It's five oh five, and welcome in to a Thursday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk one and seven point nine FM. WBT. I am Nick Craig. Good morning to you. It was an incredibly busy Wednesday in Raleigh as the North Carolina General Assembly came back for a special called session that we'd been covering all week here on the Carolina Journal News Hour, and lawmakers officially passed legislation temporary eliminating the state's motor fuel tax or gas tax, cutting that to zero through November the thirtieth.
This is as drivers, farmers, and businesses continue to face elevated fuel prices. The general assembly returned to Raleigh for that one-day special session called by House Speaker Destin Hall, the Republican from Caldwell County, and Senate Leader Phil Berger, the Republican from Rockingham County, to address only the issue of the cost of gasoline.
Well, it passed with a very strong bipartisan support. The pass. Passed the House in a 111 to one vote, with Representative Pricey Harrison, the Democrat from Guilford County, being the lone individual voting against it in the House. We now turn our attention to the North Carolina Senate. Similar situation there, 41 to zero, both Republicans and Democrats in the North Carolina Senate voting in favor of this legislation.
Titled the Relief at the Pump Act, the legislation suspends North Carolina's 41 cent per gallon motor fuel excise tax beginning the day after the legislation becomes law, and it continues through November the 30th. During that period, the state rate on gasoline and diesel fuel will fall to zero. House Majority Leader in Representative. Brendan Jones, the Republican from Columbus County, described the legislation on the House floor Wednesday. I rise today to present the Relief at the Pump Act.
Let me start with the most important part of this bill. This becomes law today. Beginning tomorrow, North Carolina's motor fuel tax goes to zero through November the 30th. That's 55 days of direct relief at the pump for the people we represent. Not a rebate six months from now, not another government program, not a check someone has to apply for.
You pull up to the pump and you pay less. Folks back home do not need us to explain to them that the fuel prices are hurting. They see it every time they fill up their truck to go to work. When they take their kids to school, farmers see it, small business see it, and the working families of North Carolina they feel it. And when people are getting squeezed, government ought to be willing to look at what we are taking out of their pockets.
That's exactly what this bill does. For the period of the suspension, the state motor fuel tax will be zero cents per gallon. And this bill goes a step further. It requires that that cost of the fuel actually reflect the savings from that suspension. In other words.
The relief for the person standing at the pump happens, and what we're doing without destroying our roads and without abandoning the commitments the states already made. That's representative of Brendan Jones, as North Carolina relies heavily on a motor fuel tax to fund transportation. With the current state budget anticipating nearly one point nine two billion dollars in motor fuel tax revenues for the state's highway fund, and another six hundred and thirty six point four million for what is called the highway trust fund during the fiscal year. That temporary pause will likely and and and will and. Fact caused some issues as it relates to funding.
Revenue is expected to be cut by three hundred and sixty-two point three million dollars. Representative Jones described how the state of North Carolina in the General Assembly looks to back up those dollars. Each month, the Secretary of Revenue will calculate the affected funds that would have been received and remained in place. The state controller will then transfer those amounts from the stabilization and inflation reserve to hold those funds harmless. What does that mean?
The highway fund is protected. The highway trust fund is protected, and the other funds that receive motor fuel tax distribution, they're protected. We built that reserve for moments when inflation and rising costs were putting pressure on North Carolina families. That moment is here. We can provide hundreds of millions of dollars in immediate relief to North Carolinians, fully protect our transportation commitments, and still maintain a substantial reserve.
That is not reckless spending. That is responsible budgeting, doing exactly what it was designed to do. We planned ahead when the times were good, so that when families needed help. North Carolina would be in a position to provide it. The lawmakers in the two p two page legislation also used it to expand temporary relief involving dyed diesel fuel, also known as red dyed diesel, which is generally exempt from the taxes when used for off road purposes such as farming, which we know is a big topic here in North Carolina.
Major industry North Carolina's number one business remains agriculture. Representative Jones explained that provision is. Through December thirty first, we're providing relief involving died diesel used for farming and agricultural purposes. The bill waives enforcement of the relevant civil and criminal penalties. Excuse me for highway use of died diesel connected with farming and agriculture, and for qualifying farmers, conditional farmers, commercial loggers, and our fishermen who have the appropriate exemption certificate.
