[Oeva-list] Update on HB2328

Gary Graunke gary at whitecape.org
Wed May 4 11:05:36 PDT 2011

Yes, the bill has improved in some ways as it passes through the revenue 
committee, but there are still some areas that need further improvement.

The 2328-A13 amendments were put out Monday, May 2. 

The draconian penalties (vehicle seizure and auction) are gone. One pay a flat 
fee in lieu of getting the odometer reporting device (whatever that will be), 
but is so high as to not be a good option for many. (I believe it should be 
based on the GVWR of the vehicle--they can easily get that from the VIN. One 
could substitute MPGe and use a gas/electric factor to do something similar). 
There are also other reasonable alternatives for odometer reporting (many of 
which were mentioned on this list) that should also be available. I'm more 
concerned the cost of the vehicle reporting device may be more for low volume 
conversions, including Drive Oregon vehicles, than mass produced vehicles of 
the future. Some lead acid conversions have limited range--when I had only 20 
mile range, I only put 3000 miles/year on my Insight even though I tried to 
drive it whenever possible. Paying $300/year would be 10 cents a mile...

The rate as increased to 1.56 cents per mile from the earlier 1.43. Jim Whitty 
of ODOT, after talking to the staff economist, took quite a bit of time to 
explain this to me after the Monday, May 2 work session: Basically, the 1.43 
number from ODOT assumed a 21 mpg vehicle--the average EPA numbers for 
vehicles on the road. However, the mileage that people actually get (and they 
know since they get the gas tax data) is a bit less. Thus the 1.56 number.

(Of course, we EV drivers tend to be hypermilers who drive efficient vehicles, 
and are also tend to be offended that we should be lumped in with folks that 
tailgate and drive way too fast--using more fuel. Even if they do pay more for 
the roads when breaking the law in this manner. But getting past our feelings 
and back to the matter at hand--funding the road maintenance....)

At Jim's suggestion, I have asked for a copy of the economic study that was 
presented to house revenue committee members on April 18. If you listen to the 
audio, the staff member indicated that a new "efficient method" that they are 
developing to replace the "traditional method" that they now use came up with 
the same numbers (1.56 cents per mile). The "efficient method" is supposed to 
consider other factors such as pollution and other goals. However, when he 
mentioned that battery construction accounted for 1.09 cents per mile, I 
became even more concerned that the analysis may be flawed. They may be using 
data for mining nickel (not lithium), ignoring battery recycling, or (worst of 
all), using misinformation from sources with a vested interest in maintaining 
oil addiction! So we need to see the analysis.

I'll post the report if I get it.

Stay tuned. Things are mostly improving, and, while the revenue committee is 
nearly done, there is more opportunity to fix things as the Senate considers 
the bill, and two more legislative sessions before it goes into effect. 
However, getting it right earlier is better.


On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:23:52 AM Jon Balgley wrote:
> FYI, the 5000-ICE-vehicle exception/experiment seems to be removed from the
> current bill.
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Tim Johnson <timj.pdx at frontier.com> wrote:
> >  I think you are missing the point.... ODOT just wants more money, that
> >  is
> > 
> > obvious and quite frankly understandable. But what about the primary
> > sponsors of the bills ? The 5000 ICE vehicles that will be allowed in is
> > the clue. Remember the 5000 ICE results in a net loss in revenues for
> > many years (not what ODOT want). They want to move to a $/mile road tax
> > that avoids the premium that gas hogs are forced to pay with our current
> > $/gal taxation model.
> > 
> > The would be a tremendous saving for a company that owns a fleet of low
> > mileage cars/trucks.
> > 
> >    ------------------------------
> > 
> > Tim Johnson     [image: Scuba Diver]
> > 
> >    (503) 629-8625   (Home)
> >    (503) 757-9012   (Cell)
> > 
> > On 05/04/2011 06:13 AM, Chris Arnesen wrote:
> > 
> > The biggest issue is that they still aren't considering any other factors
> > when attempting to calculate this vehicle mileage tax. My LEAF still gets
> > a 99 MPGe. At $0.0085 per mile, that's the eqivilant of paying a fuel
> > tax of $0.84 per gallon, way higher than the $0.31 per gallon every
> > other vehicle pays (2.7 times). They really need to utilize the MPG
> > (MPGe), weight class, and odometer mileage of the vehicle to determine
> > the VMT an owner needs to pay.
> > 
> > Also, just to let everyone know, their intent won't be to use the OBD
> > port since that can be unplugged for diagnostic purposes. However since
> > all new vehicles starting in 2008 are required to use CAN BUS for OBD it
> > wouldn't be hard to tap into the vehicle network at another point.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Chris Arnesen
> > 
> > On 5/3/2011 11:32 PM, Theoldcars at aol.com wrote:
> >  Let me know if my math is wrong
> > 
> > To use a Leaf driver for an example.
> > 
> > If your cost per kW is 8 cents and your getting 4 miles to the kW. Then
> > 
> >  2.0 cents  is your cost per mile. So this tax of .0156 would be almost
> > 
> > 80% of the cost of fuel. I would like to see the reaction to gas being
> > taxed at this same level.
> > 
> > .0156 cents per mile does not seem outrageous since 10,000 miles would be
> > only 156.00 dollars in road taxes. Then you consider 10,000 miles would
> > only cost you 200.00 dollars on your electric bill.
> > 
> > So if this passes it will cost almost as much to maintenance the road as
> > it does to fuel an electric vehicle.
> > Amazing when you think about it. As this shows just how efficient an EV
> > is to drive and in comparison how expensive the road is to maintain.
> > 
> > Since were going to review the road taxes how about taking a look at the
> > current road maintenance cost? One study seems to show the state of
> > Washington could save 25 million dollars a year over 10 years ago.  This
> > is way more money they will ever be taken in for a very long time with
> > this EV road tax.
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/brief/competing-highway-main
> > tenance-lessons-washington-state
> > 
> > I was searching Google for a city that was on TV a while back that
> > had changed to using private contractors. They had vastly improved their
> > roads and lowered their cost. Anyone else see that?
> > 
> > Don
> > 
> >  In a message dated 5/3/2011 5:08:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> > 
> > oeva-list-request at oeva.org writes:
> > 
> > 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
> > 2018.
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oeva-list mailing
> > listOeva-list at oeva.orghttp://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oeva-list mailing
> > listOeva-list at oeva.orghttp://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