[Oeva-list] Update on HB2328

Ross Monroe rossmon at hotmail.com
Thu May 5 06:15:54 PDT 2011

It seems that too many people are in belief that this is only about ODOT funding. I think Tim J hit it right on the head that it's about who is sponsoring this bill/effort. I won't pretend to know who is truly behind this or what the ultimate goal is, but it sure seems that it's pointing to major corporations making a huge gain on this one way or the other. Either they equip the vehicles with unnecessary gadgets that they will charge a premium for and make big bucks, or they will stave off the adoption of a technology that if implemented correctly would be ultra reliable and thus kill their long term profits. It's probably a little of both.

Sure, there are a few low-on-the-ladder dopes in the government that really believe they are trying to solve the ODOT funding issue, but we all know that any bill of this significance almost always turns out to be sponsored by some greedy corporations with their own intentions. But there is always a price for progress, and I doubt anyone here has the influence to stop the wave, so the best you can do is pretend that all of your efforts made a little dent to your benefit. Yes, they design the bills to be highly controversial knowing that there will be opposition, and allow us to believe our opinions have caused modifications until we are appeased because we THINK we are in control and made it fair, but when you pull back you will see that all that really happened is that the same outcome was implemented in a different fashion. You will not change the forward movement of progress or destruction or whatever you want to call it.

I also agree with calvinjean2 that too many people focus on what they have no power to change vs. learning and sharing what you can. There are a lot of knowledgeable people on this list, but this whole bill thing has just taken over, and to what avail? I think I'll just stick to my electric bike and call it good while it lasts.

From: oeva-list-request at oeva.org
Subject: Oeva-list Digest, Vol 91, Issue 14
To: oeva-list at oeva.org
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:10:00 -0700

Send Oeva-list mailing list submissions to
	oeva-list at oeva.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	oeva-list-request at oeva.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
	oeva-list-owner at oeva.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Oeva-list digest..."

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: calvinjean2 at comcast.net
CC: oeva-list at oeva.org
To: alan at batie.org
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 22:00:07 +0000
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Update on HB2328

Yes, I get 20 mpg.  Not every day, but that was my last tank.   1999 Dodge 5.9 diesel 2wd.
Who am I?     I may be an idiot, but not calling any names here, I just have a different opinion, which I'm finding is not welcome in this world of 'everybody drive a leaf'.
I came to this list in search of information about building my own electric vehicle because 1) it interests me, and 2) I can.   
It seems that 50% of the list is more concerned with not paying taxes and government intrusion than creating a vehicle that will cost much less to run over the long haul, even if they had to pay $300/yr in fees.
I'm going to keep my eye on ya'll.   Every now and then there's something of value here.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Batie" <alan at batie.org>
To: oeva-list at oeva.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2011 2:35:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Update on HB2328

On 5/4/11 1:28 PM, D K wrote:
>  I bet ya drivin a 5liter guzzler?

I doubt it if he's getting 20mpg...

He's probably driving a truck for the same reason I have an Explorer: to
haul things and go places a Prius can't.  While EVs can meet the vast
majority of needs, they can't yet meet them all...

Oeva-list mailing list
Oeva-list at oeva.org

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: cje at hevanet.com
To: oeva-list at oeva.org
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 22:23:10 +0000
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Update on HB2328

