Recent legislative proposals to introduce additional fees for electric vehicle (EV) owners to replenish the Road Fund are causing expert debate. The argument for a “fair contribution” to road repairs faces a number of economic and strategic risks that may offset the expected fiscal effect.
The Auto Market Research Institute analyzed the current state of the industry as of April 2026 and identified key areas of concern.
1. Risk of loss of economic competitiveness of the segment
In 2026, the cost of energy carriers in Ukraine reached critical levels: diesel fuel — 90 UAH/l, A-95 gasoline — 73 UAH/l. In parallel, commercial tariffs for public EGS increased to 26–30 UAH/kWh.
A mathematical analysis of the operating cost (100 km of mileage) demonstrates a dangerous trend:
- Gasoline car: ~584 UAH
- Diesel car: ~630 UAH
- Electric car at a public EV charging station: ~520...600 UAH
Any additional charge would make the cost of running an EV higher than that of a petrol-powered vehicle. This risks shutting down the market for apartment dwellers who do not have access to a grid. The electric vehicle risks becoming a niche product exclusively for private homeowners.
2. World experience in stimulation: support instead of restriction
Since January 1, 2026, Ukraine has already resumed the payment of 20% VAT on the import of electric vehicles. EV owners make a significant one-time contribution to the state budget already at the purchase stage.
While Ukraine is discussing the introduction of additional fees, the worldʼs leading economies continue to use incentive tools to update their fleets. Obviously, such solutions cannot be applied to the Ukrainian budget now in wartime conditions, but they demonstrate a global vector of development:
- Germany: After a brief pause in 2025, the government resumed targeted subsidy programs for middle-income households and introduced significant tax breaks for corporate fleets switching to electric vehicles.
- USA (Inflation Reduction Act): Federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for the purchase of a new EV continues to operate. The main goal is not only environmental protection, but also energy security and the development of our own industry.
- France: Actively developing a “social leasing” program, where low-income citizens can get an electric car for as little as €100 per month. In addition, there is an “environmental bonus” of up to €4,000–7,000.
- Norway: Despite the fact that the share of EVs in new car sales has approached 100%, the country maintains toll benefits (discounts of 50% and more) and free use of public transport lanes to support the secondary market.
- China: Implements a combination of direct subsidies to producers and consumers, as well as giving priority to obtaining registration plates in major cities, a critical factor in choice for millions of buyers.
Analytical note: World practice shows that road taxes for electric vehicles begin to be introduced only when the share of such cars in the total fleet exceeds 15–20%. At the stage of "first steps" (as in the case of Ukraine with its 3%), states usually invest in the market, understanding that the savings in health care, ecology, and energy substitution significantly exceed the nominal losses of the Road Fund.
3. Slowdown in fleet renewal and security risks
The average age of Ukraineʼs passenger car fleet remains one of the highest in Europe — over 16 years. Electric vehicles are today the main driver of its rejuvenation: the average age of EVs in Ukraine is about 5 years.
The introduction of new barriers to the transition to electric traction will inevitably lead to:
- Keeping outdated cars with low levels of passive and active safety in operation.
- Increased government spending on accident recovery, as modern EVs are typically equipped with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).
4. Energy and strategic security issues
In 2026, dependence on imported petroleum products remains a critical factor. Each liter of fuel for 73–90 UAH is foreign exchange washed out of the countryʼs economy.
Electricity, despite the difficult state of generation, is a product of domestic production. Switching to a domestic energy resource is a way to reduce the balance of payments deficit. Taxing this switch contradicts the national strategy of energy independence.
5. Recycling and “second life” of batteries
Arguments about the environmental damage from old batteries in 2026 are not supported by practice. A powerful market for the secondary use of EV cells for military needs (drones), energy systems (SES) and household storage devices (UPS) has formed in Ukraine. No other component of ICE vehicles has such a high coefficient of useful utilization after the end of the vehicleʼs service life.
6. Fiscal feasibility and tax design
Introducing a separate road toll for electric vehicles at a stage when their share in the fleet is about 3% creates a number of fiscal challenges:
- Meager amount of potential revenues. Even under optimistic scenarios, the additional fee will provide a fraction of a percent of the Road Fund. This does not solve the problem of financing infrastructure, but creates a significant negative effect on the market.
- Administrative costs can exceed revenues. Mileage accounting, control, billing, inspections, litigation — all this requires resources. For a small group of payers, such a tax becomes economically inefficient.
- High elasticity of demand. In the early stages of market development, even a small additional tax can cause a sharp drop in EV sales, which automatically reduces the tax base. The tax "eats itself."
- Violation of the principle of fiscal policy stability. Investors in charging infrastructure and EV buyers made decisions under the same rules. A sudden change in rules without a transition period undermines confidence in any future incentives or reforms.
- Inconsistency of the principle of "external effects". The road toll should be tied to factors that actually create a load on the infrastructure: mass, mileage, environmental impact. EVs do not create emissions and have a lower level of noise pollution, so their taxation based on the "fact of electric traction" contradicts the logic of modern transport taxes.
Conclusion
As of Q1 2026, electric vehicles account for only about 3% (250,000 out of ~8 million vehicles) of the Ukrainian car fleet. Introducing an additional tax at this stage will not provide significant revenues to the Road Fund, but will create risks of degradation of the entire segment: imports, service, charging infrastructure, and the secondary battery market. At the same time, such a decision is hasty in the broader context of transport policy.
Roads are a common good, a fundamental infrastructure that creates economic value for all citizens, regardless of whether they own a car. A person without a car depends on the delivery of food, medicine, public transport, mail, bank logistics, and ambulances. Businesses — from microentrepreneurs to large manufacturers — depend on motor transport as the main logistics channel. It was high-quality roads that at one time became the basis of economic growth in the USA, Germany, and most European countries.
The excise tax on fuel, which has been the main source of funding for the Road Fund for the past decade, was a logical solution for its time. But changes in the routes of supply of petroleum products, a sharp increase in their cost, and the use of fuel for generators during the war make this model obsolete. In addition, there are categories of equipment — in particular, special equipment and farm agricultural machinery — that consume significant amounts of diesel fuel, but may never travel on public roads. In fact, they pay a “road toll” without creating road traffic congestion.
In such a situation, adding another tax to the already existing set of fees on cars and fuel is not a reform. It is a one-off solution that creates inequality between categories of payers and does not solve the main problem — the lack of a stable, predictable and fair mechanism for financing road infrastructure.
A more effective and strategically balanced path is a comprehensive reformatting of the system, which includes:
- a new model for replenishing the Road Fund, which does not depend on fluctuations in fuel prices and takes into account actual road use;
- environmental tax, differentiated by age, environmental class, mass and level of harmful emissions — in accordance with the "polluter pays" principle;
- high-quality, uncorrupted technical inspection, which really reduces the accident rate and stimulates fleet renewal;
- stability and predictability of tax rules necessary for investors in transport and energy infrastructure.
This approach allows us to develop roads as a common good, support the mobility of citizens and businesses, reduce dependence on imported petroleum products, and not hinder the development of technologically promising segments, including electromobility.
