Phases in a mandatory per-mile road usage charge for registered owners and lessees of electric and hybrid passenger vehicles and delivery vehicles engaged in e-commerce.
HB 4009 would significantly expand Oregon’s road-usage-charge system by phasing in a mandatory per-mile charge for electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and certain electric delivery vehicles used for e-commerce. The bill also allows taxpayers to elect a flat annual fee instead of the per-mile charge, and it updates the statutory definitions and administration of the program to reflect the broader set of covered vehicles and the later phase-in dates. In addition, it requires the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to establish reporting periods, collect and protect usage data, and handle refunds and overpayments under the road-usage-charge program.
The measure also directs ODOT to provide a biennial report recommending a per-mile rate that would sustainably raise enough revenue to maintain Oregon’s highways, and it requires the report to include estimates of maintenance needs, pavement condition, striping, bridge timelines, and administrative costs. On the incentive side, the bill pauses one existing DEQ rebate program, redirects available funds to the Charge Ahead Oregon Program, and limits Charge Ahead rebates to one per household. It also revises eligibility, award amounts, and program administration for rebates supporting new and used light-duty zero-emission vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
In state law, HB 4009 amends multiple sections of ORS 319.883 to 319.946 governing road usage charges, including definitions, taxpayer obligations, reporting, confidentiality, refunds, and administrative authority. It also amends ORS 468.446 governing the Charge Ahead Oregon Program and repeals two sections of the 2025 special session law. Several provisions are staged to become operative in 2027 and 2031, indicating a phased implementation rather than immediate full coverage.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill materials is policy-focused and fiscally oriented, with the measure framed as a way to replace or supplement fuel-tax revenue as more vehicles use less gasoline. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of public debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. The bill’s structure suggests an attempt to balance road-funding goals with consumer incentives for clean vehicles, but it also imposes new costs on EV and hybrid owners and delivery fleets.
The main points of contention likely concern fairness, privacy, and the treatment of clean-vehicle incentives. Vehicle owners and environmental advocates may object to charging EVs and hybrids per mile, especially while the state is also limiting rebates and pausing one rebate program. Privacy concerns may arise from the collection of metered-use data, even though the bill includes confidentiality and data-destruction rules. E-commerce delivery operators and households seeking EV incentives are also directly affected by the new charge and rebate restrictions.
HB 4009 would amend Oregon’s road-usage-charge statutes to broaden the class of covered vehicles, impose a mandatory per-mile charge on electric and hybrid passenger vehicles and certain electric delivery vehicles, and authorize an annual flat-fee alternative. It would also update ODOT’s reporting, confidentiality, refund, and administration provisions, while changing DEQ’s rebate programs by pausing one rebate, limiting Charge Ahead rebates to one per household, and redirecting funds to that program. The bill would therefore affect vehicle owners, lessees, e-commerce delivery fleets, ODOT, DEQ, and recipients of clean-vehicle incentives.
The bill appears to be presented as a transportation funding and program-restructuring measure rather than a partisan or ceremonial bill. The available materials show no committee transcript or vote record, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize beyond the bill’s own policy framing. Based on the text, the measure reflects support for long-term highway funding and continued clean-vehicle incentives, but in a more constrained form.
Likely areas of contention include whether EV and hybrid drivers should pay a mandatory per-mile road charge, whether a flat annual fee is an adequate alternative, and whether the state should pause or limit rebates that encourage zero-emission vehicle adoption. Privacy and data-retention provisions may also be disputed because the program relies on metered-use reporting and vehicle data, even though the bill limits disclosure and requires destruction of location records. E-commerce delivery operators and households eligible for rebates are the most directly affected groups, while transportation funding advocates are likely to support the measure’s revenue rationale.