[Oeva-list] Oregon DMV EV Registration

Chris Arnesen chris at darkstarpro.com
Thu Apr 14 06:14:11 PDT 2011


Hi Lanny,

Oregon DMV dropped the extra registration fee for electric vehicles a 
while ago apparently. When I picked up my LEAF I thought they were 
making a mistake charging me the same price as an ICE. They showed me 
the Oregon DMV website to prove the fee:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/fees/vehicle.shtml#RegularReg

Sincerely,
Chris Arnesen

On 4/13/2011 10:56 PM, Lanny Thomason wrote:
> I would also be interested in since the electric vehicles will be 
> paying (their fair share ?)
> if the registration fee that is currently regular fee + 50% of regular 
> fee will be dropped
> so the electric vehicles will be paying their fair share not the extra 
> 50% now assesed as
> fair ?  it says this fee is for hybrids and electric vehicle .............
> That in itself will pay for a couple of months of the increased gas 
> tax .............
>
>
>
> > From: oeva-list-request at oeva.org
> > Subject: Oeva-list Digest, Vol 90, Issue 19
> > To: oeva-list at oeva.org
> > Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:23:18 -0700
> >
> > Send Oeva-list mailing list submissions to
> > oeva-list at oeva.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > oeva-list-request at oeva.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > oeva-list-owner at oeva.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Oeva-list digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Fwd: Electric car tax -- HB2328 (Lawrence Winiarski)
> > 2. Re: Fwd: Electric car tax -- HB2328 (Jon Balgley)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Lawrence Winiarski <lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Fwd: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> > To: oeva-list at oeva.org, Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com>
> > Message-ID: <615781.59307.qm at web121708.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Thank you very much for writing. ? That was an outstanding letter.
> > Notes:
> > I see that he claims the tax is .6 cents/mile. ? I see that is in 
> the "introduced" version of the bill it is .6 cents/mile, but the 
> house amendments change it to 1.43 cents/mile
> >
> > (search for 2328)
> > http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measures/hb2300.html
> > Here's a direct link to the amended (and approved 
> version)http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measures/hb2300.dir/hb2328.a.html
> > Nowhere in the latest version does it mention 0.6 cents/mile. ? It 
> only mentions1.43 cents/mile
> >
> > Could it be that the chairman doesn't even realize what what he 
> approved? ??
> > All three versions are on the oregon legislature site AND the 
> oregonlive site.
> > Something is very fishy here. ? I listened to the audio and whitty 
> (the road usertask force guy...and probably the only guy even writing 
> the thing down) said"verbally" he changed the fee to be "equitable"
> > My guess is they screwed up and didn't even realize what they 
> approved (the vote wasverbal and of course as you can see, pretty 
> verbose to say the least). ? The road usertask force guy is probably 
> the only guy who even really knows what he wrote. ?Everyoneelse is 
> just taking his word that he is being reasonable.
> > Also, at least 3 members voted "no". ? So this is far from being a 
> done deal. ? (Ifwe keep fighting)
> > I'm pretty sure this guy Brian Whitty is likely just trying to make 
> his pet projectof getting rid of the gas tax a reality. ? That's why 
> he wants to let the 5000 other ICE vehicles?join in on a plan, which 
> is gonna be a massive step backwards for movingtoward fuel 
> efficiency....He likely doesn't give one whit (or is it "whitty") 
> about electriccars, which is why he moved the rate to probably the 
> "average" gas economy.
> > Again...this will be great for gas guzzlers....lousy for fuel 
> efficient cars.
> > I'd keep the letter and write him back and let him know of the 
> error. ? Perhaps thenext committee could at least fix it.
> >
> >
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it 
> will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will 
> leave a ravaged world.
> >
> > Nobel Laureate Dr. Henry W. Kendall 023934
> >
> > --- On Wed, 4/13/11, Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com>
> > Subject: [Oeva-list] Fwd: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> > To: oeva-list at oeva.org
> > Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 3:36 PM
> >
> >
> > FYI.
