[Oeva-list] Revenue Committee to meet again Tomorrow (Apr 15) at 8am to discuss EV tax

Lawrence Winiarski lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 14 17:32:59 PDT 2011

Again...that letter sounds great.

I was thinking of another recommendation.
Any tax on EV's should be delayed until it brings in at least 4X MORE tax dollarsthan it requires to administrate.   In other words, the administrative costs cannot exceed25%.    So if it costs 1 million dollars to tax EV's, then they need to wait untilthere are enough EV's to generate 4 million dollars in revenue.    This will probably meanabout 10,000 - 20,000 EV's (at least) for the current plan.
Again, judging from an earlier message, apparently the BLINK chargers already havea way to delay charging along the lines of what I said earler (i.e smart grid).  
 It sure would be nicer if the chargers computed the tax and just added it to your bill.
AND with fast charging, you can bet there will be an entire new infrastructure IN yourhouse to deal with the increased amperage.   Why not implement the tax there?It will get paid on a regular basis and this is better for ODOT also as it gives themrevenue on a regular basis (instead of every year, or even every other year) and theycan use this money at public charging stations to fund MORE public charging stations.(which EV users actually want).
I just had having to deal with yet "another" bill.   And a fine of $50 for possibly forgettingto pay your $10 road tax bill is just mean.
You could also just do it on your income tax form.   Again, just 1 check yearly. 
But I also stick with what I said originally.   The gas tax is just fine for the next decade at least.   We can raise and lower the gas tax to generate any money necessary forquite a long time.   The whole EV tax is premature.
Let's do it right.   I think the right thing is to incorporate it at the charger which is quiteanalogous to the Gas tax.   It rewards conservation and is roughly compatible withroad wear.    Motorcycles and tiny light EV's would be lightly taxed.
A per mile usage tax rewards gas guzzlers and rewards overconsumption....It is justdownright un-oregonian.
The gas tax works great.   I think we should use that as the model for the EV tax.  
--- On Thu, 4/14/11, Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com> wrote:

From: Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com>
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Revenue Committee to meet again Tomorrow (Apr 15) at 8am to discuss EV tax
To: "Gary Graunke" <gary at whitecape.org>
Cc: oeva-list at oeva.org
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2011, 4:40 PM

I am out of the country at the moment, here's a letter that I sent just now to the members of the Revenue Committee:
Dear members and chairs of the House Revenue committee:

My name is Jon Balgley, and I would like to submit the following testimony about HB 2328:
First of all, let me state that it's great to attempt to make all users of Oregon's roads pay fees that are proportionate to their usage, and that I understand that no fee or tax is ever 100% fair.

HB 2328 specifies two changes in taxes:
1. As currently written, taxes electric vehicles at $0.0143 per mile ($14.30 per 1000 miles).  That is in comparison to the state gas tax of $0.30 per gallon.  It's easy to make a comparison of the two taxes to each other, if you select a particular efficiency rate for a vehicle.  For example, if a car gets 30 miles to the gallon, then it pays $0.01 per mile.  If it gets 60mpg, then it pays $0.005 per mile.  If it gets 15mpg, then it pays $0.02 per mile.  As you can see, (a) the gas tax is proportional to gas-mileage efficiency, rewarding lightweight efficient vehicles and penalizing heavy and/or inefficient vehicles; and (b) electric vehicles will be taxed as if they were a gasoline vehicle getting approximately 20mpg.  

I think it is important, at minimum, to set a rate for electric vehicles that is proportional to their "MPG equivalent".  The EPA rates the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt at more than 90 MPGe.  So the per-mile rate should be substantially lower.  The bill as originally written set the rate at $0.006 per mile, which, while not a perfect arithmetic match for these typical MPGe ratings, is at least close.

2. As currently written, HB2328 allows up to 5000 non-electric (gasoline) vehicles to optionally use the per-mile tax.  As you can see above, the per-mile tax and the gasoline tax can be directly compared for a specific vehicle.  It is a break-even for the vehicle at about 20mpg.  This clause effectively allows vehicles which get LESS than  20mpg to pay LESS in gas taxes ... effectively taxing them "as if" they got 20mpg.  Of course, if a particular vehicle already gets more than 20mpg, then they would pay more if they switched to the per-mile tax ... so they won't do that.

I think this clause is detrimental to Oregon, both reducing revenue and increasing the use of inefficient (and likely relatively heavy) vehicles.
Note that if the per-mile rate is reduced, as per my recommendation #1, then the detrimental effects of #2 are increased!  since   the inefficient vehicles are then taxed as if they were an even-more-efficient vehicle.

I think this clause should simply be removed.  The gas tax, while not perfect, provides a relatively fair way of tax gasoline-powered vehicles.
In addition:

* I think it's important to note that this IS a new tax or fee.  The revenue impact statement from the transportation committee stated that it was not.  
* I think the committee should carefully consider whether this is the right time to implement this new fee.  The fiscal impact is estimated at about $1 million per biennium for implementation and management.  I have not yet seen any estimates of the net revenue change.

In summary, my suggestions are:
* Reduce the per-mile rate back to the originally-proposed $0.006/mile, or even a little lower to reflect the high efficiency of electric vehicles

* Remove the clause allowing the most inefficient non-electric vehicles to pay a flat per-mile rate.
Thank you for your consideration.  Please feel free to enter this as official testimony or to quote me.  I am traveling outside the country today, and so will not be able to testify in person.

Jon Balgley[address & phone]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Gary Graunke <gary at whitecape.org> wrote:

I was late getting there, but I did catch the end of the session. I talked to

Barry Woods from Drive Oregon, David Stiers, and Jim Whitty.

I plan to attend (on time) tomorrow, and probably will say something and have

a written handout. While I won't pretend to represent the OEVA (we have to be

careful regarding our tax status anyway), I do want to make our concerns

known, even if it is our personal point of view.

The chair did ask for more real EV driver input....

I hope we can discuss this a bit this evening at our regular meeting. Let's

try to get our comments organized.

By the way, Jim Whitty told me that he is not married to the numbers, and

really would like more time (he suggested 2016) to get the bugs out before

implementing it. He would also like our perspective in helping craft the

details to achieve public acceptance and not impede EV rollout. Many of the

details will be decided by ODOT, and not specified in the law. So I think we

should provide constructive input and have more influence on the outcome of the

law and also the implementation details.

The key point I'm making is that we need to be constructive--suggest

improvements and provide rationale for them. Barry Woods did a good job of

this, but there is a lot to say here and we have to be brief and to-the-point.


On Thursday, April 14, 2011 01:49:51 PM Lawrence Winiarski wrote:

> I wish I could attend.   I think there might be a way to do it over skype.

>   Info here (right hand side of

> page)http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2011/HB2328/


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> -


> 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


Oeva-list mailing list

Oeva-list at oeva.org


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

Oeva-list mailing list
Oeva-list at oeva.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110414/3fa0cb6b/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Oeva-list mailing list