[Oeva-list] tax issues fair would be paying EV drivers

Theoldcars at aol.com Theoldcars at aol.com
Sun Jul 1 15:51:29 PDT 2012

Hello Steve
You say " I'm not sure I buy any of it! "
Well lets see if we can get you in the buying mood or maybe out of the  
buying mood when it comes to oil. 
Concerning our business buying 100 percent electric allocated from  wind. 
This was not an offer made to residences but only to businesses a few  years 
ago. From PGE's web site     _Clean  Wind_ 
(http://www.portlandgeneral.com/business/small/renewable_energy/clean_wind.aspx)  100 percent renewable power 
from new wind.* Available in 200 kWh units (each unit represents about 12 
percent of  your monthly usage**). An additional $3.50 per 200 kWh unit — you 
can purchase as many units  as you wish.Clean wind came along after we  had 
already been using an EV whenever possible at West Hills Collision  Center 
so I liked the idea of cleaning up the grid. Just like EVs I support  wind 
and I don't mind paying the difference to help make it happen. Really  our 
electric bills here in the Northwest are very  inexpensive. Unfortunately I 
don't think buying wind energy has  much advertising value for a small 
business like us. Most people go about their  life without considering the 
difference they could make in our  community. Wind is something I believe in 
personally and its what I  would like to see more businesses endorse. I am also a 
fan of solar and  geothermal energy but I would assume you would consider 
them an advertising  ploy as well. 
The grid is a shared energy provider and yes some of it is dirty. If  more 
clean power comes on line the grid does becomes cleaner. Were also selling  
all the power possible out of state, to the point that were grid locked. We  
have an excess of electric here, which works out perfect for EVs. Since  
were not able to move more electric out of state, why not encourage more EVs  
here to take advantage of this?
You don't like how the money is allocated for wind. 

Most are not aware of this but PGE can not just invest in energy projects  
without showing they are being paid for. This all came about after  WPPSS 
the Washington public power supply became know as Whoops  had.the largest 
municipal bond default in U.S. history. They stopped building  several nuclear 
power plants and unfinished project still cost billions in 1983  dollars. 
Money lost that had to be repaid by the utility users.  PGE was  quickly 
mandated after this from investing in new energy. PGE can not  simply invest in 
wind without showing it has the money coming in to pay for it.  Based on this 
I support the effort by PGE. Wind is producing clean  energy here, employing 
people locally and these alone are a good  enough reason we should support 
I never stated were running out of oil but that will happen someday if you  
only consider oil obtained through drilling or shale mining. You can make 
oil,  so really we will never run out, if you don't mind paying 10 or 15 
dollars a  gallon in today's dollars. As we keep using up the low hanging fruit, 
oil  will continue to cost more and more.
You state below " the easiest way to aleviate the price pressure  is to 
produce oil already identified in the US."
Well last year was the first year in 60 years we shipped more refined  fuel 
out of the country then we imported. I don't know if we have hit peak oil  
but our dollar is weak enough that if it won't sell for enough here it will 
in  other countries. While I would agree it sounds like at face value 
producing  more here would help us. It appears the oil companies don't see it  
that way if they can sell somewhere else and make a profit. What makes  this 
possible is oil being a high energy fuel that can be shipped in or out  of the 
country. Shipping energy out of the country is far less likely  to happen 
with electric. I would rather support our local  electric energy provider 
then international oil companies that are not  based here. 
" TheOldCars indicates that he believes that we should subsidize  the
drivers of EV's because of all the "good" that they are doing."
Steve there really is not enough EV's out there yet to make the impact they 
 are capable of. I became convinced of the ability of EVs nine years ago  
when I started driving 99% all electric miles. I have gone though several  
battery chemistries and now battery technology has reached the point it is 
cost  effective. Lead acid was far too low in energy density, a very short 
cycle  and calendar life. While I have gone over 100,000 miles all electric in 
the last  eight plus years I realize at this time its not for everyone. There 
is at least  10% of the population that would exceed the daily miles 
capable of an EV.  So an EV would only work for about 90% of the population. 

