Washington State wants to charge drivers per miles traveled: Everything you should know about House Bill 1921

Olympia, Washington – In a change that would redefine how Washington State finances its roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure, legislators in Washington State have presented a bill aiming at applying a charge based on the distance each vehicle travels instead of the amount of fuel it consumes. Known as House Bill 1921, this idea represents a radical break from the state’s historical reliance on gasoline taxes.

Advocates of such a road use charge, RUC, believe it will help balance dwindling fuel tax income and ensure users of the roads help in maintaining them. Critics have meanwhile questioned fairness, execution, and possible privacy concerns. As the discussion continues on, Washington’s lawmakers and the public are determining whether this per-mile system is a required adjustment or an overreach. The bill, its significant features, the reasons behind it, and the responses it has generated are shown below.

Background: Declining revenues and shifting priorities

For almost a century, Washington has paid for the construction and maintenance of state roads largely on the gas tax. This is not unique to Washington; many states rely on fuel taxes to keep vast networks of roads, ferry systems, and other essential infrastructure kept maintained. But over time, growing automotive technology has produced an explosion of vehicles running on less or even none gas at all. Extremely efficient internal-combustion engines, hybrids, and electric cars are progressively taking front stage in Washington and throughout the nation.

Rising numbers of state officials are concerned that this constant move to more efficient cars is causing slight but continual decline of gas-tax receipts. The money collected at the fuel pump—which used to go straight toward roads, ferries, and bridge maintenance—has started to shrink as drivers buy less gallons of gas. Recent projections from the Washington State Legislature show that, should the state keep depending on the existing gas tax system, revenue may plummet by almost half by 2040.

Representative Jake Fey (D-Tacoma), who chairs the House Transportation Committee, has led front-stage in attempts to close this growing funding disparity. Fey clarified the gravity of the issue at a press conference earlier this week.

“For over a century, the state has relied on the gas tax as the main source of revenue for maintaining our roads and bridges,” Fey told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “But as we move to a system where there are a lot more electric vehicles – but probably even more importantly, more fuel efficient vehicles – gas tax revenues now are projected to decline 45% by 2040.”

Legislators thus started investigating many possibilities, ranging from expanding current levies to creating entirety new ideas. In the end, they gathered around the concept of a mileage-based fee: a driver helps to preserve the roadways more the more miles they travel. Those conversations led to the presentation of House Bill 1921.

Read also: Washington joins lawsuit against Trump admin over NIH funding cuts, judge temporarily blocks the order

Key provisions of House Bill 1921

Introduced by Representatives Fey, Ramel, Wylie, Ormsby, Parshley, Zahn, and Macri, House Bill 1921 offers a comprehensive strategy for upgrading state transportation financing. The measure lays out the following:

1. Fee based on miles driven
   The measure wants to charge drivers 2.6 cents per mile instead of taxing every gallon of gasoline sold. Sponsors argue that this rate reflects almost what the gas tax would be for a regular driver. Whether electric, hybrid, or conventional, the aim is to ensure that any vehicle, depending on use, fairly helps with road maintenance.
2. Gradual rollout
   To ease residents into the new system, the proposed mileage charge will be implemented in stages:
   • 2027–2029: The bill establishes a voluntary program initially targeting electric and hybrid vehicles. Owners in this category can opt into a per-mile fee instead of paying the existing annual registration fees for electrified cars.
   • 2029: At this juncture, electric and hybrid cars would be required to participate in the mileage-based program. The voluntary period would end, and drivers would begin paying per mile rather than facing separate registration fees tied specifically to electric or hybrid use.
   • 2031–2035: Over this span, the focus broadens to include highly efficient gasoline vehicles, starting with those that achieve at least 40 miles per gallon (MPG) and eventually encompassing any vehicle that gets above 20 MPG by 2035.
3. No double taxation
   For the same miles driven in-state, drivers would not have to pay both a road usage charge and gas tax. Owners of gasoline-powered vehicles who monitor their current gas tax payments would get credit toward the mileage cost. This architecture is meant to alleviate the concerns of critics regarding double taxes.
4. Odometer readings
   Drivers would have to provide annual odometer readings through the vehicle registration procedure to determine how much each one owes to the state. The state would rely on this self-reported data; however, proponents of the legislation propose spot inspections or technology-based confirmation to guarantee accuracy.
5. Privacy safeguards
   Acknowledging that gathering mileage information could cause privacy concerns, the law gives the Department of Transportation instructions to create strict data-security policies. The goal is to reduce any unintended sharing of driving locations or frequency. Bill proponents seek to allay worries about monitoring by connecting the RUC primarily to odometer readings instead of location or real-time GPS monitors.
6. Multimodal support
   House Bill 1921 not only suggests a distinct funding source for multimodal transportation projects including bike lanes, pedestrian infrastructure, and rail lines, beyond only replacing the income from the gas tax. Advocates of several forms of transportation contend that they serve to ease traffic congestion, improve air quality, and create better communities.

