WA SB 5251 : $100 annual fee for EVs (was EV Tax)

[Kelangst]

Gas tax is only way today that the US funds highways, public transit, rail, etc. We use the road, and we are contributing to it's wear and tear, so we should pay a nominal fee. Most of the incentives are there for air quality standards and for market creation - so the funds are comparing apples and oranges. To truly make a dent in the global pollution contribution, we have to affect the entrie transportation system, not just our one car on the road at a time.

</sanctimonious lecture off>

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i responded to the article. i think its counterproductive to where we need to go and shows the psyche of our area still needs a lot more education as to why we need to go EV ASAP.

lets look at the estimated cost of health issues related to particulate pollution. now, it can probably never be proven directly, but childhood asthma in this state has increased on a percentage basis that has paralleled our population increase but at a higher rate.

more population means more traffic and more car pollution.

what does it cost us to provide this medical care? my Son has it. His symptoms are pretty mild at this time of year despite going from one cold to another all winter long. But summer time, its the nebulyzer at least 2-3 times a week, sometimes daily.

now is pollution aggravating his symptoms?

sorry, but if you need money, get it elsewhere. I think we need to jump up the gas tax. I find little reason why we should be paying less than half for gas than any other country. we need money, gas tax is the perfect place to get it.

 

[DarkStar]

Gas tax is only way today that the US funds highways, public transit, rail, etc.

Once again, it depends where you live. Here in Oregon our roads are paid through property taxes and income taxes. The gas tax goes into the "General Fund" where it's spent on whatever...

 

[evnow]

This is poor public policy for various reasons
- Too much effort to collect too few dollars
- Acts as a disincentive to buy EVs
- Currently collected gas tax is grossly inadequate for maintenance (see Alaskan viaduct). This can't be made up by charging $100 each for the few thousand EVs that will be sold in the next couple of years here.

Tax policy has always been used to influence public behavior (eg. mortgage interest deductable for federal tax). We should get out of this stupid budgeting by piecemeal approach. We can see what happenned in CA when they tried this approach. Roads and other infrastructure is what we need for modern civilization and should come out of general funds.

 

[eeman]

Washington legislators are discussing a $100 road use tax each year for electric car owners. The fee would be collected at the time license plate tabs are purchased, each year. The rationale being that electric car drivers will not be paying the gasoline tax that supports road maintenance. Any other states contemplating a similar tax? What is the opinion of forum members on such a state tax?

 

[jcesare]

California already has an "alternate fuel fee" in the annual registration. Right now it's only $1. I expect this to increase as EV use becomes more widespread.

 

[Glenn]

Washington legislators are discussing a $100 road use tax each year for electric car owners. The fee would be collected at the time license plate tabs are purchased, each year. The rationale being that electric car drivers will not be paying the gasoline tax that supports road maintenance. Any other states contemplating a similar tax? What is the opinion of forum members on such a state tax?

For some opinions on this, check here:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2461&start=0

or here:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=181

or here:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1680&start=0

 

[evnow]

There was a program on this in the local NPR station, KUOW.

http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=22576

SEVA (seattle electric vehicles association) members testified to the senate committee looking at this bill.

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/seva_maillist/message/18058

Everyone should be very proud of the SEVA, Plug-in America, TacEVA people who testified today. For amateur volunteer citizen lobbyists, they presented their positions to the point and very professionally. I'm sure every committee member heard our message that

1.EV owners want to pay the fair share for using the roads,
2.SB 5251 is NOT fair nor equitable and an impediment to the rapid adoption of EVs
3.There are alternative methods to the flat $100.00 fee to accomplish the agreed upon goal of paying one's fair share.

Unfortunately, most of our volunteers came away with the feeling that many of the Senators' minds were already made up. It appeared that these Senators were merely going through the formality of a public hearing in order to defend the position they had already decided upon. But we will need to wait to see what if any of the suggestions that were made, the committee decides to incorporate into the bill.

 

[hodad66]

I don't drive a great deal and my gas tax for last year
totaled $52. If the state were to tax me at $100 I
would be paying double for my sin of eco-activism.

 

[sproqitman]

I don't mind paying a road use fee. I would prefer if it were based on miles driven and weight of vehicle. To make it simple, collect odometer readings annually or bi-annually, using the existing network of smog check stations (Wouldn't that be ironic, taking an EV in for a "smog check").

What's confusing for me as a Washington resident, is that they waived the sales tax on the LEAF. That's worth at least 20 years of these $100 road use assessments. Do they want my money, or not?

 

[walterbays]

There was a program on this in the local NPR station, KUOW.
http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=22576

Thanks.

I agree EV drivers should help pay for the roads we use. The flat tax you suggest would be easiest. Otherwise there are lots of complications. Say the state needs to find an alternate way for me to pay the road use tax which I used to pay at the pump. Is it just the road use portion of gas tax, or all the gas tax? And then shouldn't I be credited for the electricity tax I'm paying, which ICE drivers are not paying at the pump?

Paying by the mile as some states are considering makes more sense. But GPS tracking is a total non-starter. They could have you submit an odometer reading for license renewal and charge you then, and later when you sold the car and the odometer reading was independently verified, if it turned out you'd been lying you'd pay the difference plus penalties and interest.

