales of petrol and diesel light vehicles.

Note that hydrocarbon oil duty is not hypothecated for road or any form of spending. It is simply general tax revenue for Treasury. 

Secondary to revenue is fairness. Without some form of road user charge, those who cannot afford EVs or hybrid vehicles are paying more to use the roads and contribute to government spending than those who do not. 

How?

Articles so far indicate that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), a branch of the Department for Transport (DfT) will be tasked with collecting the revenue, as it already collects the UK's annual vehicle registration fee (known as Vehicle Excise Duty - VED).  DVLA checks compliance through Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras matching vehicles to its database as to who has paid VED. The same could be done with RUC. 

However, the details around implementation leave many unanswered questions. It is suggested vehicle owners will estimate future mileage driven and prepay for that distance, with credit given if overpaid. This suggests some form of independent recording of odometers, likely at annual vehicle safety ("MOT") checks, although these are not required for vehicles in the first three years of registration.  Options include sending photos of odometer readings or the use of telematics technology to report distance, but none of this is clear as of yet.

Reaction?

The Conservative opposition is opposing it, even though it is likely that it would have to do something similar, but given the Labour Government has been doing badly in opinion polls for many months, it is clear this policy is likely to generate plenty of heat from political parties keen to weaken the Government. However, the next UK election is not due until August 2029 at the latest, so theoretically this should not be such a major consideration for now. 

Hasn't the UK been here before?

Arguably yes. From the ill-fated Lorry Road User Charging project (which aimed to charge trucks by distance and vehicle class) replaced by the National Road Pricing project in 2005 which was shut down in 2007 due to public opposition. The differences between that project and this proposed charge are fairly stark though.

National Road Pricing aimed to reduce congestion by requiring all vehicles in the UK, regardless of fuel type, to be equipped with GNSS enabled on-board units, to measure distance varying by time of day and location, so that full network road pricing could be implemented. Although there were indications that some existing motoring taxes would be reduced, such as VED and hydrocarbon oil duty, there was vigorous public opposition. That opposition focused on how much people might pay, disbelief that existing taxes would be reduced by a reasonable amount, lack of belief that it would improve conditions for drivers and belief that money collected would be "wasted".  Around 2 million signatures were added to an online petition to 10 Downing Street to stop the project (and it was subsequently shelved).

A more simple distance and vehicle class based RUC would resemble that which already exists in Iceland, New Zealand and four US states.  Politically the question is how it might be sold to the public, as it is unlikely to matter too much that it is about raising revenue, but it may be to present it as ensuring drivers of EVs, PHEVs and BHEVs pay their "fair share" of the costs of maintaining the road network. 

Issues?

There are plenty. From how distance measurement will be verified and reported, especially in the first three years of a vehicle's life, to whether payments will be annual or can be spread throughout the year.  

Some other obvious questions:

• How will distance travelled outside the UK be treated (Northern Ireland may present particular challenges)?
• How will distance travelled by vehicles visiting the UK be treated?
• Will this only apply to light EVs and hybrids, and if so, what about heavy vehicles?
• Will motorists be able to pay in increments rather than annually?
• Will there be options for fleet operators to report distance more efficiently than is needed for private individuals?

Another question will be whether the revenue will be hypothecated to contribute to spending on road maintenance and renewal, which would give a long-term funding stream to support long-term commitments to the renewal of roads throughout the UK.  The UK Treasury is likely to oppose this, as it is philosophically opposed to any measures that reduce the flexibility of use of tax revenue, but the Department for Transport may take a different view, seeing the RUC as a user charge closer to a utility fee, so that it reflects a payment for the use of infrastructure (whereas hydrocarbon oil duty is simply a tax on fuel). 

What's next?

Details are to come. Key to this will be how these and other design and policy questions are answered, and how it is sold to the public. Is it just a new charge to cover off those types of vehicles, or is there an expectation that it may be expanded to other vehicles over time? (the latter would seem to be very risky politically, given the ineptness of politicians and the civil service in getting public acceptance for anything like this in the past). 

Maybe the big question is whether it is a first stage towards national road pricing? (it could be) Or is that going to be ruled out for now? Noting that this is going to apply across the UK, so what happens to the revenue in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be of interest to EV and hybrid vehicle owners in those countries. 