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Rep Read <read.rep at state.or.us>
> >
> > Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:05 AM
> > Subject: RE: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> > To: Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com>
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Balgley,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for writing and sharing your concerns with the electric 
> car tax. I appreciate your perspective on the issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > I appreciate your concerns about legislation that would create a 
> disincentive for the emergence of a market for electric vehicles in 
> Oregon. ?I strongly support the emergence of this new technology and 
> am working on other legislation to encourage the availability of 
> electric vehicle charging stations to lessen the worry about charging 
> up away from home or the office.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As a legislator, I have the challenging task of balancing competing 
> interests. ?On one hand I support the emergence of electric vehicles 
> in Oregon. ?On the other hand, as co-chair of the House Committee on 
> Transportation and Economic Development, I have the responsibility to 
> ensure the viability of the highway trust fund so that the state can 
> care for the road system that new electric vehicles will drive upon.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sure you agree that operators of electric vehicles should not 
> drive our road system for free in perpetuity. ?EV owners should pay 
> something for their use of the road system. ?The only questions are 
> what EV owners should pay and when should they pay it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A tax on use need not be regarded as a penalty, as long as it is 
> fair. ?A road usage tax would be based on use and thus mirrors the gas 
> tax for standard vehicles. ?Paying based on use is longstanding policy 
> for road funding in Oregon.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > HB 2328 is a bill sponsored by Oregon?s Road User Fee Task Force. 
> ?The task force has a nine-year tenure in developing new ways to fund 
> our state?s road system. ?The task force has researched many viable 
> ways to collect a tax on miles driven, one of which involves wireless 
> transfer of an odometer reading from a car?s existing odometer. ?This 
> is not outlandish technology and the bill is based on that method of 
> reporting, although ODOT will be able to develop other reporting 
> methods from which motorists may choose to suit their individual needs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As currently written, the bill also has a delayed start date for the 
> new tax on electric vehicles ? January 1, 2014. ?This will give the EV 
> market time to take hold before the new tax would be applied. ?Also, 
> the bill provides that electric vehicles purchased before the 2014 
> model years would not pay the tax. ?They would drive free. ?That?s an 
> incentive to purchase early.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Further, the amount of tax paid under HB 2328 would be small as it 
> is currently written. ?The tax rate was set at a level identical to 
> what a hybrid electric vehicle currently pays in gas tax, $6 for every 
> 1,000 miles driven. ?That?s only $6 per month for high volume driving. 
> ?This does not seem like much of a discouragement to purchase of these 
> vehicles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think Oregon can both incent the emergence of a new type of 
> vehicle technology while at the same time protecting the way the state 
> funds its road system. ?It is a balancing act and it must be 
> undertaken with care.
> >
> >
> >
> > House Bill 2328 will almost certainly be amended before going 
> forward. ?You can be assured I will carefully consider the proposed 
> changes to this bill with a view of supporting but not hindering 
> customer acceptance of the emerging electric vehicle fleet. ?I will at 
> the same time, however, make sure that electric vehicle operators pay 
> a responsible share of necessary funding to ensure the health of the 
> road system.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> >
> > From: Jon Balgley [jon at photodad.com]
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:28 AM
> >
> > To: Rep Read; Sen Hass; Sen Bonamici
> >
> > Subject: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello --
> >
> >
> >
> > My name is Jon Balgley and I live in Rep. Read's and Sen. Hass's 
> districts, respectively. ?I have recently purchased an electric car -- 
> it's an older car converted to all-battery power. ?At some appropriate 
> time, I would be happy to show the car to you and/or talk to you about 
> electric cars in general.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I strongly urge you to take appropriate action against HB2328 in its 
> current form. ?There are a number of reasons why this bill would be a 
> bad law:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. ?First and foremost, it sends the wrong message, at this point in 
> time. ?Taxation can be used to encourage or discourage actions by 
> citizens. ?As I'm sure you're aware, increasing taxes will tend to 
> discourage the taxed behavior. ?I believe that as a society, we want 
> to reduce the use of fossil fuels. ?So as part of that, we want to 
> encourage the use of electric vehicles -- especially here in Oregon 
> where most of our electricity is generated from hydropower. ?Adding 
> taxes and potentially burdensome procedures will discourage the 
> purchase and use of electric vehicles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Although its purpose is to "augment the fuel tax", I believe it 
> will produce a net-negative revenue impact, and a net-positive impact 
> on tax-free gasoline usage. ?That's because it is written as an 
> *option* for (up to 5000) non-electric vehicles. ?So the owner of any 
> gasoline-powered vehicle can choose to pay $0.0143/mile instead of the 
> $0.30/gallon gas tax (ignoring additional local taxes). ?Why would 
> someone choose to do this? ?When their gasoline tax cost per mile 
> exceeds $0.0143 per mile. ?If you do the math, the break-even point is 
> around 21 miles per gallon. ?That is, any vehicle which gets LESS than 
> 21 mpg, would pay LESS tax if they sign up for the new "electric car 
> tax". ?Many SUVs and large pickups get less than 21 mpg. ?So we would 
> be encouraging the worst offenders. ?You can bet that people who drive 
> the most inefficient vehicles will be the first to sign up! ?And would 
> *encourage* the use
> > of those vehicles! ?Balance that against the "less than 1000" 
> (according to the Oregonian) electric vehicles currently on the road, 
> and which have limited range (will pay limited mileage-based tax) 
> compared to gasoline-powered vehicles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. ?As proposed, this bill effectively taxes electric vehicles at 
> much higher rates than gasoline-powered vehicles. ?As shown in the 
> previous point, the proposed tax is "break-even" for a vehicle that 
> gets 21 miles per gallon of gasoline. ?The Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet 
> Volt are rated by the EPA at 99 and 93 "MPG equivalent". So these 
> vehicles would pay more than 4 times as much tax as a "typical" 21 mpg 
> gasoline car.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. There are a number of less-important reasons why this bill would 
> make a bad law:
> >
> > ?A. It specifies relatively draconian punishments for relatively 
> small infractions.
