Electric vehicle drivers in one state could soon find it harder, not easier, to plug in. A new policy in Maryland is poised to reshape how public charging is priced and deployed, raising the risk that some stations will disappear just as more drivers are considering a switch from gasoline.
Instead of simply adding more plugs and faster chargers, Maryland is testing whether it can tax and regulate this new fueling network without choking off its growth. The outcome will offer an early look at how state-level decisions can either smooth or complicate the road to mass EV adoption across the United States.
Maryland’s surprising turn in the EV story
For years, Maryland has tried to position itself as a climate leader, with aggressive targets for cutting emissions and a strong push toward cleaner transportation. That context makes the latest move on EV charging especially striking, because it suggests that even states committed to decarbonization are wrestling with how to pay for roads and infrastructure as drivers burn less gasoline. The policy debate unfolding in Maryland is not happening on the margins, it is emerging in a state that has been central to the broader national push for electric vehicles.
Maryland’s role in the EV transition is not just rhetorical, it is grounded in its status as a densely populated, economically significant state on the Eastern Seaboard that has already seen rapid growth in plug-in vehicles and public charging. The state’s prominence in regional transportation planning and its position between major metropolitan hubs like Washington and Philadelphia mean that any change to its charging rules will ripple far beyond its borders, affecting how drivers and companies think about the viability of long-distance electric travel through Maryland.
The new EV port fee that could thin out chargers
The most consequential shift is a new fee structure that targets the charging ports themselves rather than the electricity that flows through them. Instead of simply paying for kilowatt-hours or time spent plugged in, site operators will now face an additional cost tied to each individual EV port they host. I see this as a subtle but powerful change, because it directly alters the economics of how many plugs a business can justify installing and keeping online.
According to recent reporting, this new EV port fee is scheduled to take effect in the spring and is tied to the electrical output of each charger, which means higher powered fast-charging stations will carry a larger financial burden than slower Level 2 units. The structure is designed so that the fee scales with the capacity of the port, effectively charging more for the kind of high-speed infrastructure that highway drivers and long-distance commuters rely on most, a shift that could make it harder to sustain or expand those faster chargers across Maryland’s public network.
Why a port-based fee hits fast charging hardest
Charging a fee per port rather than per kilowatt-hour might sound like a technical distinction, but it has real-world consequences for how stations are built. A per-port charge is essentially a fixed cost, which means it weighs most heavily on chargers that sit idle for long stretches or serve smaller numbers of drivers. High-powered DC fast chargers, which are expensive to install and maintain, already depend on steady traffic to break even, so layering on a recurring fee for each plug can quickly turn marginal sites into money losers.
Because the fee is linked to electrical output, the most powerful chargers, the ones capable of adding hundreds of miles of range in under an hour, will carry the highest charges. That structure may encourage some operators to downgrade equipment, delay upgrades, or simply cap the number of fast-charging ports they offer in a given location. In practice, the policy risks creating a perverse incentive where the very technology that makes EVs practical for apartment dwellers, rideshare drivers, and long-distance travelers becomes the hardest to justify financially, especially in rural or lower traffic parts of the state.
How site operators might respond on the ground
From the perspective of a charging company or a grocery store that hosts chargers in its parking lot, the new fee changes the math overnight. Each additional port is no longer just an investment in hardware and grid connection, it is also a recurring line item that must be covered by charging revenue or passed on to drivers. I expect many operators to respond by trimming underused ports, postponing planned expansions, or clustering chargers only in the busiest locations where they can be confident of high utilization.
Some businesses may decide that the simplest path is to remove chargers altogether, especially if they were installed as a customer amenity rather than a core profit center. Others might keep the hardware but raise prices sharply, which would preserve the number of plugs on paper while making them less attractive to cost-conscious drivers. Either way, the risk is that the network becomes more fragile and less evenly distributed, with fewer backup options when a charger is broken or occupied, and longer waits at the remaining high-traffic sites.
What this means for EV drivers day to day
For drivers, the most immediate impact will not be a sudden disappearance of every charger, but a gradual thinning of options and a rise in uncertainty. A road trip that once offered three or four viable fast-charging stops along a corridor might shrink to one or two, leaving less margin for error if a station is out of service. Urban drivers who rely on public charging because they lack home garages could find that the nearest station is now farther away, more crowded, or more expensive, even if the total number of EVs on the road keeps climbing.
