Washington lawmakers have repeatedly considered charging motorists by the mile. The latest proposal failed, but the state’s own transportation reports show the idea remains under active consideration.
Washington drivers already pay gasoline taxes, vehicle registration fees, licensing costs, and other transportation-related charges. Now imagine paying a fee based on how many miles you drive.
That is exactly what lawmakers proposed under House Bill 1921 and Senate Bill 5726 during the 2025–2026 legislative cycle.
The proposed starting rate was 2.6 cents for every taxable mile driven, with an additional 10% assessment on the remaining mileage charge for vehicles enrolled in the mandatory program.
Neither bill passed.
But here’s the important part: The legislation failed. The idea did not disappear.
Washington’s transportation officials continue researching mileage-based charges as a possible future funding source, and the Legislature has revisited similar proposals for years.
With another legislative session approaching in January 2027, Washington residents have good reason to understand what has already been proposed, what the state is still studying, and how these changes could affect household budgets.
This Is Not a New Idea. Washington Has Been Working on It for Years.
The history of Washington’s Road Usage Charge (RUC) stretches back more than a decade.
In 2012, the Legislature directed the Washington State Transportation Commission to study whether charging drivers by the mile could eventually replace reliance on gasoline taxes.
That research developed into a pilot program involving approximately 2,000 drivers, followed by recommendations for a gradual transition.
Since then, legislation has repeatedly brought the concept before lawmakers.
2022: HB 2026 proposed implementing a road usage charge. It did not become law.
2023–2024: HB 1832 and SB 5574 considered mileage-based charging. These proposals did not pass.
2025–2026: HB 1921 and SB 5726 proposed another mileage-based system, including the 2.6-cent starting rate and an additional assessment. Both remained in committee.
Although the proposals changed over time, the underlying concept remained consistent: move transportation funding toward charging drivers according to vehicle mileage rather than relying primarily on fuel consumption.
That history matters because it demonstrates this is an ongoing policy discussion, not a proposal that appeared once and was forgotten.
Why Does the State Want a Mileage Charge?
Washington transportation officials point to a significant change in how people drive.
Vehicles are becoming more fuel-efficient, and electric vehicles do not purchase gasoline at all.
Because Washington finances much of its road system through fuel taxes, transportation officials argue that declining gasoline consumption threatens future revenue.
The Washington State Transportation Commission’s 2025 Annual Report, published in January 2026, states that gasoline consumption peaked in 2018 and has generally declined since then.
Its report identifies Road Usage Charging as one possible future transportation funding mechanism.
The Commission is continuing federally supported research involving the Department of Licensing, vehicle trends, consumer education, and multistate mileage-charge testing.
This means mileage-based charging remains an active government planning option, even though the Legislature has not authorized a statewide program.
There is an important distinction between the agencies involved. The Transportation Commission develops recommendations and conducts research, WSDOT participates in transportation planning, and the Department of Licensing would have administered the proposed program.
None of these agencies can independently enact the tax proposed in HB 1921.
That authority rests with the Legislature.
Would a Mileage Tax Replace Existing Taxes, or Add Another Expense?
This may be the most important question for Washington drivers.
The Transportation Commission describes road usage charging as a replacement approach rather than an additional tax.
Its explanation is that Washington would continue collecting gasoline taxes during a transition, but participating drivers would receive a credit toward their mileage charges for qualifying state fuel taxes already paid.
HB 1921 included that credit.
It also proposed waiving certain existing electric and hybrid vehicle registration fees for vehicles participating in the program.
Those provisions are important and should not be overlooked.
However, receiving credits does not necessarily mean every driver would pay exactly what they pay today.
The proposed legislation also contained an additional 10% assessment for drivers in the mandatory program.
That assessment was calculated after applicable credits and exemptions.
In other words, the mileage charge and the assessment were separate financial obligations.
The proposal did not eliminate every other vehicle-related tax, licensing fee, or registration charge.
So the question is not simply whether a mileage tax would replace the gas tax.
The more meaningful question is:
What would Washington drivers pay in total after mileage charges, assessments, credits, registration fees, and all remaining transportation taxes were considered?
That is the number taxpayers deserve to see before any future legislation moves forward.
What Could 2.6 Cents Per Mile Actually Cost?
Let’s look at two examples using the rate proposed in HB 1921.
The proposal included a standard deduction of 200 miles annually, along with other possible mileage exemptions.
For someone driving 12,000 miles per year, the basic mileage charge after the standard deduction would be approximately $306.80.
If the entire amount remained payable after credits and exemptions, the additional 10% assessment would bring the total to approximately $337.48 annually.
For someone driving 20,000 miles annually, the basic charge after the standard deduction would be approximately $514.80.
With the additional 10% assessment, that becomes approximately $566.28 annually, before any fuel-tax credits or other exemptions.
These are illustrations, not actual bills. Gasoline-powered vehicles could receive substantial credits, and some vehicles would have qualifying registration fees waived.
A future proposal could also use different rates or rules.
Nevertheless, these examples demonstrate why mileage, fuel economy, and vehicle type matter when evaluating the financial impact.
And there was another detail in HB 1921.
The mileage rate was designed to increase automatically when the state fuel-tax rate increased.
That means the proposed 2.6-cent charge was a starting point, not a permanently fixed rate.
Why This Matters to Rural Washington
For residents of Clallam, Jefferson, and northern Grays Harbor counties, transportation is often a necessity rather than a choice.