Others have mentioned this still doesn't handle PHEVs like the Volt. Depending on how you drive it could operate nearly like a pure EV, nearly like a pure ICE, or anything in between. You can't practically track your electric miles and your gasoline miles, and pay the supplemental road use tax only on the electric portion.

So the most fair way would be to eliminate the gasoline road use tax, and substitute a mileage tax for all vehicles. It should probably be something like $X/mile plus $Y/mile-lb to account for heavier vehicles putting more wear on roads than lighter vehicles. Now if you can imagine a political agreement among Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party, and Greens whereby we eliminate gas tax while trying to reduce oil consumption, add a new tax requiring annual mileage reporting to the state, and agreeing on the proper values for X and Y, then we have an ideal solution.

I have difficulty imagining that agreement, so I think your flat tax idea is the best that can be done.

 

[evnow]

I have difficulty imagining that agreement, so I think your flat tax idea is the best that can be done.

Not sure what you mean by "your flat tax idea" - but I definitely don't support the idea.

I think we should do based on miles-weight. Every year when we get our tabs / emission checks would be an easy way to check the miles driven and put a fees on that.

The fees also need to be raised quite a bit if we really want to fund proper maintenance of the road infrastructure. Currently only a small portion of the money comes from the gas tax.

 

[evnow]

Here is the official position of Seattle EV association.

Seattle Electric Vehicle Association Statement in favor of a plug-in electric vehicle VMT tax and in opposition to SB 5251 as introduced *

The Seattle Electric Vehicle Association (SEVA) and its members reaffirm their commitment to “vigorously support legislation for the purpose of having electric vehicle owners pay a fair and equitable share of State's costs to provide public roads for their electric vehicles' use.” ^

To support this commitment, SEVA offers a suggested substitute for Washington State Senate Bill 5251: Imposing an additional vehicle license fee on electric vehicles, as introduced on January 19, 2011. SEVA members oppose SB 5251 in its entirety because it results in a highly regressive and inequitable tax in relation to the State gas tax that the proposed $100.00 license fee is in lieu of.

SB 5251 is not equitable because it singles out a single class of vehicles and charges them a significantly higher tax rate when compared to gas vehicles having the same EPA fuel economy rating. Neither does the proposed $100.00 rate account for electric vehicle contributions to reducing state expenditures for gas vehicle related programs. Electric vehicles: a) generate no greenhouse gases from tail pipe emissions, b) do not drip oil or gas on the roadways that degrade the roadway and which eventually make their way into our water systems, c) decrease roadway damage by reducing the number of heavy gasoline delivery trucks which use the roads, and d) reduce dependency on fossil fuels that are created by environmentally damaging processes.

Therefore, SEVA strongly recommends that the Legislature consider using Oregon HB 2328 – 2011 as a model to guide the development of fair and equitable in-lieu-of gas tax legislation for electric vehicles based on a vehicle miles traveled tax of 0.4 cents per mile with it effective for the 2014 model year or later. Toward that end, SEVA also endorses the use of the Analysis of HB 2328 and Recommended Modifications document (copy attached) prepared by a SEVA volunteer to provide additional guidance in the development of a fair and equitable electric vehicle tax bill for Washington State.

And in the meantime, SEVA believes it will be of significant benefit to the State if it immediately establishes a voluntary system to which electric vehicles owners could contribute monies at the time of initial and annual registration to the Motor Vehicle Fund created in RCW 46.68.070 in an amount consistent with SEVA’s supported legislative approach. Such a system might be modeled after the current voluntary contribution system during vehicle registration for the State Parks. Further, electric vehicle contributors to the motor vehicle fund will be allowed to display an official decal in their vehicle’s front and rear windows announcing their support of our highway system.
^ Excerpt from SEVA resolution passed unanimously by its members at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 9, 2010.

* This position statement was passed by 92% of the 65 SEVA voting members at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 8, 2011.

 

[walterbays]

Here is the official position of Seattle EV association.

Thanks, it's good to know that some organizations are lobbying to have the tax applied rationally. It's not significant right now, but if all goes well there will be enough EVs on the streets in a few years that it will be an important issue.

Sorry about misreading you and saying that you support the $100 flat tax which you do not.

I still wonder what the Seattle EV association would suggest for the Volt. "Not applicable" since the Volt is not an EV? That wouldn't be fair because someone who commuted 30 miles per day, all on electric power, would be evading the road use tax entirely. Tax them like a pure EV? That wouldn't be fair to someone who drives long distances, rarely plugs in, and basically drives it like a Prius. Or would you say someone who pays the price premium for a Volt and then fails to use its EV-like features deserves to pay double for road use? ;-> Tax them like half an EV? Nissan might love that outcome: State of Washington rules that Volt is half an EV.

 

[MikeyD]

Here in Nebraska we already have a $75 a year extra tax for Hybrid cars. Surprise :roll:

I, personally, think us EV/Hybrid users should be given a TAX BREAK for our responsibility.