Over time, this kind of friction can slow adoption in subtle ways. A buyer comparing a gasoline crossover to an electric SUV might be willing to accept a bit of planning and occasional waits, but not the prospect of hunting for scarce plugs or paying sharply higher rates at the few remaining fast chargers. The perception that charging is becoming less convenient or less predictable can be as damaging as the reality, especially for drivers who are already wary of range anxiety and who see public infrastructure as a key test of whether the technology is ready for their daily lives.
The tension between revenue needs and climate goals
Behind the fee is a familiar fiscal problem: as vehicles become more efficient and gasoline sales flatten or decline, traditional fuel taxes bring in less money to maintain roads and bridges. States are searching for new revenue sources, and EV charging, with its growing footprint and clear link to vehicle use, is an obvious target. The challenge is that a blunt fee on charging ports risks undercutting the very transition that climate policies are trying to accelerate, especially in a state that has publicly committed to cutting transportation emissions.
I see this as a classic policy tradeoff between short-term budget stability and long-term environmental strategy. If the fee discourages investment in charging, it could slow EV adoption and keep more internal combustion vehicles on the road, which in turn preserves gasoline tax revenue but undermines emissions targets. A more nuanced approach might tie fees to actual energy delivered, vehicle miles traveled, or income-based rebates, but those options are more complex to administer. Maryland’s choice to focus on ports and electrical output suggests a preference for administrative simplicity, even if it introduces new friction into the charging ecosystem.
Who is most at risk of losing access
The burden of a thinner charging network will not fall evenly across drivers. Those with private garages and home chargers will feel the impact least, since they can cover most of their daily needs overnight and use public stations only on longer trips. The people most exposed are renters, urban residents without off-street parking, and lower income drivers who rely on public infrastructure for routine charging and cannot easily absorb higher prices or longer detours.
Geography matters as well. High-traffic corridors and affluent suburbs are more likely to retain robust charging options because utilization is high and customers can pay more. Rural communities, small towns, and lower income neighborhoods, where chargers see fewer sessions per day, are at greater risk of losing ports as operators prune their networks. That pattern would mirror long-standing disparities in access to reliable gasoline stations, broadband, and other infrastructure, but with the added twist that EVs are often promoted as a way to reduce pollution in exactly those communities that could now see charging become scarcer.
Signals for automakers and charging companies
Automakers have spent years promising that charging will become as easy and ubiquitous as filling up with gasoline, and many have invested directly in public networks to back up that claim. A policy that makes it harder to sustain fast chargers in a key East Coast state sends a mixed signal to those companies, especially as they plan where to launch new models and where to prioritize dealer support. If the business case for public charging weakens, manufacturers may need to shoulder more of the cost themselves or risk slower sales in markets where drivers cannot rely on a robust network.
For charging companies, the fee is both a threat and a test of resilience. Firms that have built their models around high utilization and premium pricing may be able to absorb the added cost, but smaller operators and community-based projects could struggle. Some may respond by consolidating, focusing on a few profitable hubs rather than a wide geographic spread, while others might push for new partnerships with utilities, municipalities, or retail chains to share the burden. The policy could accelerate a shakeout in the charging industry, favoring larger players with deeper pockets and more sophisticated pricing tools.
What to watch next in Maryland and beyond
The spring rollout of the port-based fee will be the first real test of how theory translates into practice. I will be watching closely to see whether operators quietly remove ports, raise prices, or simply absorb the cost in the short term while lobbying for adjustments. Data on station uptime, utilization, and new installations will offer early clues about whether the network is growing more slowly, plateauing, or actually shrinking in response to the new charges.
Other states are likely to study Maryland’s experience as they weigh their own approaches to EV taxation and infrastructure funding. If the fee leads to noticeable gaps in coverage or public backlash from drivers who suddenly find fewer places to charge, it could serve as a cautionary tale about the risks of taxing infrastructure rather than usage. If, on the other hand, the network proves resilient and the state succeeds in raising revenue without obvious harm to access, the model could spread, reshaping how EV charging is financed across the country and determining whether the promise of convenient, reliable electric fueling holds up under fiscal pressure.
More from MorningOverview