The bill provides that no motor fuel tax liability will accrue on highway use of that dyed diesel from October 1st through December 31st. For the farmers and loggers in our rural communities that keep it running, that matters. That's Representative Brendan Jones on the floor of the North Carolina House on Wednesday, describing details on this legislation, which passed overwhelmingly in the North Carolina General Assembly. The Relief at the Pump Act, one hundred and eleven to one in the House. Representative Pricey Harrison, the Democrat from Guilford County, the only voting against it.
The Senate approved it forty-one to zero. And while there was very strong support in terms of votes, there were some. Questions and issues that were brought forward. Representative Robert Reeves, the minority leader in the North Carolina House, had this to say on the House floor: "We're here today for a problem that wasn't created by the people of North Carolina, and we're not doing everything we can to fix right now. I'm disappointed that we're not talking about it." We know everybody's voting for it, but I do think there are some things to talk about and things to be fleshed out.
So I apologize to my caucus that you don't get an opportunity to say these things. We weren't trying to belabor the points, but it is what it is.
Well, we also had a chance since we're back for a special session to address other costs. Gas is the only thing that's up. Groceries are up. We could have addressed that today. Utility bills are up, and as I said at an earlier event this morning, I mean I've heard some folks on the other side talk about that.
Utility bills are up because of a particular bill that was passed here, and they wanted a chance to address that. We had a chance to address it today, but we're not doing it. I would have loved something that puts money in people's pockets today. Period. No confusion.
I agree with the explanation of what we just did on this bill. What we know—that's not a full explanation.
So, what I will say is this: is that if we are serious about helping folks, we got plenty of time before the election. If we had been serious about helping folks, we have been in session constantly since January twenty-five. I want people to believe in us as a body, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, as a body. I think when we do things like this, we don't talk about it. We don't consult.
I mean, this is an idea that's been out there for a long time from us, and to not talk about how the bill looks, what we're doing, the length of time that the gas tax suspension goes is disappointing. We've got to be better. I hope we're going to be better out there. Election. I hope after the election that we see that people have made a decision.
They want us to talk. They want us to collaborate. They want us to be a part of the decision. Because look, no side owns all the good ideas. No side should get all the credit for anything.
But we are still playing that game this close to an election. We have a chance to be better. Once again, we have passed up the chance to be better. That's Representative Robert Reeves, the leader of the North Carolina Democrat Caucus in the North Carolina House, arguing that lawmakers could have done more during this temporary session on Wednesday. Regardless, he and nearly every other Democrat voting in favor of it in the North Carolina House and Senate.
Donald Bryson, the president and CEO of the John Locke Foundation, welcomed the temporary suspension of the gas tax, but cautioned. That lawmakers should account for this impact on in terms of transportation funding, saying in part, any temporary suspension of the motor fuel tax should be structured to protect transportation funding. North Carolina has long relied heavily on user fees to fund in in terms of roads, and the gas tax remains a substantial part of that system. Rather than leaving a gap in the state's transportation budget, lawmakers, as we heard, will replace the foregone foregone revenue with funds from the state's stabilization and inflation reserve. With Bryson adding that the current pressure current pressure on fuel prices and lawmakers' decision to temporarily suspend the tax should prompt lawmakers to reconsider how North Carolina funds transportation in the long term.
Telling Carolina Journal. In part, this moment should also prompt a long-term conversation about modernizing transportation funding. Moving from the gas tax towards a mileage-based user fee would preserve the user pay principle, ensure that drivers contribute regardless of how their vehicles are powered, and provide a more durable alternative to taxing fuel at the pump. The legislation specifies that the temporary zero rate would. Not be factored into the calculation of North Carolina's 2027 motor fuel tax rate.
So, what's next? The bill now sitting on Democrat Governor Josh Stein's desk, where awaits his actions.
Sources familiar with the matter told Carolina Journal that the governor does plan to sign the legislation by the end of the week. On Tuesday, during a council of state meeting, Stein welcomed the action on the gas tax, but argued that lawmakers should have addressed. Rising costs sooner, saying in part, "I'm I'm grateful to the people who are really struggling to pay their bills and are going to get some relief." Once signed, the gas tax suspension takes effect the following day and will remain in place through November the thirtieth.
So, what was not expected just a week ago in terms of action from the North Carolina General Assembly is now here and gone. That special session concluding yesterday. We've got continuing coverage of that this morning over on our website carolinajournal dot com. Look for the story with the headline: "NC lawmakers pass gas tax pause through November." This is Rick Burgess from the Rick Burgess Show. I want to talk to you for a second about something most of us put on.