Read also: Seattle leaders emphasize commitment to both police reform and public safety in new legislation

Credit: Unsplash

Why shift to mileage-based fees?

Equitable contribution

Equity is one of the primary concepts guiding a distance-based charge. Depending on their miles-per-gallon rating, two vehicles running the same distance can pay rather different rates in gasoline tax, as Representative Fey notes. For example, a big, older vehicle that gets 15 MPG could pay more than twice in gas tax than a contemporary, fuel-efficient car that can run 40 MPG or more. This disparity can feel unjust to the state’s larger effort to maintain infrastructure as highly efficient vehicles pay correspondingly less as well as to the drivers of less efficient vehicles—who foot an increased tax bill.

Addressing the rise of electric and hybrid vehicles

While owners of electric and hybrid cars pay extra registration costs to counterbalance their low fuel consumption, many legislators argue these payments are not fairly matched with real usage. A person who drives an electric car just a few miles a week could pay the same annual cost as someone who travels hundreds miles a week. Charging per mile would theoretically more precisely match real road use in cost.

Sustainable transportation funding

For roads, bridges, ferries, and other vital transportation projects, legislators underline the need of a strong, consistent financing source. Adopting a mileage fee will help Washington to keep the funds for maintenance, growth, and improvements even if gas tax receipts are expected to fall in the next decades. This is especially important as state authorities try to strengthen disaster-resistant infrastructure in a time of unprecedented severe weather.

Comparisons to other states

Washington is not the first state to consider—nor implement—some variation of a road usage charge. Legislators frequently cite Oregon, among the first to introduce a per-mile fee program. Oregon’s program, known as OReGO, allows voluntary participants to pay 1.9 cents per mile and be refunded for fuel taxes at the pump. Utah has also tried a similar strategy, first concentrating on hybrid and electric car owners who either pay a mileage tax or a flat cost.

Advocates of House Bill 1921 find these events as success guides and sobering lessons. Although there are still difficulties—including how to consistently measure and enforce mileage, guarantee fairness, and handle privacy—they contend Washington may learn from mistakes and successes of other states in implementing a statewide RUC. Critics, for their part, draw attention to the challenges those initiatives have encountered—especially with relation to public acceptance and administrative complexity.

Read also: Washington forms expert panel to address energy challenges posed by growing data center industry

Credit: Unsplash

Support and rationale

Prominent Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans who favor the bill stress three major benefits:

1. Long-term viability
   The state cannot rely on consistent or growing gasoline-tax income as the fleet of vehicles moves away from gas-guzzling engines. Still, a per-mile charge is constant independent of technological improvements in efficiency. Once in place, legislators think it will guarantee a more consistent source of financing.
2. Fairness
   Advocates of House Bill 1921 see it as leveling the field. Every motorist would pay about the same cost per mile instead of punishing or rewarding vehicles based just on their efficiency. The measure also guarantees drivers do not pay unnecessary expenses by including credits for gas tax already paid.
3. Flexibility and adaptation
   The proposed legislation includes a pilot phase for electric and hybrid vehicles, which will allow policymakers to gather data and refine the system before mandating it more widely. Advocates of this staged approach claim that it is essential for reducing out the inevitable problems associated with new administrative procedures.

