[Oeva-list] Update on HB2328

schristie at mind.net schristie at mind.net
Wed May 4 14:22:08 PDT 2011


 

	It is a rip off especially if you consider that we are doing the
'right' thing, paying for related R&D costs of our 'fuel source',
while not really accounting for the actual road wear of the vehicle! 
On top of it, adding unknown future costs and responsibilities to EV
drivers for a tracking system for people who are probably going to
lose their union benefits. 

	Give me a flat $100 yearly road tax and all this would go-away.... 

	Scott 
 On Wed 04/05/11 2:09 PM , "Lawrence Winiarski"
lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com sent:
  1.56 CENT/MILE is a COMPLETE RIPOFF 
  30 cents/gal / 1.56 cents/mile = 19.2 gallons /mile 
  So they are gonna tax a tiny car as if it was a 8 cylinder truck. 
  WE SHOULD BE MAD AS HELL.     Are they trying to kill EV's? cuz
it's really starting to sound like it... 
  And who the hell is this idiot Craig Schaffer anyway?   Anyone know
him? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 WED, 5/4/11, GARY GRAUNKE __wrote:
 From: Gary Graunke 
 Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Update on HB2328
 To: oeva-list at oeva.org
 Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 11:05 AM
 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.
 Gary
 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  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 [2] 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
[3]
 > > 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 [4] 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
[5]://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Oeva-list mailing
 > > listOeva-list at oeva.orghttp
[6]://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
 > > 
 > > 
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Oeva-list mailing list
 > > Oeva-list at oeva.org [7]
 > > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list [8]
 _______________________________________________
 Oeva-list mailing list
 Oeva-list at oeva.org [9]
 http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list [10]


Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail5.userservices.net/mc/compose?to=timj.pdx@frontier.com
[2] http://webmail5.userservices.net/mc/compose?to=Theoldcars@aol.com
[3]
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/brief/competing-highway-main
[4]
http://webmail5.userservices.net/mc/compose?to=oeva-list-request@oeva.org
[5]
http://webmail5.userservices.net/mc/compose?to=listOeva-list@oeva.orghttp
[6]
http://webmail5.userservices.net/mc/compose?to=listOeva-list@oeva.orghttp
[7] http://webmail5.userservices.net/mc/compose?to=Oeva-list@oeva.org
[8] http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
[9] http://webmail5.userservices.net/mc/compose?to=Oeva-list@oeva.org
[10] http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110504/0cb6261e/attachment.html 


More information about the Oeva-list mailing list