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

chris at darkstarpro.com chris at darkstarpro.com
Mon Apr 18 16:12:31 PDT 2011


The EPA rates vehicles by their fuel economy and in all electric mode,
they list the Chevy Volt with a combined 93 MPGe in all-electric mode
(FuelEconomy.gov). The Nissan LEAF is listed with a combined 99 MPGe, so
that sounds pretty close on the Volt.

--Chris

> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
>
>




More information about the Oeva-list mailing list