SB 16 in California: $100 annual fee for ZEVs

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Randy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
2,175
Location
San Diego, CA
fyi, in case you haven't heard...SB 16 is working its way through the process to help raise funds for California's roads...

Features (so far) include:

* Increase California vehicle registration from $43 to $78
* Increase California fuel tax 10 cents per gallon for gasoline and 12 cents per gallon for diesel
* Increase VLF fee/tax from 0.65% of car's value by 0.07% each year for 5 years (ultimately to 1%)
* Add a new ZEV fee of $100/year

Read more:
http://sd15.senate.ca.gov/news/2015-04-15-beall-s-sb-16-paves-way-california-s-future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://trackbill.com/bill/CA/2015/SB16/department-of-transportation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Duncan,
My understanding is that since the car fleet in California general has been increasing MPG performance over the last several years, funds raised from fuel taxes have been flat or declining and the underlying fees or taxes per gallon haven't been adjusted for quite some time.

So I think this is a way to get the much needed funds to help maintain the roads in the State...I'm okay with $100/year, as I use the roads and want to pay my fair share to help keep them up. I might feel differently if the flat ZEV fee was $250 or $500 per year, but I think $100 is fair...
 
Perhaps, but left unsaid is that there is also a sales tax on gasoline (as much as 10% in some locales) and that that revenue has steadily increased as the price of gasoline and diesel has risen... So, to say that the tax on fuel in California is flat is somewhat misleading...

Randy said:
So I think this is a way to get the much needed funds to help maintain the roads in the State...I
 
You have a point there, but I didn't think the sales tax money makes its way back to anything having to do with the roads...I could be mistaken, so some research may be in order...
 
No, no more than some of the so-called transportation money from other sources goes in to the roads (or transportation)... It goes in to the general treasury...

Randy said:
You have a point there, but I didn't think the sales tax money makes its way back to anything having to do with the roads...I could be mistaken, so some research may be in order...
 
Randy said:
...I'm okay with $100/year, as I use the roads and want to pay my fair share to help keep them up. I might feel differently if the flat ZEV fee was $250 or $500 per year, but I think $100 is fair...
I’m also OK with this change, including the ZEV tax, if it really translates into highway infrastructure. At least we can be done with “EVs don’t pay for the roads they use” argument.
 
I have no problem with the $100 a year for ZEVs... I DO have a problem with the rest of the proposal!

KeiJidosha said:
Randy said:
...I'm okay with $100/year, as I use the roads and want to pay my fair share to help keep them up. I might feel differently if the flat ZEV fee was $250 or $500 per year, but I think $100 is fair...
I’m also OK with this change, including the ZEV tax, if it really translates into highway infrastructure. At least we can be done with “EVs don’t pay for the roads they use” argument.
 
greenleaf said:
I am assuming ZEV refers to pure BEVs only?

From the State's ZEV Action Plan:

http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Governor's_Office_ZEV_Action_Plan_(02-13" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).pdf

For the purposes of this executive order and action plan, ZEVs include hydrogen fuel cell electric
vehicles (FCEVs) and plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), which include both pure battery electric
vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). These documents also address lightduty
passenger vehicles and heavier vehicles such as freight trucks and public buses. Advancing
the full range of electric-drive technologies rather than concentrating on one particular technology
provides the state with the greatest opportunity to meet its zero-emission vehicle goals.
 
KeiJidosha said:
Randy said:
...I'm okay with $100/year, as I use the roads and want to pay my fair share to help keep them up. I might feel differently if the flat ZEV fee was $250 or $500 per year, but I think $100 is fair...
I’m also OK with this change, including the ZEV tax, if it really translates into highway infrastructure. At least we can be done with “EVs don’t pay for the roads they use” argument.



This will translate into nothing more than the general fund, probably. This is quite a jump overall. They are getting plenty already.
Really.
 
Well, at least the ZEV fee is commensurate with approximately what a 50 mpg car driven 10k miles/year would pay in state gasoline taxes.