Autopilot car insurance. If you're just letting your policy auto renew year after year without shopping around, I'm telling you, you are probably throwing money away. Rates change all the time, and staying loyal to one company can end up costing you big time. That's why you need to go check out Insurify. I went to Insurify.com to test it out myself, and I was blown away by how easy it is.
In about two minutes, totally free, you can compare actual real time quotes from over a hundred top insurance companies, all side by side. In one place, no endless phone calls, no pushy sales pitches. Here's what I really love: Insurify doesn't just help you once and walk away. They actually keep monitoring your rates in the background and alert you whenever prices drop, so you never miss out on a better deal down the road. Millions of drivers have already used Insurify to stop overpaying, and there's no reason you shouldn't too.
Do yourself and your wallet a favor. Go see what you could save right now at insurify.com. That's insurify.com. It's 5:23. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT.
Switching gears this morning to education. More than half of North Carolina's public school units don't have enough money to replace the laptops that they bought with federal COVID funds. The Department of Public Instruction provided that information to the State Board of Education at a meeting. On October the first, to solve the ongoing problem, the Department of Public Instruction recommended, and it is recommending moving forward that the state pay for a recurring replacement cycle. The request puts the state spending on classroom devices up against a growing question about how much students should use them.
Parents in at least in multiple districts across the state have asked for fewer school issued Chromebooks, and the state has restricted cell phones in class and issued guidance on screen use across North Carolina's public school system.
Meanwhile, at least one legislator has gone further. Representative David Willis, the Republican from Union County, told DPI officials in March that they should quote take a very hard look at returning. Textbooks in K through five. The Department of Public Instruction told the State Board of Education in January that it was seeking 152.6 million dollars a year for device replacement, according to EdNC. Lawmakers didn't fund the request in the state budget that would come months later.
However, and capped the 2026 budget for the school technology fund at 18 million dollars. While moving 4.17 million in unspent school technology money to Hurricane Helene recovery. Districts reported eighty-five point one million dollars in device replacement costs in the twenty-five twenty-six school year. The October the first report is the first under a twenty twenty-five law that requires every public school unit to report its device repair rate to the state each year. With the state board being required to send that data to the North Carolina General Assembly, that is due coming up on November.
Number the fifteenth. Public school units across the state, and I believe there's 115 public school districts, had 2.16 million student, staff, and instructional devices in service in the 25-26 school year. According to the report, they reported more than 311 thousand repairs, which rolls out to about 14 percent of devices of 323 public school units that reported 174. Or fifty three point nine percent reported that they do not have enough money in their budget to keep up with this device replacement. Matthew Mayo, who is the director of the DPI's Office for Digital Learning, said that most devices had passed the end of their warranties because they were bought during the pandemic with federal ESSER or Emergency Connectivity Fund money.
Saying and noting in part, the majority of our PSUs statewide reported that they don't have sufficient funding, recurring year after year, so they have a refresh cycle. They know what needs to be replaced, but they're also waiting on local government decisions and other avenues to figure out how to refresh their devices. The report puts the annual cost of owning a device over its life at four hundred and forty-one dollars, including a warranty, repairs, and disposal. With student devices averaging three hundred and eighty-two dollars, with staff laptops at nine hundred and twelve. Mayo said that DPI recommends dedicating recurring state funding for student technology devices to cover things like warranties, maintenance, repairs, and scheduled replacement.
Noting that this is not this is obviously not a new ask. DPI's January report to the North Carolina General Assembly said that public school units had a more than a million student devices in the 24-25 school year. That large portions of the current device fleet have aged beyond their expected lifespan. With the report asking for predictable and recurring funding, without naming a figure, in a Chapel Hill-Charlottesville parent group of more than 800 members. They have asked the district to cut back on school issued Chromebooks, as the Carolina Journal reported back in April.
The Chromebooks are large smartphones, said one of the parents in the group and one of the group's founders. The state also moved to limit screen use in classrooms. A 2025 law requires every public school unit to bar students from using cell phones during instructional time. DPI issued guidance in. July on what they called a purposeful screen use and when to use devices in class.
During the meeting, state board of education member Olivia Oxendine asked whether the repaired data could be broken down by grade span and whether DPI tracks lost instructional time when a device fails. Mayo said that neither is collected now, and that a grade span breakdown could be added next year. Noting that that could influence even decisions at the school level in terms of how much time do we need to appropriate to device instruction versus face to face instruction. The report was a discussion item within the meeting that took place on October the first, meaning that no votes were taken. The board could potentially take it up again in November at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
The General Assembly's Education Oversight Committee will receive this report from the Department of Education and the North Carolina State Board of Education by November the fifteenth. That is around. The time that we expect lawmakers to be back in Raleigh after the November the third midterm election, while it is not immediately clear whether there will be. Any major action on anything as it relates to this, it will likely become a hot topic of conversation as we flip the calendar over into 2027 and begin the process of looking at a state budget here in North Carolina. You can read more on this report.