Read also: ICE detains repeat immigration violators in Seattle, Langley, and Portland operations

Opposition and concerns

Despite growing legislative support, House Bill 1921 is not without its skeptics. Concerns revolve around privacy, feasibility, equity, and government overreach. Some of the most commonly voiced criticisms include:

Implementation complexity

Monitoring every mile covered by millions of vehicles is an intimidating idea. Although the bill depends on self-reported odometer readings for now, opponents say this would be too easy to change. On the other hand, privacy and data collecting issues become more serious if the state tries to track mileage electronically via GPS.

Potential for double payment

Critics of the measure wonder about the accuracy of such a system even though it offers an instrument to refund drivers for gas taxes paid. If a driver regularly crosses state lines or drives off-road, for example, how precisely can one guarantee appropriate refunds or charge adjustments?

Burden on rural communities

Rural communities may suffer from unexpected outcomes from the RUC strategy. Many areas of Washington force individuals to travel long distances for employment or basic necessities. Under a per-mile system, these same drivers would suffer a potentially significant financial load even if they might not have convenient access to electric vehicles or public transportation.

Trust in government

A lot of the argument results from skepticism of government institutions. Turning over mileage data, or at least odometer readings, concerns critics about unnecessary involvement. They also wonder whether the money would really be used just for road maintenance since they believe it could be diverted to other needs.

Credit: Unsplash

Perspectives and potential impact

The legacy of progressive policies in environmental and infrastructure issues of Washington State emphasizes the need of this idea. Should House Bill 1921 be successful, Washington would rank among the top states in entirely moving from the fuel tax framework into a per-mile fee system. Advocates of electric vehicles sometimes praise it as a progressive action that recognizes the future resides in electric propulsion. Some environmental groups, on the other hand, have mixed opinions: they accept the concept of consistent financing but also want the legislature to protect incentives for greener vehicles to keep momentum in the battle against climate change.

Local governments—counties, cities, even small towns—wait for clarity on just how the change would impact their budgets. Many depend on state money for local road repairs, especially if municipal taxes are inadequate. Should House Bill 1921 show success, municipal officials expect it will open the path for more solid and fair local transportation budgets. Critics caution, too, that any administrative mistakes or shortcomings in the first few years could lead to uncertainty and compromise smaller governments’ capacity to meet infrastructure demands.

The role of the Washington Department of Transportation

House Bill 1921 would allow the Department of Transportation (WSDOT) much of the responsibility for implementing the new system. This covers developing guidelines for the gathering of odometer readings, therefore guaranteeing the security of personal information, and running a public education campaign. Supporters of this effort say it’s crucial for reducing concerns about the new costs and clarifying crucial information like how to claim credits for out-of-state mileage and gas taxes.

WSDOT would also work with the Department of Licensing to include the per-mile charge system into yearly registration renewals. Working with stakeholders, the two agencies might investigate digital solutions including a smartphone app or web portal for mileage data submission. Early study of the measure indicates that some have even proposed more sophisticated tracking devices that automatically count mileage; but that discussion is still rather divisive and would need separate legislative permission.

Legislative path and timeline

Introduced in the House, House Bill 1921 has been assigned to the Transportation Committee where supporters anticipate major discussion, revisions, and public comments. The committee will probably get comments from local governments, advocacy groups, citizens, and business leaders in the next months. Should the measure pass the committee level, it will go to the House for voting and, should it be approved, then forward to the Senate. With the complexity of the suggested changes, further hearings, discussions, and amendments are expected before the final version shows up.

Although legislative politics is unpredictable, Washington’s elected officials’ sense of urgency to solve financing constraints gives the bill impetus. Participants observe that the difference between the money required for infrastructure maintenance and the income gathered via the gas tax is more pronounced with every year that passes. Legislators see the 2025 session as a perfect opportunity for acting forcefully.

Public reaction and future considerations

Public perceptions of this mileage-based idea is divided. Some drivers, especially those who have long thought that owners of electric or hybrid vehicles are “free riders” on the system, like the concept of equalizing road expenses. Advocates of electric vehicles remain split. Many are ready to pay their fair share, but they worry that the additional fees could lower the total financial advantages of having an electric car, therefore impeding the state’s green change-over.

Privacy-conscious individuals argue, meantime, that the government should not be in the business of gathering or confirming mileage counts. This argument particularly resonates in rural areas, where some see the new law as yet another illustration of how people in remote regions live different reality than those in heavily populated, transit-rich metropolis.

