[Oeva-list] Update on HB2328
mandamus01 at aol.com
mandamus01 at aol.com
Tue May 3 17:06:01 PDT 2011
Sen Bruce Starr is the one who introduced this pile of bile .I wrote him an instructive letter asking him about things such as how he arrives at this equation and how would he differentiate between miles accumulated from out of state vs. instate .Asking him that since he thought that all vehicles that use the public roadways should pay their fair share how come he hadn't;t introduced legislation to tax bicycle riders etc of course he never responded .Maybe if all of us inundate his office with emails and telephone calls maybe he'll wake the hell up.
From: Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com>
To: oeva-list <>
Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 12:13 pm
Subject: [Oeva-list] Update on HB2328
HB2328 ("the EV mileage tax") has been substantially revised as
eported in yesterday's (2-May) House Revenue Committee work session,
nd to be discussed further (maybe just passed on to the whole House?)
omorrow (Wednesday, 4-May, 8:00am). I have not had a chance to read
t carefully, but here's what I have gathered so far:
0. Note: VRUC = Vehicle Road Usage Charge.
1. The latest amended bill can be found here (make the URL be
2. New "policy" language: "...whereas as a strategy to reduce
missions and protect the environment, Oregon wants to encourage
arket penetration of electric vehicles and other highly fuel
fficient vehicles by providing a transitional rate for a vehicle road
sage charge [aka VRUC] during the early years of introduction into
2a. It was suggested that the bill also include language similar to
nother bill that states something about "and to reduce dependence on
3. VRUC = $0.0156/mile (1.56 cents per mile), effective July 1, 2018.
educed rate of $0.0085/mile (0.85 cents/mile) from July 1, 2015 to
4. Complex but vague specifications for reporting mileage. I have not
ad the time to read this carefully, except:
4a. Option to pay flat fee of $300/year [sic; to repeat, that is
300/year] in lieu of per-mile VRUC.
5. More detailed description of the task force's reporting
esponsibility to the legislature. "The purpose of the task force is
o develop a design for revenue collection for Oregon's roads ... that
ill replace the current system for revenue collection. The task
orce shall consider all potential revenue sources. ... [members
hall be...blah blah] ... The task force shall do all of the
A. study alternatives to fuel taxes.
. Examine progress of implmenting VRUC
. Examine effect of VRUC on mkt penetration of EVs and PHEVs
. Examine potential for application of VRUC to hybrids and other
. Make recommendations to legislature regarding: options to
oluntarily pay VRUC instead of fuel tax, add out of state motorists
o VRUC system, improve compliance with VRUC requirement
The task force shall report to each regular session of the legislature.
6. It also appears that the explicit option to allow 5000 ICE
ehicles to pay a charge has been removed.
Please feel free to read the actual amended bill and correct/expand on
nything I've summarized above. The Revenue committee is waiting on
some paperwork", which I believe is the cost/etc of the
dministration of the new tax. Next work session is tomorrow, Wed,
I intended the above to be factual, not injecting my opinion too much.
Now here's my analysis:
ODOT wants to introduce this VRUC concept. In order to make progress
n it in the real world, they need some vehicles to pay it in the real
orld. EVs seem to be a good candidate for an experiment -- small
opulation (VERY small, as I noted the other day), relatively well-off
inancially (probably), and logically/politically "freeloading" by not
aying the gas tax. They need the legislature to authorize a tax like
his VRUC in order to conduct the larger-scale experiment "in the real
orld". Personally, I think the concept of VRUC is a good one ... it
pens the door to additional fine-tuning, e.g., by vehicle weight or
y use of studded tires (e.g., studded tire licensees would pay more
rom Oct to Apr, or whenever). And also would allow fine-tuning based
n "fuel" technology (e.g., getting those coal-driven EV's off the
oad in favor of those powered by unobtanium or di-lithium crystals),
lthough politically it's not clear that that would be practical.
On the other hand, there are clearly some details that are lost on
DOT ... e.g., how many EV owners drive their vehicles 19,230 miles
er year or more, or the importance of using a gas tax to reduce oil
onsumption. The latter is basically politically impossible, however,
o I think they are starting off by "picking on" self-righteous
reeloading EV owners who don't have a good lobbyist!
eva-list mailing list
eva-list at oeva.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Oeva-list