[Oeva-list] Fwd: Electric car tax -- HB2328

Jon Balgley jon at photodad.com
Thu Apr 14 06:21:39 PDT 2011


And don't forget the cost of implementation ... currently estimated at
approx $1M per biennium.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/sms/fis11/fhb2328a04-04-2011.pdf

<http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/sms/fis11/fhb2328a04-04-2011.pdf>

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Lawrence Winiarski <
lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Whoops...math was a little wrong.   I underestimated how bad it would be.
>
>
>  It's actually gonna take 105,000 miles of driving at 0.6 cents/mile to
> make up for the one 15 mpg, 45,000 mile suv   So that's 10 Leafs driving
> 10,500 miles
> /year to make up for 1 SUV getting a huge break.     So for 5000 high
> mileage, low mpg
> gas guzzlers, it's could conceivably take 50,000 Leafs to make up for it.
>
> Ugghh.
>
> Another way to look at it.
>
> at 15 mpg and 30 cents/gal tax we have an equivalent tax of 2 cents/mile.
> If this guy gets taxed at 0.6 cents/mile then they are loosing 1.4 cents in
> revenue for
> every mile.  So they need 2.33 miles in a leaf/prius just to make up for
> the lost revenue.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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, Lawrence Winiarski <lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com>*wrote:
>
>
> From: Lawrence Winiarski <lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Fwd: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> To: "Jon Balgley" <jon at photodad.com>
>
> Cc: oeva-list at oeva.org
> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 11:47 PM
>
>
> Yeah...I think that was probably added to bribe people who currently have
> EV's from
> complaining, so they can get this passed.
>
> I thought of another problem:   They have apparently set the the fee at
> 1.43 cents at least
> somewhat by mistake.   AND they are also gonna allow 5000 ICE vehicles to
> participate
> if they want to (You can bet those guys are gonna be BIG SUV's who drive
> alot of miles)
>
> Now, here's the problem:   If they change it back to 0.6 cents/mile, that's
> gonna be the
> equivalent of 50mpg.   AND they let the 5000 SUV's in on the deal...There's
> gonna be
> a hell of a deal for the gas guzzlers.
>
> Imagine a guy with an SUV who gets 15mpg and drives 45,000 miles/year.   He
> currently
> buys 3000 gallons of gas and pays $900 in state gas tax.   Now if he joins
> in on the
> "plan" at 0.6 cents, then he's gonna get his tax $270 which will cost the
> state
> $630 dollars of revenue.   Now it's gonna take 5 leaf owners driving 9000
> miles /year just
> to BREAK even for the one gas guzzler....let alone the additional cost of
> collection etc.
>
> And exactly which SUV's are gonna sign up for this plan?   Most likely they
> guys who
> drive a lot of miles.   So if you let 5000 vehicles in, it could
> very conceivably mean that
> you need to get 25,000 EV's JUST TO COVER THE GUZZLER SUBSIDY.   And that
> won't bring a dime to roads.   Of course if they leave it at 1.43 cents,
> then you are absolutely screwing the EV guys.   And the poor manufacturer
> who now has to develop a whole stupid wireless reporting mechanism for his
> 2014 leaf or prius.   Heck, they might just decide it isn't worth it to sell
> in Oregon.
>
> So again...this bill makes no sense.   giving the 5000 ICE vehicles an "opt
> in" to what is
> supposed to be a revenue generation bill is crazy.
>
> I honestly believe the place to do this is at the charger...not the car.
>
> Here's some reasons why I think so.
>
> 1).   It will be obvious what state to pay the tax in.
> 2).   Smart grid stuff is coming and is a good idea.    Letting the charger
> communicate
> somehow with the power company makes sense and actually makes a reasonable
> road
> map for the future for the electric grid to manage their loads which IS
> gonna be the
> real problem with widespread electric car adoption.    Doing the Tax at the
> charger actually
> makes sense because then you don't have to monitor and transmit at 2
> places.   Also   Tracking peoples car brings up tons of privacy issues.
> 3)    It can be incorporated into the power bill, so you only pay one
> monthly bill
> 4)    Smaller more energy efficient cars can get a better deal if you pay
> by the kwh instead
> of by the mile
> 5)    Power companies and chargers are more tech savvy than ODOT
> 6)    Electric car companies aren't overly burdened
> 7)    It's at least as easy to retrofit a charger
> 8)   Chargers generally don't get involved in car wrecks where equipment
> needs to be
> replaced.
> 9)  .....you fill in a reason here
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Re: [Oeva-list] Fwd: Electric car tax -- HB2328
> To: "Lawrence Winiarski" <lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com>
> Cc: oeva-list at oeva.org
> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 10:23 PM
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org <http://mc/compose?to=Oeva-list@oeva.org>
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110414/f2a4e6b6/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Oeva-list mailing list