 

[TomT]

I have no problem at all with this as long as it goes toward transportation. In California, it is now mandated that such things must.

Fyi, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen of WA state has introduced a bill that would add a $100 annual registration fee for electric vehicles to make up for diminishing gas-tax revenue. EV owners get no respect if this passes. Sure it's only $100, but being charged because we are concerned with using less fossil fuels and cleaning up the environment. I would imagine that this will be happening elsewhere.

 

[jkyu99]

This might need to be moved to the politics part of the forum.
How about Just handle it like the cigarette tax?
The idea is to keep increasing the cigarette tax to pay for health care costs until either the smokers quits or dies of cancer. The government is complaining that too many smokers are quitting (or dying) and that their cigarette tax income is falling. They want to either increase the tax on smokers to keep funding hospitals or else change to something else like a calorie tax.

Substitute gasoline for cigarette above and you get everyone converted to EVs and then you move on to a new tax. I mean it is not like all the Nissan Leafs are burning up the pavement and causing massive damage to the streets. :roll:

 

[MythicSeabass]

SENATE BILL REPORT
SB 5251
As Reported by Senate Committee On:
Transportation, February 21, 2011

Title: An act relating to electric vehicle license fees.

Brief Description: Imposing an additional vehicle license fee on electric vehicles.
Sponsors: Senators Haugen, Swecker, Sheldon, Hobbs and White.

Brief History:
Committee Activity: Transportation: 2/10/11, 2/21/11 [DPS, w/oRec].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5251 be substituted therefor, and the
substitute bill do pass.
Signed by Senators Haugen, Chair; White, Vice Chair; King, Ranking Minority Member;
Delvin, Hobbs, Nelson, Ranker, Sheldon, Shin and Swecker.

Minority Report: That it be referred without recommendation.
Signed by Senators Fain, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Ericksen and Hill.

Staff: Amanda Cecil (786-7429)

Background: Generally, all motor vehicles used on public highways are required to be
registered with the Department of Licensing annually. The annual cost includes a $30 license
tab fee; a weight fee of $10, $20, or $30 based on the weight of the vehicle; and several
smaller fees totaling $3.75.

Summary of Bill (Recommended Substitute): In addition to all other fees, motor vehicles
powered solely by electricity must pay a $100 fee when the vehicle is registered and annually
when the registration is renewed. Proceeds from this fee are to be deposited into the Motor
Vehicle Fund and used for highway purposes. After collections reach $1 million, revenues
with the motor vehicle fund must be distributed as follows: 70 percent to the motor vehicle
account, 15 percent to the transportation improvement account, and 15 percent to the rural
arterial preservation account.
––––––––––––––––––––––
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative
members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it
constitute a statement of legislative intent.


Senate Bill Report - 1 - SB 5251
EFFECT OF CHANGES MADE BY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
(Recommended Substitute): Provides an exemption for vehicles that do not travel faster
than 35 miles per hour.

Makes the fee effective on vehicle registrations that are due on or after March 1, 2012.
Establishes a distribution of revenues within the motor vehicle fund, after collections reach
$1 million: 70 percent to the motor vehicle account, 15 percent to the transportation
improvement account, and 15 percent to the rural arterial preservation account.
The fee is repealed if a vehicle miles traveled tax or fee is imposed.

Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Available.
[OFM requested ten-year cost projection pursuant to I-960.]

Committee/Commission/Task Force Created: No.

Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony on Original Bill:
PRO: Electric cars are very expensive and not everyone can afford them but everyone else has to pay for their use of the system. This is a good way for electric vehicles to pay their fair share. Most of the miles driven by electric vehicles are local and it might be logical if some of the funds were made available for cities.

CON: Electric vehicles should pay their fair share but this bill is inequitable. It should be
based on miles traveled and weight instead of being a flat fee. This is the wrong signal to
send to manufactures because it will drive up the cost. This fee is too high for electric
vehicles because of their energy efficiency. This bill does not consider the benefit of electric
vehicles.

Persons Testifying:
PRO: Tom Brandt; Ashley Probart, Association of Washington Cities.

CON: Dan Davids, Plug-in America; Thomas Saxton, Steven Lough, Seattle Electric Vehicle
Association; Jeff Finn; Dwight C. Baker; Steve Marshall; Nancy West; Dean West; Stanely
Lee, Tacoma Electric Vehicle Association; Ray Carter, MC Electric Vehicles; Miguel Perez-
Gibson.
Senate Bill Report - 2 - SB 5251

 

[MythicSeabass]

Holy wall 'o text....
So it has been placed on the calendar for a 2nd reading.
Hello $100 tax.

 

[garygid]

So, the LOL that drives her EV just 1000 miles a year gets socked with 10¢ a mile for her "access" while Big-Rig trucks traveling perhaps 100,000 miles get charged only $30 per year?

EVs should get a 1¢ per mile BONUS (credit) for non-polution and and another 2¢ per mile for progress towards oil-independence.

Certainly something more fair is easy to do, but legislation against the less-vocal, less-powerful groups is apparently a legislative speciality, since not many votes are lost.

I sure hope that EVs don't get legislated out of existence.