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

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.

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/01/20/1512545/missing-headline-for-20odomes.html#ixzz1BgHN7djd

I respectfully disagree. The roads need to be maintained, and it seems fair to ask the users of the roads to pay for their upkeep. Rather than a flat fee though, I'd prefer to see some sort of mileage X weight tax. This would reward drivers that drive very little and/or buy smaller vehicles, and punish drivers that drive a lot and/or buy big vehicles. (This would be in lieu of the current gasoline tax).

downeykp said:

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.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. The theory is that gas tax is used to spend on road improvements (actuality is a whole other thing and I'm not going there). You're still using the roads, right? As EVs become more popular, expect these types of charges to increase. We may eventually see something from the electricity side as well.

I agree that eventually there will need to be some kind of use tax, but now, before there is really any impact on the roads from EV's.

I think in CA the gas-tax is no longer dedicated to roads, so we have a lot of roads in poor repair, with them getting worse.

I agree that ultimately the switchover to a new revenue source will be needed. But I think it's a little premature to start this sort of nonsense already.

And some states already have a per-use tax for their roads. It's called a toll. And something ridiculous like 40% of the collection is spent on the efforts to collect.

Let's keep it simple, and charge a registration tax that's appropriate. But I'd say as ours is increased, so should gas car. i.e. "Registration is going up by $50 this year" not "Electric car's have a special registration tax."

This is a totally useless tax - as of now. They won't collect enough to pay for printing of this bill.

Once EVs hit 10% of the population they can do it.

Obstinately, the gasoline tax goes to the maintenance of roads. The more gas you use, the theory goes, the more you're (probably) driving and therefore the larger your share of the maintenance costs... which works out when you think about it.

EVs drive on the roads, so should be taxed to account for the wear and tear they cause. Unfortunately there is no fair way to currently do this.

The solution I've been suggesting is a straight-up tax on mileage. There are systems in place to track odometer readings on an annual basis, and there are federal laws against odometer tampering. Tax rate would be linked to vehicle type, weight and use (commercial/personal etc) and maybe even scale with total miles driven. Roll the odometer tax into vehicle registration fees and call it a day. Plugging the numbers I paid $81.81 in gasoline taxes for 2010 (NY has a total 31.9 cents/gal tax on gasoline average)- not that much when you think about it. Granted this would present a larger immediate financial burden, but it would also help people realize the real costs of driving, rather than hiding it in the cost of fuel.

As a bonus, keep the fuel tax in place to keep the cost of using petroleum higher.
=Smidge=

If there is 10% penetration there could be protests. Get it done now and by the time there is 10% it will be much easier to slide in a raise in the rate.

Personally I think there should be a pollution tax added to gasoline now that there is an alternative.

downeykp said:

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.

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/01/20/1512545/missing-headline-for-20odomes.html#ixzz1BgHN7djd

Click to expand...

I have no problem with this. If I drove an ICE for 10k miles a year like I will do with the Leaf the tax I'm paying on fuel is around the same $100.

Now what I would like to see is we EV'ers pay the extra $100 but also get access to the HOV lanes as a single. I would even pay an extra $50-100 on top of the $100 for that access.

In Oregon, the percentage of funding for roads comes from state income and property taxes, as well as federal income taxes (for freeways). Gas taxes just get lumped in with the general fund anyhow and don't "directly" pay for anything... My DMV registration fee will be $172 for the first four years, and then renewals will be $86 every two years.

sproqitman said:

I'd prefer to see some sort of mileage X weight tax. This would reward drivers that drive very little and/or buy smaller vehicles, and punish drivers that drive a lot and/or buy big vehicles. (This would be in lieu of the current gasoline tax).

Click to expand...

I really like this idea, but I could see someone spinning it as an "anti-business" tax as it penalizes contractors who drive their big trucks around to a multitude of work sites (yeah, never mind the fact that this seems to be a perfect way to tax those who have the largest impact on road wear).

Working in the mass transit industry, I'm very interested in what is the "proper" way to get people to pay for the services they use and for the services they feel their government should perform for others. One other issue with the mileage x weight concept is that it doesn't cover all those who benefit from roads; just as everyone should pay taxes towards schools, whether they have children or not, we all should be contributing towards road repair. To some extent, we all benefit from the roads in our neighborhood whether we drive them, ride on them (e.g.- bus travel) or benefit in other, indirect ways (such as when the goods we wish to buy at our local grocery store have to be transported over said roads).