Oregon inches forward with RUC for EVs from 2031 mandated (sort of)

The Oregon Senate has finally passed a transportation funding bill that at last extends the scope of Oregon’s light vehicle road usage charging (RUC) system around 10 years after MYOREGO was launched in 2015.

From 2031, electric vehicle owners in Oregon will be required to be on RUC (it is currently an “opt-in” system) or pay an annual fee of US$340 (which means it isn’t a requirement). RUC for light EVs will be charged at US$0.02/mile (US$0.032/km).

The bill also includes:

• Increasing state gas tax from US$0.40 to US$0.46 per gallon (US$0.106 to   US$0.122 per litre

• Increasing annual registration fees by between 66 and 90% (e.g. from US$43 to US$85 for cars)

• Increasing title fees (change of ownership tax) for car from US$77 to US$216

• Increasing registration surcharges for EVs and highly fuel efficient vehicles (intended to offset their lower gas tax consumption) from US$115 to US$145 per annum for EVs, and US$35 to US$65 per annum for cars with a higher than 40+ mpg rating (essentially hybrids).

• Doubles payroll tax used to fund public transport subsidies, for one year, from 0.1% to 0.2%.

It’s worth remembering Oregon has long has a weight-mileage tax – RUC for heavy vehicles, which also exempts those vehicles paying it from paying tax on diesel. This exemption is implemented by providing fuel retail outlets with proof of enrolment in the weight mileage tax programme. However, this is entirely separate from the RUC system for light vehicles.

Oregon was a pioneer for RUC in the US, running the first major studies and pilots from 2001 till 2013 and implementing the first revenue generating system on 1 July 2015. MyOReGO has been capped at 5,000 participants, but has been languishing in recent years with only 800 enrolled this year.  In the meantime, Utah, Virginia and Hawaii have overtaken Oregon in the scale of their light vehicle RUC programmes in the US.

MyOReGO charges participants US$0.019 per mile instead of the registration surcharge, but has not been extensively promoted for some time. Now it will come into its own, but Oregon Department of Transportation will need to review the current system as it moves to mandate it for EVs. Fo

Around 2% of light vehicles in Oregon are EVs.

For Oregon, this transportation bill is one of despration as it struggles to fund essential road maintenance and operations such as snow removal and graffiti cleanup along highways. Half of the revenue will go to the state budget with 30% to countries and 20% to cities.

Opposition to RUC comes from the “Move Oregon Forward” group which advocates for “climate and equity” claiming it “unfairly penalises” EV drivers, although it is unclear quite the basis for this.

The Bill is seen by some as being a temporary fix, it is clearly not going to be enough, but is a start. 

All in all, this is a positive move, although it is going to take some years before it is implemented and appears very unambitious compared to the likes of Hawaii which is mandating RUC for EVs from 2028. Given the many many times there have been attempts to advance RUC in Oregon over the past decade, it is clearly a significant step. Let's hope there is no further backsliding.

Australia pursues road user charging... again...

There has been a lot of coverage in Australian media of the idea of a national road user charge (RUC) being applied to electric vehicles (EVs), mainly in the context of the Australian Government’s recent “Productivity Summit” (officially called Economic Reform Roundtable) which sought to bring together government, business, unions and other non-government organisations to generate ideas to reform Australia’s economy.

The themes of that event were:

• Making our economy more productive.
• Building resilience in the face of global uncertainty.
• Strengthening the budget and making it more sustainable.

So it isn't just about productivity, but also economic resilience and strengthening the government's budget. This is where RUC comes in, it is all about budget sustainability.

In 2022, there were already forecasts of where declining fuel excise revenue would lead in Australia. By 2032, the loss would be around A$3.5b per annum in 2022 values.

Forecasts of Australian fuel excise revenue

Australia started with heavy vehicles

Australia has been interested in RUC for literally decades. From the early 21st century there was recognition of the limitations of the status quo, particularly for charging heavy vehicles. The key issues being the mismatch between what heavy vehicles are charged to use the roads (through fuel excise and weight based registration fees) and the supply of road capacity that matters to them. From the COAG (Council of Australian Governments) Road Reform Agenda and the subsequent Road Reform Project, it was established early on that productivity gains from RUC in Australia would only be fully realised alongside supply side reforms. In other words, the revenue generated needs to be spent on improving infrastructure for heavy vehicles, with transparency around ensuring universal service.  From 2011 the Heavy Vehicle Charging and Investment (HVCI) project was run through till 2014, and although a lot of work was produced, it didn't deliver any reform.  It cost around A$25m  involved a Secretariat set up in Melbourne and over 75 reports were produced, but very little happened. It was a policy wonk's dream, but didn't bring the industry on board. 