We've got the details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. Look for the headline: DPI asks state for recurring laptop money. This is Rick. Birds from the Rick Burgess Show. I want to talk to you for a second about something most of us put on autopilot: car insurance.
If you're just letting your policy auto renew year after year without shopping around, I'm telling you, you are probably throwing money away. Rates change all the time, and staying loyal to one company can end up costing you big time. That's why you need to go check out Insurify. I went to Insurify.com to test it out myself, and I was blown away by how easy it is. In about two minutes, totally free, you can compare actual real time.
Quotes from over a hundred top insurance companies, all side by side in one place. No endless phone calls, no pushy sales pitches. Here's what I really love: Insurify doesn't just help you once and walk away. They actually keep monitoring your rates in the background and alert you whenever prices drop, so you never miss out on a better deal down the road. Millions of drivers have already used Insurify to stop overpaying, and there's no reason you shouldn't too.
Do yourself and your wallet a favor. Go see what you could save right now at insurefi. dot com. That's insurefi. dot com.
It's five thirty seven. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, one and seven point nine FM, WBT. I'm Nick Craig. Good Thursday morning to you. As we get closer and closer to the November the third midterm election, we've been keeping an eye on a very interesting case out of the Fourth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals as it relates to political advertising rates. To get us up to date with the latest this morning, it's been back and forth over the last couple of weeks. Mitch Kokei from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, as we've talked about this in the previous a couple of weeks, this doesn't necessarily deal with candidates themselves. Themselves that are purchasing political ads, but it has to do with many of these outside groups that are purchasing high volumes of political ads across the state of like the states like North Carolina and others backing specific candidates.
Correct? That's right. There is a provision in law that in the closing weeks of a campaign, and this year it was starting September fourth, that Candidates are guaranteed to get the lowest broadcast rates for their election ads. Back in March, the Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau put out guidance that said that same guaranteed low rate should apply not just to candidates, but also to political parties and to joint fundraising committees that are involving more than one candidate, and so. Four Democrats, including North Carolina's Roy Cooper, the Democrats' U.S.
Senate candidate, went to the FCC and complained about that and said, "Look, this does not seem to follow the law. The law says candidates; it doesn't say anyone beyond candidates." The FCC basically had not. Addressed that that complaint, and so then the the candidates went to the Fourth Circuit and said, "Look, the FCC is not doing anything about this. You should block this guidance from taking effect because only the candidates should be able to qualify for these lowest guaranteed rates." Back in late August. The Fourth Circuit, in a split 2-1 decision, agreed with the Democrats and blocked the guidance that would allow the party committees and the joint fundraising committees to get the same low rates.
Not too long after that, actually, on the day that the all of these rates come into effect on September fourth, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling eight to one that blocked what the Fourth Circuit did, put a stay on it until further action could happen at the U.S. Supreme Court. You might have thought, okay, that's the end of it. The parties and the joint fundraising committees are going to be able to have this this access to the same low rates because the Supreme Court has spoken.
But that wasn't the end. After that, the Fourth U.S. Circuit issued another ruling expediting the case. Then they issued a ruling saying that we may force the FCC to do something, but we won't do it before October first. And then, as of October seventh, they decided.
To issue an order saying that the FCC had to come up with a decision, issued something called a writ of mandamus that forces the FCC to take action by noon on Friday the ninth, and basically that's where things stand. The FCC will have to make some sort of decision, and then. Unless the Supreme Court steps in again, and in fact, we may get to that in what the dissenting judge said in this case. But if the FCC does make a decision, then whoever loses is likely to appeal back to the Fourth Circuit, which would then make another decision, which would probably then be appealed to the Supreme Court. Mitch, I mean, are we not kind of at the point of diminishing returns here?
I mean, we're within 30 days of the election period at this time. I mean, it's not going to be long, and I'm sure a lot of folks will appreciate once we get past that November the third date, all of these ads will be off television. We've seen this back and forth. We've seen these rates be ineffective for now, the better part of a month. I mean, kind of walk me through that process as we now start to turn our attention towards almost middle October.