It's fairly obvious to me, the tracking equipment they're talking about is 
just to keep you (or me) from disconnecting our odometers most of the 
year. I hate the idea, but it's the kind of stuff they kick around. People 
can and do cheat every way they can on taxes. Ask any guy who lives out in 
the woods how he can afford to commute to work in his big ol' diesel 
pickup.. he'll tell you, if he's being honest, that he's using "tractor 
diesel" -- farm fuel that you don't pay road taxes on. ODOT knows it, 
hates it, can't do anything about it. They're trying to keep us from doing 
the same, and you know one of us will if we can. 
As far as the "cutting benefits" etc stuff goes, it doesn't work like 
that. They're already taking furlough days and benefit cuts. Dark 
mutterings about "taxing the little guy so they don't have to suffer too"  
and hating on the gummint slug DOT guys don't really further any 
constructive ends. The problem here is the legislators, not the guys with 
the shovels.
That said, I think they'll eventually settle for odometer readings. 
Tracking devices are a stupid idea, and even the ICE folks will see that 
if they can impose them on us, they can impose them on everyone. Non-
Curt Erickson
> I expect the OBD connector already has the odometer reading.   You can
> already buy devices that read it and get all sorts of info (gas usage,
spee> d,
> timing, etc, and all sorts of sensor failure stuff (Throttle position
senso> r, Oxygen
> sensor..etc)   So this is a reasonable way to get the reading....but
th> en if that
> is all you want, it's pretty damn easy to just LOOK at the stupid 
> and
> write it down, and it's a whole lot simpler.   And you don't need the
w> hole
> crazy wireless transfer too.      But then they couldn't use it
t> o track our
> way down the roads and bridges of oregon's highways....which I believe is
> why they really want the wireless stuff.
> A special trip to the DMV pretty much screws up my charge for the day.
> (34 mile round trip)   Seems especially mean-spirited to try and force
el> ectric car 
> drivers to make a special trip as it completely screws up their day.  
> And what
> about people who can't get off work?   Make potentially thousands of
pe> ople
> do a special trip every 90  days because someone at ODOT "wants" to be
ab> le to
> track people someday?   So a guy making $20/hour needs to take off
time>  from
> work to drive thru the DMV so he can pay a $20 tax?   
> It's just mean.
The $300 annual fee is basically a "F... You" to people who don't want
i> t.
Why not offer an odometer reading in lieu of the $300?   It
certa> inly wouldn't
> be much harder as you could do it at the same time.
>  Answer...because it  makes a complete mockery of the whole ridiculous
> idea.
They don't want a simple odometer reading because...well it's just TOO
s> imple..
and they wouldn't get to be in charge of some massive project.  
(li> kely some of
them might get laid off due to budget shortfalls)
Again...why bother with all this?   If all you  want is mileage 
> I'm UTTERLY convinced that ODOT is NOT being honest about their true
intent> ions
> and that in itself ought to be reason enough to kick them out on their
ears> ..
> So again, I can't stress this enough,  This is NOT ABOUT RAISING MONEY
>  ROADS FOR EV's  because it is ridiculously complicated and will cost
M> ILLIONS to implement.    I believe it is something totally different.
> I don't like it.   Although this will sound dramatic, I think
basically>  the group within
> ODOT is more concerned with justifying their existence rather than doing
wh> at is
> good for the rest of the state and the public.    They want a
kingdom>  that "they"
> can easily control and raise and lower tax at will without any sort of
"leg> islative interference".    Right now, if they want to change the tax
> rate, they need to
> get that info out to thousands of gas stations and the pumps 
> Now with this new system they will be able to change the tax within
minutes> ..
> And their express issue is to make it even more complicated, with rate by
t> imes
> of day, and certain roads and using the device to transmit to a roadside
de> vice
> whenever the car passes by.  So they can have an even more complicated
ta> x
> structure.    And do you think when they are setting the tax road by
> road, bridge
> by bridge with their little wireless tell tales advertising where you go,
>  that the legislature is gonna have any control whatsoever?    
> So the side result of their plan is that they are gonna have a virtual
king> dom
> that they can set any tax they want.   And they don't even have to run
> for reelection.
> And so...when money gets tight...do you think they are gonna try and cut
th> e budgets
> or benefits or implement layoffs like any other government agency.
> ....."Yeah right...".     .
> In fact one of the stupid reasons for this tax is that we are in a
recessio> n and
> people can't afford to drive as much....So what's governments answer?  Oh
> lets tax the poor guys MORE, so we don't have to suffer too.
> I also believe that their "partners" stand to make a big chunk of change
of> f this
> too.   I find it especially telling that CH2M testified in favor of
the>  bill and didn't
> divulge to the legislature that they were already doing consulting for
ODOT>  for this
> very purpose...smell like corruption to me.
> And why the hell are we even voting on a bill for a device that hasn't
> even been made yet?    It's a virtual blank check.    
> I can't see anything good out of this bill.   It's dishonest about
it's>  true intentions,
> fiscally irresponsible, and you can accomplish the same thing they claim
th> ey 
> want to do about a thousand times easier just by reading the odometer
> and writing it down every time you want a renew your license.
> AND we shouldn't be taxing EV's anyway until we get about 1000 times more
> than we currently have anyway...It's gonna affect road tax income by less
t> han 10%
> over the next decade until we get there.   And these EV's are gonna
aff> ect the
> road even less than the gas guzzlers they replace.    And being as
th> ey just
> raised the tax 25% in January to 30 cents/mile, you'd think they wouldn't
> be so damn worried about revenue anyway.  
> ....I hope to god our legislature has enough common sense to vote it 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
--> -
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