"  I'm not sure that asking for a "road tax holiday" as some have proposed, 
isn't a "bridge too far".  What's next free parking for EV's and an  EV
only lane on the freeway? Would this extend to fuel cell vehicles?  
air powered vehicles? Where do you stop? "
We have over 3 million ICE vehicles in the state of Oregon. I don't think a 
 few thousand EVs here is enough to even be concerned about when it comes  
to taxing them. Does it really make sense to start a tax that costs more  
then it collects? Even to an ICE driver this should not make sense and in fact 
 should make them wonder why. Also if you do the research a fuel cell  
vehicle is not anywhere near as efficient as an EV. They are a very  wasteful 
when it comes to the use of energy. We have a high occupancy lane  in Portland 
I think EVs should be allowed to use it. Although I never go that  
direction I came back one time and noticed there was not many cars using the  lane 
during rush hour. 
As far as the lack of EVs on the road. Its going to be this way  for 
sometime going by the current demand for EVs. In the past we had  free EV parking 
along with free charging in downtown Portland for  many years. I also 
offered free charging and parking to all my employees. To my  disappointment no 
one took me up on my offer. I am though happy local  drivers are find our 
charging location useful. I actually tried to do this years  ago but ended up 
just putting an RV box with 120 volt plug. There  was no approved plug for EVs 
and a dryer type plug was not allowed  which was frustrating at the time 
considering RV's were allowed to use  them.
Steve I seem to recall you had or tried an EV once in the past and were not 
 happy with it? All I can tell you is once you get away from lead it is a  
completely different vehicle. I was lucky enough that in 2005 I started 
driving  with the NiMH chemistry which has almost four times the useable range  
and many times the cycle and calendar life. The Ovonic modules I am  still 
using now are 14 years old and have 60 miles of range. I just last week  
loaded in my truck 1000 pounds of shop supplies. When doing this I admit I do  
take it easy on the pack. However I don't see that as being a set back I  
consider it a fun challenge. 
Considering the developments in battery technology in a few years I expect  
complaints like yours about range and capacity are going to be far less.  
While were not there yet I strongly disagree with you we should not be  
encouraging EVs as much as possible. 
Sounds like you feel we should not subsidize EVs and you  also question the 
good they are doing? I can tell you this is one good,  the ICE drivers are 
so freak out about range, EVs need to be out  there to show they work. Fast 
charging locations need to be installed to help  turn around many ICE 
drivers false perceptions. You can talk to most EV  drivers today about local 
driving and most will tell you it usually  don't require fast charging. However 
fast charging certainly would  make an EV like the Leaf IMHO a very 
desirable vehicle. 
If you don't feel an EV is better for our country then  driving an ICE. 
Maybe I am missing something but I don't understand why you  would be on this 
Sure there are always going to be disagreements about oil and the effect it 
 has on the world we live in. Heck it was not that long ago there were 
experts  who said you could not get cancer from smoking. Right or wrong there 
will always  be two sides to every issue. 
But if nothing else, consider how long an a new ICE will continue to be  
dependant on oil. Twenty years is not out of reason and that  is another 
generation that we expect to take care of our mess.  This  is about oil none of 
us can afford to buy because our nation is broke. We print  up money that has 
nothing behind it and expect other countries to accept  this for how long? I
t is arrogant that we feel we should be entitled to  continue this as long 
as we like. There is no doubt at some point this  is going to cause us or 
our children a lot of grief someday.  . 
It is very arrogant on our part to expect the rest of the  world  to 
endlessly accept our entitlement attitude. Would  we be fine with Mexico printing 
up money and buying what they could  not afford from us. How long would we 
continue to accept their money?  We however feel that we are different and 
that we should be  entitled to continue this as long as we like. Many 
countries like  Mexico have great number of people that are living in  terrible 
conditions and starving. If you go on our current logic they  should just start 
printing up money because we have the food they  need. 
Our current standard of living will be a greater risk the longer this  
continues. At some point our house of cards is going to come  down.   
Personally it seems odd to defend EVs on an EV list. 
I will now get off my soap box. 

Don Blazer

In a message dated 6/28/2012 9:21:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
oeva-list-request at oeva.org writes:

Message:  6
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steve's Account"  <stevel at fern.com>
Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] tax issues fair would be  paying EV drivers
To: oeva-list at oeva.org
Message-ID:  <alpine.LNX.2.00.1206272306220.20450 at hub.fern.com>
Content-Type:  TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

TheOldCars indicates  that he believes that we should subsidize the
drivers of EV's because of  all the "good" that they are doing.

He goes on to say that he buys only  wind generated power.

He also says that "oil is running out" or words  to that effect.