At this point, one of the things that the dissenting judge, Harvey Wilkinson, a Republican appointee, said in after one of the earlier rulings by his two Democratic appointee colleagues was that this is creating chaos with a capital C. That basically, going into the election season, based on the guidance that the FCC's Media Bureau had put out in March. Pretty much everyone expected.
Okay, the parties and these joint fundraising committees are going to get the same low rates, and they planned accordingly.
Well, once the the Fourth Circuit came out with that ruling in late August, saying no, this isn't going to be in effect, then some of these contracts started being canceled. Then the Supreme Court comes back in on the day that the new rate guarantees are supposed to come to to effect, and say, okay, we're going to set aside what the Fourth Circuit did, which would then. Prompt. New contracts or the return to the old contracts, but then the Fourth Circuit has thrown a lot of uncertainty into this by saying that we're going to have decisions that could come in in early October. And so, what really happens is that no one's really sure about these rates, and it's harder for the candidates, it's harder for the party committees, harder harder for the joint fundraising committees, and harder for the media outlets as well to be able to plan accordingly.
And I think one of the things that Judge Harvey Wilkinson is alluding to in his dissents that he has written about these decisions is that that seems to be part of the process is trying to create confusion and make it harder for all of these political operators to be able to conduct themselves knowing what the rules of the game are. And one of the most telling things that he wrote in his most recent dissent was that. Litigants across the Fourth Circuit are going to be very interested in buying this new board game that the majority has come up with, called "Make the Supreme Court Say It Twice," and then he said. Since I think that the Supreme Court has already said it once, I'm not going to go along with it, because basically he's saying that the Fourth Circuit has been thumbing its nose at the Supreme Court, which, when it issued its ruling, wasn't really ruling on the merits of whether the the party committees and joint fundraising committees should get the same low rates. All it was saying was they weren't really sure whether the Democrats, including Roy Cooper, who were involved in this, had any standing.
To go to court, and regardless if they did or not, this is not the time to do it in the middle of an election campaign, and so. The Supreme Court was basically saying this is the type of thing that that should get decided, but given where we are in the calendar, it needs to be decided after the election. And by the Fourth Circuit coming out and issuing these additional rulings, including this latest ruling, calling on the FCC to make a decision within a month of election day and within a week of North Carolinians going out for early voting, it's just creating a lot of chaos. And not telling all these political operators what they're going to be able to do in terms of how much they're going to have to spend if they want to buy these ads. You know, Mitch, that's a really good point.
We've talked about over the last couple of years a variety of different election-related lawsuits, things very close to the election period, things that happen right after the election period, maybe questioning some of the ways in which elections played out. And we've seen pretty consistently, at least in those cases. And now, obviously, it's it's it's clear to say that those are in most of the cases dealing with an actual election itself. But the Courts are typically pretty good at saying, "Hey, we're right in the thick of this thing. We're right in the middle of this election season.
Yes, there might be some issues here, but it's not really appropriate for us to deal with this in this very tight window." Interesting that we're not seeing that with this case. While it's not an election itself, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars being spent across the country. Yes, and it is election-related, so it does fit in with the same general theme. And what you were talking about actually has a name. It's called the Purcell principle.
There was a case with a litigant named Purcell, and the federal courts decided that within a close Proximity to the actual election, you shouldn't, as a federal court, step in and change election rules. The status quo should rule.
Now, there is debate in this case about whether the status quo is what the FCC Media Bureau put out in March. Or what the law had said prior to that. If you believe that what the FCC said in March is the status quo, then the party committees and the joint fundraising committees should get the access to the same low ad rates until this whole thing is settled, probably sometime after the election. But on the other side, the Democrats who went to court would say that no, the status quo is what was operative until the FCC came out with this. Guidance, which is not a formal rule, which is not something that's been adopted through a formal process, and that the the the status quo should be what had been operative before March, and that was only candidates and their campaign committees getting access to these low rates.
Now, the upshot of this, of course, is that it's making it harder for party committees and joint fundraising committees if they don't know that they're going to be able to get the the same. Rates as candidates, and in this particular election cycle, that is something that is probably impacting Republicans more than Democrats, because Democrats have had an edge for the campaign committees nationally, not necessarily in every place, and and certainly not necessarily in every race, but nationally, the the A ruling favoring the candidates only getting these low rates in this cycle would be good news for Democrats. A ruling that says that the party committees and joint fundraising committees could get the same low rates while it applies equally to both major parties in this cycle would probably be advantageous to the Republicans. You mentioned a couple of minutes ago that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered that the Federal Communication Commission act by noon on Friday. We'll of course await those details, Mitch.