This was followed by the Heavy Vehicle Road Reform (HVRR) programme, which itself has lost momentum after several years.  In 2015 the HVRR roadmap was agreed, which you can see below:

Australia's Heavy Vehicle Road Reform roadmap

It was an ambitious reform agenda, it would have seen heavy vehicles subject to direct user charges, the revenue of which would go into a hypothecated fund and investment from that fund co-ordinated based on the priorities of users and broader community service obligations (in particular, ensuring a basic level of service across the rural public road network). An independent economic regulator would set the RUC for heavy vehicles based on what is needed to pay to secure agreed service standards and capital investment, and road managers would be required to deliver those service standards.

In short, it wasn't about just RUC, but about roads operating more like a regulated utility for heavy vehicles.  Progress on this has been slow with reporting indicating that only Phase One has been delivered (greater transparency on expenditure investment and delivery).  Changes in Government, particularly Ministers, but also the change in Government in 2022 have seen this programme get a low priority. This is unfortunate, given the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA) website indicates that the economic benefits of reform are "estimated to be between $6.5bn and $13.3 billion in net present value over 20 years (7% discount rate)".

It seems rather an omission for an economic reform roundtable to not ever utter a word about this.

Most recent progress saw the implementation of the National Heavy Vehicle Charging Pilot from 2019-2024, with one small scale trial and a three phase large scale trial. This was the largest pilot of RUC in Australia. It was primarily an engagement exercise with industry, but also tested multiple technical solutions as well as gathering data on portions of the heavy freight and bus sector to inform policy advice.

The potential to get better investment in the road network, including better results for truck operators in particular, by eliminating network bottlenecks (in particular weight-restricted bridges) and enabling wider network access perhaps should have got more attention.  Given the agenda on road reform has been bipartisan by-and-large (with the COAG work being undertaken under both Coalition and Labor Governments, and likewise the HVRR work started under the Coalition continued under Labor.  Note also that progress on this is dependent on support from States and Territories, but is highly dependent on Federal leadership.

However, HVRR and heavy vehicle RUC doesn't promise much progress on new revenue, so it got less state interest than RUC on vehicles that are not subject to fees to use the roads - EVs.

RUC for EVs

Although talk of RUC for EVs is being said to be in the context of productivity, if politicians and officials were honest, it isn’t really about that. At a stretch, there is an argument that EVs get “overuse” due to them not being subject to any fee or tax to use the roads. This means EV use, particularly in cities where there is a greater chance of alternative modes of travel, is excessive, and more efficient (and productive) use of road space may come if EVs are subject to a RUC that reflects a fair allocation of the costs of maintaining and developing the road network.

However, it is important to be clear that RUC for EVs is about government revenue, it does not have momentum for any other reason.  It is about "strengthening the budget and making it more sustainable".

It's pretty obvious what this is all about, although it is also clear that the impact of EVs on fuel duty revenue is fairly minimal so far. There is much greater impact from more fuel efficient petrol vehicles, and in particular battery electric hybrids.  Putting RUC on EVs (and plug-in hybrids) is a first step.

In parallel with Heavy Vehicle Road Reform, then Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher did try to get a study up and running on investigating options for RUC for light vehicles, focused on this issue. However, the Morrison Government abandoned this early, which was clearly a mistake.

Of course Victoria tried to do it at state level, but had its "RUC" overturned by a court case that ended at the High Court of Australia ruling it as unconstitutional.  I wrote about that already.  Meanwhile, New South Wales has passed its own legislation which will see a RUC commence in July 2027 for EVs, Western Australia also has similar legislation.  So the pressure is on the Commonwealth Government to develop a national framework for what looks like a patchwork of State and Territory based RUC.  That raises a whole host of issues.

