The users of a resource should, of course, pay for that resource. And there's a compelling logic that the people who cause maintenance to be required should be

The users of a resource should, of course, pay for that resource. And there's a compelling logic that the people who cause maintenance to be required should be the ones charged for it. The issue is, Leaf drivers are very much not the people who damage roads: Leafs are somewhat light cars (a bit more than a Civic, substantially less than SUVs). Cumulative road damage is linear with the number of miles driven and quartic with vehicular weight. Gas taxes roughly capture the linearity from miles driven but only a fraction of the factor from vehicle weight. If the Republican leader quoted in the article is actually interested in bridging the gap between gasoline tax revenues and expenditures on roads and ending the subsidy the public provides for expensive private decisions, he should look toward charging more of road users in general than a small minority of a couple thousand (it probably costs as much to implement and collect this tax as the revenue it brings). Instead of, you know, sticking taxes to the people whose consumption choices he finds so damn hippy and unpalatable. (And, yes, I oppose government subsidies for electric vehicles too, whose environmental benefits should be captured by more efficient carbon taxes or permits.)