I'm not sure I buy any of it! :-)

Ok.. if all of  the taxing methods we have discussed won't work, how about
following Texas'  lead. They put in a system where vehicles that fueled with
LPG paid a tax  with each registration, based on the weight of the vehicle.
When you paid  your tax, you got a sticker to put on the windshield that
allowed you to  fill up at fueling stations. It was prohibited without
the  sticker.

You already have to pay your license plate fees.. just add a  flat amount
that equals some estimate of your road tax  obligation.

The last time I'd looked at PGE's wind offerings, none of  them were 
Kwh for Kwh replacments of their usual mix of power  offerings.

They worked a lot like the "credit default swaps" that Wall  Street is
famous for. You paid a fee, and PGE said that they would TRY to  buy or
INVEST in, wind generated power on your behalf. They made no  garantee that,
for every Kwh you consumed, that they had a matching Kwh  coming from wind.

In looking tonight, I don't see anything that  indicates that this situation
has changed.

Since power production is  a "zero sum game" paying a premium price for
"wind power" just means that  someone else get's a greater mix of "non-
renewable" power.. and you get to  "advertize" what wonderful things you

You might have more effect  on the mix of energy sources used if you 
invested in wind farms on the  stock market, or spent money lobying 
polititians to make sure that "wind  power paid for is really wind
power delivered.".

The public will be  able to tell when this "works" because they will
stop running coal plants  like Boardman, and stop buying power from the
grid generated by coal in  states more "friendly" to coal fired plants
that Oregon is.

As for  "oil running out".. yes, the easy oil has been found.. but, there is
no  indication of a looming shortage. And the easiest way to aleviate the
price  pressure is to produce oil already identified in the US.

Unfortunately,  the "not in my back yard" folks are holding sway. They 
would far
prefer  that activities that are "to dangerous" or "too risky" or "contain
the risk  of a spill" happen in somebody else's back yard!

The responsible  position, in my opinion, would be to produce US oil. It
creates US jobs. It  solves the balance of payments issues. It lowers
the pressure on the  increasing price of oil, by lowering demand on
foreign controlled sources  of oil. And.. it makes sure that production
occurs, where, when there is an  environmental issue, it gets cleaned up.

(I'd bet that the BP cleanup  effort in the Gulf generated more revenue
than the lost tourism etc!.. and  it surely employed more lawyers!)

This is not to say that I agree with  wanton distruction of the environment.
In fact, all the oil that didn't end  up in the pipeline was wasted. This is
NOT a good thing.

At the same  time, the impact on the Gulf seems to have been considerably
less than some  "authorities" had proposed.

Some estimates place the amount of  additional oil dumped into the Gulf
at about 10 percent of the amount that  occurs from natural oil seeps
that have been occuring the Gulf on an annual  basis. Yes, it was a large,
concentrated plume, and not a "oil sheen" as is  typically seen from a
natural seep.. but the same oil eating bacteria that  eat the oil from 
the seeps, got a bonanza from the spill!

Now..  lest someone believe that I'm in favor of another "Deep Water  
disaster.. I am not.. For a LOT of reasons. 1) The loss of life.  2) the
alteration of the ecosystem in the Gulf had no beneficial effects.  3) the
disruption of the economies of businesses dependent on activities in  the
Gulf, 4) The destruction of the idea that commercial activities  operate
in an safety concious way, because it's good business. They have  proven
this not to be true. (AGAIN!) Government regualation is  REQUIRED!

I think we should pursue responsible development of US based  resources.

I also believe that we should fund research into EV's  without all the 
drawbacks of the current crop. (Short range, long  recharge, expensive,
limited payload etc.)

I'm not sure that I think  ANY technology deserves a "free ride" just
because it's been througly  "green washed". Early adopters have always
paid a price for their desire to  be an early adopter. In the early days
of gasoline powered vehicles, gas  stations weren't common. Drivers had
to carry additional stocks of fuel to  get to the ones that did exist.
Eventually kerosene stations, started  carrying gasoline too!

The same situation exists for charging stations  today.. except that 
public policy has seen fit to subsidize, thru tax  policy, the buildout
of charging stations.

I'm not sure that asking  for a "road tax holiday" as some have proposed, 
isn't a "bridge too  far".  What's next free parking for EV's and an EV
only lane on the  freeway? Would this extend to fuel cell vehicles? 
air powered  vehicles? Where do you stop?

If you arn't paying road tax, do you loose  your right to complain about
potholes, the "Gresham autopilot" and traffic?  :-)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120701/368028ac/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Oeva-list mailing list