Bill
H 3033
MA: Temporarily exempts automotive fuel from per-gallon excise tax until MA unleaded price falls below $1.00/gal, hitting highway funds and state revenues.
Summary of H 3033 — title, texts, and inconsistencies
Important note: The materials provided for H 3033 contain two different and unrelated bill texts combined in one document:
Below are concise, separate summaries of each measure and the procedural notes provided. If you need one specific bill summarized, please confirm which state/version you want.
1) Massachusetts — "An Act relative to the fuel tax" (HD 3489 / material labeled H 3033 in packet)
Purpose
- Temporarily exempt sales of automotive fuels from the chapter 64A per‑gallon excise tax while retail gasoline prices remain extremely high.
Key provisions
- Adds a paragraph to G.L. c.64A, §12: any sale of fuel for automotive use (explicitly including unleaded gasoline and diesel) by a distributor to any purchaser in the Commonwealth is exempt from the tax per gallon in chapter 64A.
- The exemption remains in effect until the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) statewide average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline (as calculated for Massachusetts) falls below $1.00.
Who is affected
- Fuel distributors, retailers, any public or private purchasers of automotive fuel in Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts transportation funding and general revenues — potential significant loss of excise tax revenue while retail prices exceed $1.00/gal.
Procedural status (from provided timeline)
- Prefiled 12/05/2024; introduced and first read 01/14/2025; referred to Committee on Judiciary (and later to Revenue on 02/27/2025).
- Sponsor listed: Nicholas A. Boldyga (3rd Hampden). Member Edgerton later added as sponsor on 02/12/2025.
- Related docket: HD 3489 (replaces).
Potential impacts and considerations
- Large fiscal impact to the Highway Fund and state budget if excise revenues are suspended; practical duration uncertain (EIA average < $1/gal is historically unusual).
- Implementation and administrative reporting tied to EIA price calculations — may require clarification for enforcement and refund/credit mechanics.
2) South Carolina — Judicial recusal amendments (text amending S.C. Code §§ 2‑19‑5 and 2‑19‑90)
Purpose
- Reduce conflicts of interest by requiring attorney‑legislators serving on the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (and attorney‑legislators voting in the General Assembly joint session to elect judges) to recuse where they have appeared before a judge/justice.
Key provisions
- The Judicial Merit Selection Commission remains a 12‑member body with appointments by Speaker, Senate leadership, and Governor; membership rules, terms, and qualifications largely retained.
- New recusal rule: Members of the General Assembly who serve on the Commission and who are licensed attorneys may not vote or participate in screening any judge/justice before whom they have appeared (or have appeared before them) during the preceding five years. They must notify the commission and recuse from vote/screening for that particular judge/justice.
- Parallel recusal rule for joint‑session elections: Attorney‑legislators may not vote or participate in any manner in the election of any judge/justice before whom they have appeared in the preceding five years; they must notify the body and recuse.
- Other administrative provisions reaffirmed: appointment terms, demographic consideration, vacancy filling, compensation limits, ineligibility for nomination while on commission and for one year after, etc.
- Effective date: July 1, 2025.
Who is affected
- Attorney‑legislators who sit on the Judicial Merit Selection Commission or who vote in joint sessions to elect judges.
- Judicial candidates and the integrity/perception of judicial selection/election processes.
Procedural status (from provided timeline)
- The provided text gives an effective date of July 1, 2025 and repeats the amendment language. (The legislative action timeline above appears to reflect hearings in 2025 and committee referrals but mixes entries from both bills.)
Recommendation
- Because the packet contains two distinct measures (fuel‑tax exemption — Massachusetts; judicial recusal reform — South Carolina), verify the intended bill/version and consult the official state legislative website or clerk for the authoritative text and current status before using this summary for formal analysis or advocacy.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