> >
> > ?B. It does not account for the cost of implementation on the 
> state's side. ?A complex new collection mechanism may cost more than 
> the increase in revenues itself!
> >
> > ?C. It does not account for the complexities on the consumer side. 
> ?It seems like it might introduce a complex and/or burdensome new system.
> >
> > ?D. It does not account for the disproportionate damage to roads 
> caused by heavier vehicles. ?Road damage is exponentially related to 
> weight (to the 4th power!), but gas usage (and gas-tax revenue) is 
> linearly related.
> >
> >
> > ?E. It does not account for other factors that cause 
> disproportionate damage to roads, such as the use of studded tires.
> >
> >
> >
> > Finally, I would like to say that it is beneficial to begin to raise 
> these questions. ?It's clear that the sponsor of HB2328 believes that 
> electric vehicles will become popular enough to make a difference to 
> Oregon's current revenue structure. ?I look forward to that day, and 
> when it comes, I will be happy to pay my fair share. ?But for the 
> reasons above, HB2328 would make a bad law, and I again urge you to 
> vote or otherwise move against it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jon Balgley
> >
> > 5470 SW Dover Loop
> >
> > Portland, OR 97225
> >
> > 503-312-7937
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oeva-list mailing list
> > Oeva-list at oeva.org
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110413/22e55aea/attachment-0001.html
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:23:03 +0800
> > From: Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Fwd: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> > To: Lawrence Winiarski <lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: oeva-list at oeva.org
> > Message-ID: <BANLkTikJPHJ8_6BqyDqfwOPK2dmANS_rpA at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >
> > I didn't notice this at first:
> >
> > "Also, the bill provides that electric vehicles purchased before the
> > 2014 model years would not pay the tax. They would drive free. "
> >
> > I think he's referring to this section:
> >
> > SECTION 33. { + Applicability. Sections 1 to 23, 26 and 31 of
> > this 2011 Act and the amendments to ORS 319.280, 319.550,
> > 319.665, 319.831, 367.802 and 807.250 by sections 24, 25 and 27
> > to 30 of this 2011 Act first apply to 2014 model year motor
> > vehicles. + }
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Lawrence Winiarski <
> > lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you very much for writing. That was an outstanding letter.
> > >
> > > Notes:
> > >
> > > I see that he claims the tax is .6 cents/mile. I see that is in the
> > > "introduced" version of the bill it is .6 cents/mile, but the house
> > > amendments change it to 1.43 cents/mile
> > >
> > > (search for 2328)
> > > http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measures/hb2300.html
> > >
> > > Here's a direct link to the amended (and approved version)
> > > http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measures/hb2300.dir/hb2328.a.html
> > >
> > > Nowhere in the latest version does it mention 0.6 cents/mile. It only
> > > mentions
> > > 1.43 cents/mile
> > >
> > > <http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measures/hb2300.html>
> > > Could it be that the chairman doesn't even realize what what he 
> approved?
> > >
> > >
> > > All three versions are on the oregon legislature site AND the 
> oregonlive
> > > site.
> > >
> > > Something is very fishy here. I listened to the audio and whitty (the
> > > road user
> > > task force guy...and probably the only guy even writing the thing 
> down)
> > > said
> > > "verbally" he changed the fee to be "equitable"
> > >
> > > My guess is they screwed up and didn't even realize what they 
> approved (the
> > > vote was
> > > verbal and of course as you can see, pretty verbose to say the least).