But I'd still rather have the fee based on actual miles driven, otherwise this penalizes cars driven less than 10k miles year and cars driven more than 10k miles/year still get off easy.

Edit: I guess it's even better than that, since all VL Fees will be going up $35/year, so this is really just $65/year more than a stinker.

Combined with an increase in state gas tax from $0.638 to $0.738 or about 1.5c / mile for a 50 mpg vehicle. $65/year is about the same as driving a 50 mpg vehicle 4,400 miles year. That's way under the average mileage driven, so no real problem with the fee.
 
drees said:
Well, at least the ZEV fee is commensurate with approximately what a 50 mpg car driven 10k miles/year would pay in state gasoline taxes.

But I'd still rather have the fee based on actual miles driven, otherwise this penalizes cars driven less than 10k miles year and cars driven more than 10k miles/year still get off easy.

Edit: I guess it's even better than that, since all VL Fees will be going up $35/year, so this is really just $65/year more than a stinker.

Combined with an increase in state gas tax from $0.638 to $0.738 or about 1.5c / mile for a 50 mpg vehicle. $65/year is about the same as driving a 50 mpg vehicle 4,400 miles year. That's way under the average mileage driven, so no real problem with the fee.
Given how little mileage I drive in general, and especially my EV LEAF, it's a bit heavy... Should be a function of self reported mileage on the DMV website if one is looking for equitable I say...
 
Randy said:
Duncan,
My understanding is that since the car fleet in California general has been increasing MPG performance over the last several years, funds raised from fuel taxes have been flat or declining and the underlying fees or taxes per gallon haven't been adjusted for quite some time.

So I think this is a way to get the much needed funds to help maintain the roads in the State...I'm okay with $100/year, as I use the roads and want to pay my fair share to help keep them up. I might feel differently if the flat ZEV fee was $250 or $500 per year, but I think $100 is fair...

I suppose the fuel tax is a form of road usage tax (but not really, since some cars go far less of the same amount of fuel) and they want access to that lost income from EV owners. I don't know the fair solution to collecting usage fees other than a mileage fee on each car each year on top of a yearly registration fee.

California has it problems with balancing income to spending, as well as water and electric., the list goes on for being a popular place to live.
 
DuncanCunningham said:
I don't know the fair solution to collecting usage fees other than a mileage fee on each car each year on top of a yearly registration fee.

The solution is to pay for roads out of general taxes. Everyone benefits from the roadways; they are a vital infrastructure for our society, whether you personally drive or not. The wear and tear from you rolling a passenger car down the road is really not that significant a cost compared to the overall cost of developing and maintaining the infrastructure even if it sat unused.
 
Nubo said:
DuncanCunningham said:
I don't know the fair solution to collecting usage fees other than a mileage fee on each car each year on top of a yearly registration fee.

The solution is to pay for roads out of general taxes. Everyone benefits from the roadways; they are a vital infrastructure for our society, whether you personally drive or not. The wear and tear from you rolling a passenger car down the road is really not that significant a cost compared to the overall cost of developing and maintaining the infrastructure even if it sat unused.
True
 
I love the ridiculousness of government. First they give away money ($2500) to get people to buy the cars, then when they realize the decrease in gas tax is hurting them, they add a tax to the registration fee to get some money back?! What a bunch of morons in government!
 
* Add a new ZEV fee of $100/year
Just FYI: we've seen the same charge in North Carolina for at least the two years I've been here. Not unsurprisingly, few BEV owners like it, but fewer try to change it including me. That makes it a fact of life. The good news: I-85 north from Charlotte has had some major and welcome improvements, with more to come by 2017. Of course I'm absolutely positive that my extra $200 over the last years directly caused that infrastructure improvement to happen!
 
I'm in favor of boosting the state gas tax while prices are low (assuming that a pure weight-modified miles driven system isn't on the table) and also a ZEV fee assuming it's in the right range - $100 seems a bit high, but not too bad. The cratered moonscapes in many areas which are laughingly called streets could certainly use the help. As for the other points, if infrastructure funding is the issue, why are we talking about boosting the license and especially registration fees?
 
Back
Top