I wrote about some here. Technology isn't one of them, neither really are the issues around how to implement it.  The biggest issues are around governance including:

• Whether there should be a Federal RUC that is one rate, and separate State and Territory RUCs?
• What rules, if any, will apply to the use of revenue collected by either RUC?
• Who sets the rates at Federal and State/Territory levels? Will rate setting be subject to any independent oversight (e.g. the National Transport Commission or the ACCC)?
• What happens if/when RUC expands beyond EVs to include plug-in hybrids (which pay fuel excise) and battery electric hybrids? Shouldn't policy on this include all new powertrains, and consider what to do about very fuel efficient petrol powered vehicles?
• How should heavy EVs be treated?
• How should travel across State/Territory borders be addressed for State/Territory RUC?

What's next?

One of the outcomes of the Economic Reform Roundtable appeared some agreement to progress RUC for EVs. In an interview on the ABC TV current affairs show Insiders, Treasurer Jim Chalmers answered a question on the topic from Insiders host David Speers:

Speers:

I just wanted to ask you quickly on the road user charge that’s coming. You’ve got to work out the details with the states and territories. Is there a chance that motorists might have to pay both fuel excise and road user charge, or can you rule that out?

Chalmers:

No, our focus in road user charging is on electric vehicles. We’re not trying to work out ways to double‑tax internal combustion engines. We’re trying to make sure that people who drive EVs, increasing numbers of people who drive electric vehicles, are making a contribution to the upkeep of the roads that they use. It’s fundamentally about making the system a bit fairer.

We’ll take the time to get it right. The states are putting together an options paper for us to consider at our meeting, before long actually, the 5th of September, and so we’ll go through that.

The main point of contention at the reform roundtable was actually whether a road user charging regime focused on electric vehicles begins with heavy electric vehicles like electric trucks, and there’s some kind of sequence after that, or whether we be more ambitious earlier.

So, we’ll work through all of that. I don’t want to predetermine the discussions I have with the states or the considerations of our Cabinet, working with Catherine King and Chris Bowen and the Prime Minister and others. But we have made it clear, we do think a change is warranted here, and we’ll take the time to get it right.

Now it's important to remember that fuel excise duty in Australia is not hypothecated towards road spending, so the claim this is about a contribution to the upkeep of the roads is strictly not true (this is unlike fuel duty and RUC in the United States and New Zealand).  He claims whether starting with heavy electric vehicles would be useful first step. I would hate to be a naysayer on this, but it frankly seems like a wasted effort.  There are so few heavy electric vehicles that it would generate little revenue, and would teach state governments little about setting up systems for private individuals driving light EVs (and unless there is a programme for wider heavy RUC, it's not clear what the point of starting with heavy EVs is).

For what it is worth, there is merit in enabling both a national and a state/territory RUC rate, and to take some of the principles of HVRR in having independent price regulation, an investment programme based on what users need and a hypothecated fund that at least collects enough money to cover the costs of maintenance and renewal attributable to light vehicles. 

Allowing States and Territories to set regulated RUC rates to cover a portion of their costs in maintaining their road networks would be a start, on condition they also collect a national RUC.  A key issue will be how to address cross border travel with State/Territory RUC if location enabled distance measurement isn't mandated (and it is likely not to be, at least for light vehicles), but there are ways to do this seeing the experience in the US.

In the absence of any Commonwealth action, there is likely to be a NSW RUC from 2027 given the legislation that has been passed, and the eagerness for NSW to differentiate itself from the Vanderstock court case that brought down Victoria's Zero Emission Vehicle Fee. 

There is a lot to do, but the direction of travel on RUC policy is positive, let's just hope that momentum isn't lost for this, as it appears to have been for heavy vehicle RUC. 

It is understandable that Australia can't easily follow Iceland and New Zealand given scale, and New Zealand's long history in having RUC for diesel vehicles, but it can follow the United States which is pushing on with RUC at the state level as well as investigating it federally.  

Meanwhile it ought to completely ignore the distractions of some academics who want this to be the introduction of full network road pricing.  That would be the death knell to RUC as it has been in the UK, Netherlands and Finland.

(Disclosure: My employer Milestone Pacific acquired in 2021 by CDM Smith, advised the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts on the National Heavy Vehicle Charging Pilot. I was the PM for that advice).