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

Craig Schaefer calvinjean2 at comcast.net
Mon Apr 18 18:27:24 PDT 2011


Again, there is a lot more to maintaining roads and highways than repairing 
road damage.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <cje at hevanet.com>
To: <oeva-list at oeva.org>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Revenue Committee to meet again Tomorrow (Apr 15)


>I get that, but the whole point of taxing electric cars is to get them to
> pay some rate of road use fees that's sort of commensurate with what
> equivalently sized vehicles would pay, because a Leaf (say) does about the
> same amount of road damage as a Corolla (say). So taxing it as if it got
> 90mpg or 200mpg (if you never ever used the gas engine) isn't really
> believable, because that would be treating it as if it weighed about as
> much as a Honda Rebel or something.
>
> Not that I think that'd be a bad thing, but I just don't believe that the
> committee is going to go for the 90mpg figure.
>
> Cheers
> Curt
>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oeva-list mailing list
>> Oeva-list at 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