[Oeva-list] Revenue Committee to meet again Tomorrow (Apr 15)

cje at hevanet.com cje at hevanet.com
Mon Apr 18 15:30:13 PDT 2011


No way does the Volt get 90mpg equivalent -- it extends its range by using 
electricity and that's what DOT's trying to address. I think it'd be a 
reasonable starting point to suggest 50mpg, like a Prius gets, or even 40 
like a similarly sized Corolla or Civic. If you can get 90, more power to 
ya, but I doubt you will. 

Yours,
Curt Erickson

> Lawrence, I listened to your testimony from yesterday, and it sounded 
great
> -- clearly made some impression on the members of the committee.  
Testimony
> doesn't always do that.  "Doing it at the charger" was the idea that 
clearly
> made the biggest impact.  Maybe "do it at the charger" should be OEVA's 
new
> slogan?  :-)
> 
> I have to say, though, that the ODOT guy made a couple of good points:
> 
> * It's better to start small.  It's not the end of the world to pay a few
> extra bucks to help test out the system, prior to it becoming a "mass
> market" system.  (Even though this bill doesn't even do that, since all 
of
> our cars are exempted.)  After all, that's basically what we're doing 
with
> our cars, right?
> 
> * It's probably a good idea to have *some* tax in place so that EV 
drivers
> don't assume they can drive tax-free forever.
> 
> But those points don't mean the details of the tax, the procedure, or the
> other aspects of the bill are necessarily good.
> 
> I wish the OEVA could take an official position on HB2328, but that's
> probably in conflict with its new 501(c)(3) status.  FWIW, I googled a 
bit
> on this, and according to various IRS documents, 501C3's can lobby if 
it's
> not a "substantial" portion of its activities, but I don't know how to
> measure that.  OTOH, providing educational information is what 501c3's 
like
> OEVA are supposed to do.  And there is no restriction on what an
> organization can provide to a government body, if the org is asked by the
> body to provide information.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Lawrence Winiarski <
> lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > dollars
> > than it requires to administrate.   In other words, the administrative
> > costs cannot exceed
> > 25%.    So if it costs 1 million dollars to tax EV's, then they need to
> > wait until
> > there are enough EV's to generate 4 million dollars in revenue.    This
> > will probably mean
> > about 10,000 - 20,000 EV's (at least) for the current plan.
> >
> > Again, judging from an earlier message, apparently the BLINK chargers
> > already have
> > a 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 your
> > house 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 them
> > revenue on a regular basis (instead of every year, or even every other
> > year) and they
> > can 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 forgetting
> > to 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 for
> > quite 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 quite
> > analogous to the Gas tax.   It rewards conservation and is roughly
> > compatible with
> > road wear.    Motorcycles and tiny light EV's would be lightly taxed.
> >
> > A per mile usage tax rewards gas guzzlers and rewards 
overconsumption....It
> > is just
> > downright 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
> >
> > and
> >
> > * 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.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Jon Balgley
> > [address & phone]
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Gary Graunke
<gary at whitecape.org<http://mc/compose?to=gary@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.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > 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 <http://mc/compose?to=Oeva-list@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
> >
> >
> 





More information about the Oeva-list mailing list