The state’s leadership, for their part, underlines that the measure is meant to bring general fees within what the gas tax already generates rather than increasing them altogether. Rather, by more uniform expense distribution, it seeks to maintain current income levels. Statements from the House Transportation Committee indicate that the 2.6-cents-per- mile rate has been carefully adjusted to provide income comparable to that of the existing gas tax system. Legislators also emphasize that changes could be made over time as the car market develops, driving behavior changes, and technology advances.

Read also: Seattle’s latest immigrant assistance training reaches full capacity as the city strengthens commitment to immigrant support

Potential effects on emissions and road use

Some policy experts think that changing to a distance-based system could inspire more thoughtful driving behavior. Drivers may choose carpooling, public transportation, or just trip consolidation if they find each extra mile immediately raises their costs. Though the impact would rely on how price-sensitive drivers are to paying a few cents per mile, in theory this could help to lower emissions and congestion.

Critics caution, meantime, that individuals without easy access to alternatives may suffer should these per-mile prices get too high in the future. This is where House Bill 1921’s multimodal element finds application.

Setting aside a portion of RUC money for transit, cycling, and pedestrian initiatives helps legislators hope the system becomes less car-centric and provides actual alternatives to driving. Critics remain wary, noting that developing strong public transportation systems takes years, if not decades, to execute properly, particularly in a state as geographically varied as Washington.

Looking ahead

House Bill 1921 has generated strong arguments on both sides. Proponents see it as a sensible move to guarantee that Washington’s long-term transportation system stays reasonably funded and easily accessible. They see it as a sensible reaction to the emergence of greener, more efficient cars and as a vital component of a set of measures meant to modernize how the state handles transportation. Detractors, however, find possible dangers in privacy, control, and unequal effects on particular groups.

As the measure passes legislative obstacles, the sponsors—especially Representative Jake Fey—have shown an openness to perfecting specifics. Amendments might answer questions regarding how to manage out-of-state travel, how to execute annual odometer checks, and whether to provide various rates or reductions for particular groups of drivers—such low-income people or rural households. Additionally under discussion is a “off-road or farm use” exception, which guarantees that miles driven on private property do not increase a driver’s charge.

Still the basic question is: Is the change of a century-old financing source worth the political and administrative difficulties involved? That is a question only time, debate, and perhaps some trial-and-error can adequately address for many observers. Other states are keeping close observation as the measure passes through the Washington State Legislature. While a rough implementation could act as a warning story, a successful shift to a road usage charge in Washington might hasten the acceptance of comparable initiatives throughout the country.

What’s in for Washington State and residents

House Bill 1921 is likely to change the discussion on Washington’s road, highway, and transportation infrastructure spending. Eventually encompassing even the most fuel-efficient cars, the proposal intends to ensure that every driver contributes proportionately to the wear and tear they do on public roads by proposing a per-mile levy for all vehicles. Combining the phased method with privacy protections and a credit system for already paid gas taxes shows an attempt to meet some of the most often expressed objections about a mileage-based fee.

Still, the proposal will be tested both politically and practically. At the top of continuous debates are issues of long-term viability, fairness to many groups, respect of privacy rights, and data security. As the proposal passes congressional committees and maybe floor debates in both the House and the Senate, stakeholders will have many of opportunities to provide testimony and recommendations for enhancements.

Should it succeed and find legal form, Washington would join a small but expanding group of states leading the change away from fuel taxes. Should it fail, legislators would have to go back to the drawing board to handle the ongoing difficulty of how best to keep a steady stream of income for important transportation projects. In either case, the House Bill 1921 discussion draws attention to a turning point in Washington’s policy environment. It shows a larger awareness of environmental obligations, technical developments, and the pressing need to maintain infrastructure strong against declining gas-tax income. Nonetheless, roads have to remain safe.

For now, political leaders in Olympia—and with the people of Washington, who will surely have strong opinions and, finally, the chance to influence the course of the state’s transportation future—own ultimate fate for the mileage-based tax. The next weeks and months will be crucial in deciding whether the suggested road usage charge turns into a historic statute or another idea stifled under debate. One thing is obvious: the debate on how Washington’s transportation requirements should be sustainably funded is only starting, and its result might set a standard for other states throughout the country.