> > > The road user
> > > task force guy is probably the only guy who even really knows what he
> > > wrote. Everyone
> > > else is just taking his word that he is being reasonable.
> > >
> > > Also, at least 3 members voted "no". So this is far from being a done
> > > deal. (If
> > > we keep fighting)
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure this guy Brian Whitty is likely just trying to 
> make his pet
> > > project
> > > of getting rid of the gas tax a reality. That's why he wants to 
> let the
> > > 5000 other ICE vehicles join in on a plan, which is gonna be a 
> massive step
> > > backwards for moving
> > > toward fuel efficiency....He likely doesn't give one whit (or is it
> > > "whitty") about electric
> > > cars, which is why he moved the rate to probably the "average" gas 
> economy.
> > >
> > > Again...this will be great for gas guzzlers....lousy for fuel 
> efficient
> > > cars.
> > >
> > > I'd keep the letter and write him back and let him know of the error.
> > > Perhaps the
> > > next committee could at least fix it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it 
> will be
> > > done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave 
> a ravaged
> > > world.
> > >
> > > Nobel Laureate Dr. Henry W. Kendall 023934
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 4/13/11, Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com>
> > > Subject: [Oeva-list] Fwd: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> > > To: oeva-list at oeva.org
> > > Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 3:36 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FYI.
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Rep Read <read.rep at state.or.us>
> > >
> > > Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:05 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> > > To: Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Mr. Balgley,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for writing and sharing your concerns with the electric 
> car tax.
> > > I appreciate your perspective on the issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I appreciate your concerns about legislation that would create a
> > > disincentive for the emergence of a market for electric vehicles 
> in Oregon.
> > > I strongly support the emergence of this new technology and am 
> working on
> > > other legislation to encourage the availability of electric 
> vehicle charging
> > > stations to lessen the worry about charging up away from home or 
> the office.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As a legislator, I have the challenging task of balancing competing
> > > interests. On one hand I support the emergence of electric vehicles in
> > > Oregon. On the other hand, as co-chair of the House Committee on
> > > Transportation and Economic Development, I have the responsibility 
> to ensure
> > > the viability of the highway trust fund so that the state can care 
> for the
> > > road system that new electric vehicles will drive upon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am sure you agree that operators of electric vehicles should not 
> drive
> > > our road system for free in perpetuity. EV owners should pay 
> something for
> > > their use of the road system. The only questions are what EV 
> owners should
> > > pay and when should they pay it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A tax on use need not be regarded as a penalty, as long as it is 
> fair. A
> > > road usage tax would be based on use and thus mirrors the gas tax for
> > > standard vehicles. Paying based on use is longstanding policy for road
> > > funding in Oregon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > HB 2328 is a bill sponsored by Oregon?s Road User Fee Task Force. 
> The task
> > > force has a nine-year tenure in developing new ways to fund our 
> state?s road
> > > system. The task force has researched many viable ways to collect 
> a tax on
> > > miles driven, one of which involves wireless transfer of an 
> odometer reading
> > > from a car?s existing odometer. This is not outlandish technology 
> and the
> > > bill is based on that method of reporting, although ODOT will be 
> able to
> > > develop other reporting methods from which motorists may choose to 
> suit
> > > their individual needs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As currently written, the bill also has a delayed start date for 
> the new
> > > tax on electric vehicles ? January 1, 2014. This will give the EV 
> market
> > > time to take hold before the new tax would be applied. Also, the bill
> > > provides that electric vehicles purchased before the 2014 model 
> years would
> > > not pay the tax. They would drive free. That?s an incentive to 
> purchase
> > > early.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Further, the amount of tax paid under HB 2328 would be small as it is
> > > currently written. The tax rate was set at a level identical to what a
> > > hybrid electric vehicle currently pays in gas tax, $6 for every 
> 1,000 miles
> > > driven. That?s only $6 per month for high volume driving. This 
> does not
> > > seem like much of a discouragement to purchase of these vehicles.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think Oregon can both incent the emergence of a new type of vehicle
> > > technology while at the same time protecting the way the state 
> funds its
> > > road system. It is a balancing act and it must be undertaken with 
> care.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > House Bill 2328 will almost certainly be amended before going 
> forward. You
> > > can be assured I will carefully consider the proposed changes to 
> this bill
> > > with a view of supporting but not hindering customer acceptance of the
> > > emerging electric vehicle fleet. I will at the same time, however, 
> make
> > > sure that electric vehicle operators pay a responsible share of 
> necessary
> > > funding to ensure the health of the road system.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Jon Balgley [jon at photodad.com]
> > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:28 AM
> > >
> > > To: Rep Read; Sen Hass; Sen Bonamici
> > >
> > > Subject: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My name is Jon Balgley and I live in Rep. Read's and Sen. Hass's 
> districts,
> > > respectively. I have recently purchased an electric car -- it's an 
> older
> > > car converted to all-battery power. At some appropriate time, I 
> would be
> > > happy to show the car to you and/or talk to you about electric cars in
> > > general.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I strongly urge you to take appropriate action against HB2328 in its
> > > current form. There are a number of reasons why this bill would be 
> a bad
> > > law:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. First and foremost, it sends the wrong message, at this point 
> in time.