rava> ged 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: Re: [Oeva-list] Update on HB2328
> To: "Lawrence Winiarski" <lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com>
> Cc: oeva-list at oeva.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2011, 10:01 PM
> I'm not trying to defend ODOT or the sponsors of the bill, but here's 
> more information.  This info is from the text of the bill and the
recorde> d audio from the 2-may work session, so you can read/listen for
> * The ODOT guy claimed that the "diagnostic port" might meet their
criteria> ..  I'm not sure that he actually said "meet the criteria".  He 
very>  explicit to the legislators about not inventing the wheel, but 
working in
> conjunction with "the federal government" to establish standards.
> * Pre-2016 EVs appear to be excluded from this requirement.  It appears
t> o me that they are trying to target the auto manufacturers, not 
> * One of the legislators asked if the owner could send in a written
(paper)>  log, instead.  The ODOT guy said, no, they want to do it 
> .... but it made him think (out loud) that perhaps an online form would 
a> cceptable.  
> * "Part 2" below is not foolish, if I understand the intent correctly.
 T> he idea is that you'd drive thru a "DEQ-like" station, and get your
mileage>  read.  Perhaps on a quarterly basis.  But the vision, I think, 
is for
> the readers to be in gas pumps, for ICE vehicles.
> BTW, I am guessing that the reason ODOT is doing this now is: they don't
ha> ve funding in their current (upcoming) 2011-13 budget.  So they need 
> tax to be approved in the 2011 session, so they can budget for and get
fund> ing for the implementation in the 2013 session, in time for actually
beginn> ing to collect it in 2015.
> Personally, I think the notion of a "VRUC" is a good one.  It gives us
-->  society -- tools to target taxes more accurately at what we want to 
>  The main problem I have with this bill is that I feel it's missing the
t> arget.  It's taxing EVs higher than ICE vehicles.  But, what if,
instea> d of requiring EVs to install "this technology", we required all 
users of
s> tudded tires to have it?  And whenever they refueled at a gas pump "in
se> ason", it doubled the gas tax for them?  That would be an on-target 
> in my opinion.
> Also, BTW, someone on the audio mentioned that the legislature will have
tw> o more sessions before this tax is actually collected from anybody.  So
w> hile I would prefer to get it right the first time, there are certainly
opp> ortunities to change it later.  And one of the key provisions of the
bill>  is the task force that is supposed to make a report on alternatives 
fue> l taxes.
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Lawrence Winiarski
<lawrence_winiarski at yaho> o.com> wrote:
SECTION 10.  Reporting vehicle miles traveled. (1) A registered owner
> or lessee subject to the vehicle road usage charge imposed under section 
> of this 2011 Act shall equip the electric motor vehicle or plug0in hybrid
e> lectric motor vehicle with technology, approved by the department of
Transp> ortation that provides for electron reporting of miles traveled.
(2) On
t> he date determined by the department under subsection (3) of this 
> the registered owner or lessee shall report the number of miles the
vehicle>  has traveled and pay to the department the amount due under 
section 2 of
t> his 2011 Act for the reporting period.
The number of miles reported
shall>  be rounded up to the next whole mile.
> So it's very likely that we are gonna get stuck with the bill.
> Also, doesn't part 2 sound foolish?   We have to use their equipment,
and>  then are
responsible to report it?   Why the hell don't we just use
th> e odometer then?
> Again, it just makes me mad to read this.   This is pretty obviously not
> about roadtaxes or fairness.   It's blatantly unfair to EV's and puts us
> at their mercy to do
virtually anything they want so ODOT and their
buddi> es can develop new productsand have us pay the development costs.  
 Ke> ep in mind that if Oregon starts thisand gets every state to follow 
t> hen you could have 100,000,000 (100 million)
cars forced to buy a $200
ga> dget.   That means the guys who are using us forguinea pigs are trying
to>  legislate a tax to create
 a potential 20 BILLION dollar industry for
> themselves using  the technology THEY approve....And I refer to
the aud> io on Apr 4 where they say they can't release the names of their
potentia> l "partners"
> (talk about a potential for corruption)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
--> -
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
rava> ged world.
Nobel Laureate Dr. Henry W. Kendall 023934
> --- On Tue, 5/3/11, Lawrence Winiarski <lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com>
wrote> :
> From: Lawrence Winiarski <lawrence_winiarski at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Update on HB2328
> To: oeva-list at oeva.org, "Jon Balgley" <jon at photodad.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2011, 5:18 PM
> FYI...I'm pretty sure that Section 10 also stipulates that WE THE
must 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,
OR> be forced to pay $300/year.
  (3X what washington picked).
> AND we also get stuck with the installation charge.   (as we are now
> And I'm guessing the average electric car driver (currently) probably 
> less
than 10,000 miles/year as electric .    So at the 2016 rates,
th> at would by $85 in tax.
> So if you have an electric motorcycle and an electric car and a plug in
hyb> rid
you 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
That would at least make some sort of sense.   But instead
w> e 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
rava> ged 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
> http://www.leg.state.or.us/committees/exhib2web/2011reg/HREV/05-02-
2011/HB2> 328A%20-A13%20Amendments,%20LRO%20Staff,%2022%20ppE.pdf
> 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
> 2018.
> 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
> following"
> 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
> 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
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> _______________________________________________
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: Theoldcars at aol.com
To: oeva-list at oeva.org
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 19:06:00 -0400
Subject: [Oeva-list] Update on HB2328