MxW would be a great start, though, and certainly much better than our present "flat $35" car tab system!! (Yes, I know it's not really $35, hence the quotes.)

As to the original topic, the $100 EV tax, no it's not very much and entirely justified, but it is a very "visible" tax. What I mean is, when someone would go out to buy an EV, they would mentally figure in an extra $1,000 to the price of the car over 10 years (or however long) which may sway their decision whether or not to go electric. I don't think we'd want to have this kind of tax floating around out there until EVs become popular and more affordable. Think about it: when you buy a gas car, do you mentally figure out how much in gas taxes you're going to spend over the life of the vehicle? No, this is a use-weighted tax whereas a flat $100/yr EV tax would be more of a purchase-weighted tax. Much better if we could sub-meter all EV charging station installations and apply a road repair tax to that or base it on mileage. Then again, when Washington car tabs were based on vehicle value, how many people really factored in $2,500/yr tabs for that quarter million dollar motorhome. :?: :?:

I certainly would not have an issue with a use tax as long as it applied to all vehicles evenly not just targeting EVs. A use tax based on the gross vehicle weight rating and miles driven seems just fine to me. Its not like we don't have the technology to do it since every vehicle has an odometer already. Just make it part of the registration renewal.

While thinking about this one thing that never made sense to me is why are most gas taxes flat rate? That is they are an amount per gallon not a percentage of the cost per gallon. I have always felt this created a kind of conflict of interest in that those receiving funds from the flat rate gas tax would actually want gas consumption to increase not decrease. When the cost of gas increases most likely they do not actually see any more revenue but probably the opposite since use would probably go down as the price of gas went up leaving them with even less revenue.

I think electrics obviously need to pay their share of road costs-- but doesn't it seem odd that the same government that is giving a sales tax exemption (tax incentive) is now considering an additional tax at the same time? Not very well coordinated!

That was kind of my point to the post. We get a huge exemption on sale tax and then they want $100 use tax.

The whole system of road taxes being a part of fuel costs will break down as more alternative energy vehicles hit the roads. My cousin has driven a used vegetable oil diesel in California for the last 5 years and has not paid a penny for fuel or fuel tax. Many people make their own biodiesel and likewise pay nothing for roads. So, it is not just electrics that are circumventing road tax. Up until now it has been so few the sates have mostly ignored it, but it can't be ignored as these cars start to become numerous.

The solution would be to shift the tax to registrations, but that is a much more "painful" tax since it's paid as a lump sum once a year and not with each fill-up.

And, as I said, I will be getting over $11,000 in subsidies on my Leaf between the Federal tax credit, the WA state sales tax exemption and the EV Project charger... if the governmetns have incentivized electrics that much it is kind of silly to try and take back the $100 per year. Either they want to help us buy them or they don't, right?

Spies said:

A use tax based on the gross vehicle weight rating and miles driven seems just fine to me.

Click to expand...

All pickups including my F150 has always had a weight fee in CA. I believe it is based on GVWR or size classification. I assume it is a larger fee for larger trucks.

If the money from the gas tax goes to the roads and maintenance, then I'm fine with some method of having EV's "pay their fair share".

If the money from the gas tax goes to the general fund, I say BITE ME. It's a GAS TAX, a taxable product that I no longer use. Why not just charge people who don't smoke extra $$ just because the cigarette tax isn't generating enough for the general fund?

Gas tax for upkeep on the roads: I use them, I should help pay.
Siphoned Gas Tax money for the general fund: Unless that was what the tax was ORIGINALLY designed for, bite me, I have a loophole.

+ 3 bytes

Jimmydreams said:

If the money from the gas tax goes to the roads and maintenance, then I'm fine with some method of having EV's "pay their fair share".

If the money from the gas tax goes to the general fund, I say BITE ME. It's a GAS TAX, a taxable product that I no longer use.

Click to expand...

It's both, at least in California. The 18 cent/gallon excise tax goes to the transportation fund, and Prop 22 that we passed last fall prevents that from being diverted. So that is being used for highway upkeep, public transit, and, oh, by the way some other things like a $5000 rebate you may have heard of.

There has also been a sales tax on gasoline, in addition to the 18 cent excise tax. There was some sort of smoke-and-mirrors budget deal last spring which I think swapped that for a 17.something cent excise tax that would go into the general fund. I've lost track of whether that ever went into effect or is still in effect.