> > > Taxation can be used to encourage or discourage actions by 
> citizens. As
> > > I'm sure you're aware, increasing taxes will tend to discourage 
> the taxed
> > > behavior. I believe that as a society, we want to reduce the use 
> of fossil
> > > fuels. So as part of that, we want to encourage the use of electric
> > > vehicles -- especially here in Oregon where most of our electricity is
> > > generated from hydropower. Adding taxes and potentially burdensome
> > > procedures will discourage the purchase and use of electric vehicles.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. Although its purpose is to "augment the fuel tax", I believe it 
> will
> > > produce a net-negative revenue impact, and a net-positive impact 
> on tax-free
> > > gasoline usage. That's because it is written as an *option* for (up to
> > > 5000) non-electric vehicles. So the owner of any gasoline-powered 
> vehicle
> > > can choose to pay $0.0143/mile instead of the $0.30/gallon gas tax 
> (ignoring
> > > additional local taxes). Why would someone choose to do this? When 
> their
> > > gasoline tax cost per mile exceeds $0.0143 per mile. If you do the 
> math,
> > > the break-even point is around 21 miles per gallon. That is, any 
> vehicle
> > > which gets LESS than 21 mpg, would pay LESS tax if they sign up 
> for the new
> > > "electric car tax". Many SUVs and large pickups get less than 21 
> mpg. So
> > > we would be encouraging the worst offenders. You can bet that 
> people who
> > > drive the most inefficient vehicles will be the first to sign up! 
> And would
> > > *encourage* the use
> > > of those vehicles! Balance that against the "less than 1000" 
> (according to
> > > the Oregonian) electric vehicles currently on the road, and which have
> > > limited range (will pay limited mileage-based tax) compared to
> > > gasoline-powered vehicles.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3. As proposed, this bill effectively taxes electric vehicles at much
> > > higher rates than gasoline-powered vehicles. As shown in the previous
> > > point, the proposed tax is "break-even" for a vehicle that gets 21 
> miles per
> > > gallon of gasoline. The Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt are rated 
> by the EPA
> > > at 99 and 93 "MPG equivalent". So these vehicles would pay more 
> than 4 times
> > > as much tax as a "typical" 21 mpg gasoline car.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4. There are a number of less-important reasons why this bill 
> would make a
> > > bad law:
> > >
> > > A. It specifies relatively draconian punishments for relatively small
> > > infractions.
> > >
> > > B. It does not account for the cost of implementation on the 
> state's side.
> > > A complex new collection mechanism may cost more than the increase in
> > > revenues itself!
> > >
> > > C. It does not account for the complexities on the consumer side. It
> > > seems like it might introduce a complex and/or burdensome new system.
> > >
> > > D. It does not account for the disproportionate damage to roads 
> caused by
> > > heavier vehicles. Road damage is exponentially related to weight 
> (to the
> > > 4th power!), but gas usage (and gas-tax revenue) is linearly related.
> > >
> > >
> > > E. It does not account for other factors that cause disproportionate
> > > damage to roads, such as the use of studded tires.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Finally, I would like to say that it is beneficial to begin to 
> raise these
> > > questions. It's clear that the sponsor of HB2328 believes that 
> electric
> > > vehicles will become popular enough to make a difference to 
> Oregon's current
> > > revenue structure. I look forward to that day, and when it comes, 
> I will be
> > > happy to pay my fair share. But for the reasons above, HB2328 
> would make a
> > > bad law, and I again urge you to vote or otherwise move against it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jon Balgley
> > >
> > > 5470 SW Dover Loop
> > >
> > > Portland, OR 97225
> > >
> > > 503-312-7937

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110414/868644cd/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Oeva-list mailing list