As someone stated before the problem here is what if you have several EVs. 
Just like an ICE an EV can fill many roles. A person could have a truck, car and 
other EVs. It would not be very fair to charge a flat fee of 300 
dollars per each EV. 
Makes the most sense if your going to collect by mileage to do it during 
registration. You would not have to go into DMV if you were mailing it in you 
could just report your mileage and pay at the same time.

In a message dated 5/4/2011 2:17:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
oeva-list-request at oeva.org writes:
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 19:02:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: CraigSchaefer 
  <calvinjean2 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Update on 
To: D K <dimakukushkin at gmail.com>
  Oeva-list at oeva.org
  <1424236271.184706.1304535757487.JavaMail.root at sz0059a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

$300 plus 
  a little money for electricity to charge the vehicle seems like a bargain 
  compared to what I pay for fuel, and yet everyone is complaining.??? 

You won't change things yourself, but if you do it and others catch 
  on, the paradigm shifts..... 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D K" <dimakukushkin at gmail.com> 
To: Oeva-list at oeva.org 
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2011 11:13:37 AM 
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] 
  Update on HB2328 

I won't buy mass adoption of EVs for my $300 
  cash. And fan(atics) only driving EVs - won't change big picture ither. 

Good luck to Gary!!! 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110505/3c1efa21/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Oeva-list mailing list