Many rural residents must drive considerable distances to reach employment, schools, grocery stores, medical appointments, and essential services.
Public transportation is not always available or practical.
A resident traveling from a rural community for medical treatment may have little control over the number of miles required.
A tradesperson, caregiver, delivery driver, or small-business owner may depend on daily vehicle travel to earn a living.
Even two households with similar incomes can have dramatically different transportation needs depending on where they live.
That raises an important fairness question.
Should people who must drive farther because of where they live face a greater transportation funding burden?
Supporters of mileage-based charging argue that people who use roads more should contribute more toward maintaining them.
Others question whether that approach adequately recognizes that rural residents often lack the transportation alternatives available in larger cities.
Both concerns deserve examination before any statewide program is adopted.
Where Would the Additional 10% Go?
Another provision of HB 1921 deserves attention.
The basic mileage fee was designated for highway preservation and maintenance.
But the additional 10% road usage assessment had a different purpose.
Under the proposed legislation, that revenue would support rail transportation, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian infrastructure, and public transportation.
Supporters view these investments as part of a broader transportation network that can help reduce demand on roads.
However, rural motorists may reasonably question how much direct benefit their communities would receive from those investments.
For example, someone living miles from the nearest transit route may have different transportation priorities than someone who regularly uses buses, rail, or bicycle infrastructure.
The question is not whether these transportation options have value.
It is whether the proposed funding structure fairly reflects the needs of the people paying into it.
How Would the State Track Mileage?
The defeated proposal required participating vehicle owners to report periodic odometer readings.
It also allowed the Department of Licensing to offer automated mileage-reporting methods.
These automated options could involve private service providers, with potential customer fees for those choosing such services.
Importantly, the legislation did not require every driver to install a GPS tracker.
Location-based reporting raised privacy considerations, and the proposal contained restrictions on collecting location information without consent.
Still, administering a mileage-based system creates practical questions.
How often would drivers report mileage? How would the state verify accuracy? How would residents document miles driven outside Washington or on qualifying private roads? What would it cost to operate the system?
Those administrative details could influence the cost, convenience, and public acceptance of any future program.
Washington Already Increased Transportation Taxes in 2025
There is another important piece of this discussion.
Washington lawmakers approved a transportation revenue package in 2025 that increased gasoline and diesel taxes, several vehicle-related fees, and other transportation charges.
The state’s gasoline tax increased from 49.4 cents to 55.4 cents per gallon on July 1, 2025, with further increases provided under the law.
The Transportation Commission’s 2025 Annual Report acknowledges these new revenue measures.
Yet that same report identifies mileage-based charging as an option still being considered for the future.
This does not mean lawmakers have approved a mileage tax on top of the 2025 increases.
It does mean future proposals must be evaluated in light of the taxes and fees drivers are already paying.
If transportation taxes have already increased, what additional revenue would a mileage-based system generate, and how would existing taxes change in return?
That is a fair question for legislators and transportation officials.
Will the Mileage Tax Return in 2027?
As of October 29, 2026, there is no confirmed reintroduction of HB 1921 or SB 5726 for the 2027 legislative session.
However, the history of repeated proposals and the Transportation Commission’s continuing research make it reasonable to keep watching the issue.
A future bill could resemble the defeated legislation, or it could take a different approach.
It might begin with electric vehicles, change the mileage rate, modify the available credits, or address administrative concerns raised by earlier proposals.
Nothing in the existing research guarantees what lawmakers will propose or whether a future bill would pass.
But the concept remains part of Washington’s transportation policy discussion.
The Questions Washington Drivers Deserve Answered
Before another mileage-based charging proposal moves forward, residents should have clear answers.
Will the charge genuinely replace existing transportation taxes, or leave drivers paying additional amounts?
Will the 10% assessment return?
How much of the revenue will go directly toward repairing and maintaining roads?
What protections will exist for rural residents who must travel greater distances?
How much will administration and enforcement cost?
And perhaps most importantly, will Washington residents be able to see exactly how the change affects their total annual transportation costs before lawmakers vote on it?
Washington needs safe roads, maintained bridges, and reliable transportation infrastructure.
Those are legitimate responsibilities of state government.
But funding proposals should be transparent, practical, and understandable to the people paying for them.
For the residents of Legislative District 24, the discussion should not end with the defeat of HB 1921 and SB 5726.
The proposal has a long history, and official state research continues.
The bills may be gone, but the policy remains on the table.
The next time lawmakers consider charging Washington drivers by the mile, residents deserve more than an explanation of how the state would collect the money.
They deserve a complete explanation of what they would pay, what existing charges would change, and how their communities would benefit.
Those are questions worth asking before the next legislative session.
Sources and References
- Washington State Legislature, HB 1921, 2025–2026 Legislative History.
- Washington State Legislature, SB 5726, 2025–2026 Legislative History.
- Washington State Legislature, HB 1921, Complete Bill Text.
- Washington State House Transportation Committee, HB 1921 Bill Analysis.
- Washington State Legislature, HB 1832, 2023–2024 Legislative History.
- Washington State Transportation Commission, Road Usage Charge Information and Research.
- Washington State Transportation Commission, 2025 Annual Report, published January 2026.
- Washington State Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Rates.
- Puget Sound Regional Council, Legislature Considering a Road Usage Charge, February 19, 2025.