Are they requiring them to go forward with this full rule that we have been kind of discussing, versus more of this memo that we saw earlier this year? Does it prescribe exactly how the FCC needs to make its "quote unquote" final decision on this process? It basically just says there needs to be a decision. What happened was the guidance was put out in March, and the Democratic candidates who were involved, including as we said, Roy Cooper, and also Senate candidates in Georgia and Ohio, and a House candidate in Michigan, they went to the FCC, challenged the guidance, and basically wanted to get a ruling on whether the guidance would be able to stand or not. The FCC hasn't ruled, and so that's one of the reasons why.
The Democrats went to the Fourth Circuit and said, "Look, we need a ruling on this because it's going to affect the upcoming election." What the Fourth Circuit has said is, "You need to make a decision on the challenge that came forward from these candidates," and so that making that decision would basically kind of rule one way or the other whether this guidance is going to stand or not. All right.
Well, we'll await that. We'll continue to follow this, depending on when exactly the FCC rolls out some of this information. We'll of course have those details as soon as they are available over on our website, carolinajournal.com. As always, we appreciate the update. Mitch Koch, I from the John Locke Foundation, joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
This is Rick Burgess from the Rick Burgess Show. I want to talk to you for a second about something most of us put on autopilot: car insurance. If you're just letting your policy auto renew year after year without shopping around, I'm telling you, you are probably throwing money away. Rates change all the time, and staying loyal to one company can end up costing you big time. That's why you need to go check out Insurify.
I went to Insurify.com to test it out myself, and I was blown away by how easy it is. In about two minutes, totally free, you can compare. Actual real-time quotes from over a hundred top insurance companies, all side by side in one place. No endless phone calls, no pushy sales pitches. Here's what I really love: Insurify doesn't just help you once and walk away.
They actually keep monitoring your rates in the background and alert you whenever prices drop, so you never miss out on a better deal down the road. Millions of drivers have already used Insurify to stop overpaying, and there's no reason you shouldn't too. Do yourself and your wallet a favor. Go see what you could save right now at insureifi dot com. That's insureifi dot com.
This is the story of the one. As a shipping manager, he's running the dock, stocking supplies, and making sure every order goes out on time. And Grainger helps him stay prepared. From shipping supplies to PPE to hand tools, he counts on Grainger to keep products moving and trucks rolling, so his operation runs smoothly, no matter the shift. Call one eight hundred Grainger, click Grainger dot com, or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
One. Good morning again. It's five fifty-five. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, one hundred seven point nine FM, WBT. A busy Wednesday in Raleigh as the North Carolina Legislature passed legislation temporarily temporarily eliminating the state's motor fuel tax, cutting that from forty-one cents to zero through November the thirtieth, as elevated.
Fuel prices continue to squeeze North Carolina families. The House passed the measure in a 111 to one vote, with Representative Pricey Harrison, the Democrat from Guilford County, casting the lone dissenting vote. While the Senate approved it unanimously, 41 to zero. The legislation is titled the Relief at the Pump Act, with the legislation suspending North Carolina's 41 cent per gallon gas tax. Beginning the day after the legislation becomes law, and continuing that through November the 30th.
During that period of time, the state's rate on gasoline and diesel falls to zero. This is expected to cost the state of North Carolina a significant amount of money, according to research and estimates. Reducing the gas tax for just the about two months will cause a nearly three hundred and sixty-two point three million dollars in terms of transportation-related lost revenues. The North Carolina General Assembly. In passing the two-page piece of legislation yesterday, is backing that money up with money from a different fund.
That had already been set up here in North Carolina. Lawmakers also used the legislation to expand temporary relief involving what is called dyed diesel fuel or red dye diesel, which is generally exempt from taxes when it is used for off-road purposes. You see that on many farms across North Carolina. The legislation, as I noted, passed the General Assembly with very, very strong majorities, nearly unanimously. In both chambers, it now sits on the desk of Democrat Governor Josh Stein.
With sources telling the Carolina Journal that the governor does plan to sign that legislation by the end of the week, so relief could be coming soon to drivers across North Carolina. Continuing coverage, Carolina Journal dot com. That's going to do it for a Thursday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour. WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you tomorrow morning, five to six, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, one hundred seven point nine FM, WBT.
