[Oeva-list] Update on HB2328

Lawrence Winiarski lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com
Tue May 3 17:18:57 PDT 2011

FYI...I'm pretty sure that Section 10 also stipulates that WE THE DRIVERSmust pay for the equipment AND the installation.....(basically what ever they want to develop with their "partners" )....So we are the guinea pigs who pay for whatever sort of hi-tech wireless gizmo they want.    
So if they decide to make a device that costs $499 we can either pay it, ORbe forced to pay $300/year.  (3X what washington picked).
AND we also get stuck with the installation charge.   (as we are now 100%responsible)
And I'm guessing the average electric car driver (currently) probably does lessthan 10,000 miles/year as electric .    So at the 2016 rates, that would by $85 in tax.
So if you have an electric motorcycle and an electric car and a plug in hybridyou could get soaked for for 3 gadgets of unknown cost or pay $900/yearso they could potentially collect $85 in tax.
Government at it's worst.
Doesn't even look like we can just do the odometer reading at registration.    That would at least make some sort of sense.   But instead we have technology crazy bureaucrats trying to create a brave new world, at our expense.
And oh yeah....did I mention my family lives on a 3 mile gravel road.
...kind of ironic.

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

--- On Tue, 5/3/11, Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com> wrote:

From: Jon Balgley <jon at photodad.com>
Subject: [Oeva-list] Update on HB2328
To: oeva-list at oeva.org
Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2011, 12:10 PM

HB2328 ("the EV mileage tax") has been substantially revised as
reported in yesterday's (2-May) House Revenue Committee work session,
and to be discussed further (maybe just passed on to the whole House?)
tomorrow (Wednesday, 4-May, 8:00am).  I have not had a chance to read
it 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
emissions and protect the environment, Oregon wants to encourage
market penetration of electric vehicles and other highly fuel
efficient vehicles by providing a transitional rate for a vehicle road
usage charge [aka VRUC] during the early years of introduction into
the marketplace..."

2a.  It was suggested that the bill also include language similar to
another bill that states something about "and to reduce dependence on
foreign oil"

3. VRUC = $0.0156/mile (1.56 cents per mile), effective July 1, 2018.
Reduced 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
had 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
responsibility to the legislature.  "The purpose of the task force is
to develop a design for revenue collection for Oregon's roads ... that
will replace the current system for revenue collection.  The task
force shall consider all potential revenue sources.   ... [members
shall be...blah blah] ... The task force shall do all of the

A. study alternatives to fuel taxes.
b. Examine progress of implmenting VRUC
c. Examine effect of VRUC on mkt penetration of EVs and PHEVs
d. Examine potential for application of VRUC to hybrids and other
emerging techs.
E. Make recommendations to legislature regarding: options to
voluntarily pay VRUC instead of fuel tax, add out of state motorists
to 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
vehicles to pay a charge has been removed.

Please feel free to read the actual amended bill and correct/expand on
anything I've summarized above.  The Revenue committee is waiting on
"some paperwork", which I believe is the cost/etc of the
administration of the new tax.  Next work session is tomorrow, Wed,
4-May-2011, 8:00am.


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
on it in the real world, they need some vehicles to pay it in the real
world.  EVs seem to be a good candidate for an experiment -- small
population (VERY small, as I noted the other day), relatively well-off
financially (probably), and logically/politically "freeloading" by not
paying the gas tax.  They need the legislature to authorize a tax like
this VRUC in order to conduct the larger-scale experiment "in the real
world".  Personally, I think the concept of VRUC is a good one ... it
opens the door to additional fine-tuning, e.g., by vehicle weight or
by use of studded tires (e.g., studded tire licensees would pay more
from Oct to Apr, or whenever).  And also would allow fine-tuning based
on "fuel" technology (e.g., getting those coal-driven EV's off the
road in favor of those powered by unobtanium or di-lithium crystals),
although politically it's not clear that that would be practical.

On the other hand, there are clearly some details that are lost on
ODOT ... e.g., how many EV owners drive their vehicles 19,230 miles
per year or more, or the importance of using a gas tax to reduce oil
consumption.  The latter is basically politically impossible, however,
so I think they are starting off by "picking on" self-righteous
freeloading EV owners who don't have a good lobbyist!

Oeva-list mailing list
Oeva-list at oeva.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110503/867da4e0/attachment.html 

More information about the Oeva-list mailing list