Have a California EV? Be prepared to PAY!

[SparkEVPilot]

I happened across an article regarding California Senate Bill 1 wherein we will get to pay $38 more per year for vehicle registration and, if you drive a zero emission vehicle like a BEV, you get to pay an additional $100 per year for road usage.

Here is where you can read the full text of the bill:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1

Happy EV'n!

 

[SparkE]

Yeah, sounds about right.

 

[EldRick]

Gotta pay for those roads somehow...

 

[Nagorak]

It makes some sense, I suppose. However, I'm surprised they would do this, since CA is trying to promote EVs and right now there are so few on the road anyway that it hardly matters. I wonder how much support it has.

If I were doing this I'd just increase overall registration by $39 or $40. That probably makes up for the tiny number of EV drivers paying $100. Over time if the EV numbers increase, registration could just keep going up, until eventually the registration covers what is currently paid by gas tax.

Actually, I may write a letter expressing my dismay that this change is going in. Maybe if enough of us make some noise it can make a difference.

 

[user 387]

I don't live in CA (thankfully), but I would guess that the high gas taxes there go to pay to maintain the roads. Given that the Bolt owner will not pay a penny in gas taxes, $100/year seems pretty cheap to me.

The Bolt still has operating costs that are a fraction of ICE vehicles.

 

[boltage]

The bill in question also includes a $0.12 per gallon increase in gasoline tax (current gasoline tax is around $0.59 per gallon, though it varies because some of it is a percentage of the price).

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Not just a CA thing:

https://electrek.co/2017/02/27/fossil-fuel-industry-electric-vehicle-fees/

Consensus from other forums is something based on mileage and vehicle weight for all vehicles.

 

[michael]

I would much rather they keep increasing the gas tax to make up the shortfall and wean people away from gas. Tax it out of use much as tobacco has been.

Obviously at some poiint the burden would need to be shifted on to EVs but now is far too soon

 

[Maxters]

I would much rather they keep increasing the gas tax to make up the shortfall and wean people away from gas. Tax it out of use much as tobacco has been.

Obviously at some poiint the burden would need to be shifted on to EVs but now is far too soon

I agree with you. Think about how much people spend on gasoline taxes per year, and this is still a deal. And they do need to keep paying for the roads.

I have a feeling that in the future, to be fair, you will pay all your taxes at registration time depending on how many miles you drive and the pollution that vehicle puts out.

 

[oilerlord]

I would much rather they keep increasing the gas tax to make up the shortfall and wean people away from gas. Tax it out of use much as tobacco has been.

Obviously at some point the burden would need to be shifted on to EVs but now is far too soon

I think the burden of building & maintaining roads should be shared by all that drive on them - not "shifted" to any one particular group. I have no problem with additional taxes on gasoline & tobacco, but people driving EV's use roads too and shouldn't be exempt from paying their fair share.

 

[WetEV]

I would much rather they keep increasing the gas tax to make up the shortfall and wean people away from gas. Tax it out of use much as tobacco has been.

Obviously at some point the burden would need to be shifted on to EVs but now is far too soon

I think the burden of building & maintaining roads should be shared by all that drive on them - not "shifted" to any one particular group. I have no problem with additional taxes on gasoline & tobacco, but people driving EV's use roads too and shouldn't be exempt from paying their fair share.

Then you should care about taxing buses and trucks more, and cars less. Mass matters, the heavier the vehicle the more damage, and much steeper than linear.

https://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/

 

[oilerlord]

While mass matters, It's probably not as simple as taxing based on weight. If a motorcycle driver pays $100 per year for his 500 pound motorcycle, is it realistic to charge the driver of a 80,000 pound loaded semi $16,000 at the California border, given that truck may have originated from Florida? What about emergency vehicles like a 27,000 pound firetruck...how much does / should the county be charged for it's share of road taxes?

I also think the more red tape you add to taxation policy, the more expensive it becomes.

 

[michael]

I would much rather they keep increasing the gas tax to make up the shortfall and wean people away from gas. Tax it out of use much as tobacco has been.

Obviously at some point the burden would need to be shifted on to EVs but now is far too soon

I think the burden of building & maintaining roads should be shared by all that drive on them - not "shifted" to any one particular group. I have no problem with additional taxes on gasoline & tobacco, but people driving EV's use roads too and shouldn't be exempt from paying their fair share.

Ultimately, yes, I agree. But for now, the government should avoid doing things which reduce the appeal of EV's. What's the logic in paying incentives and then taking them away with a substitute for gas taxes.

And as pointed out by another poster, the wear caused by EV's, or any other car for that matter, to the road is small compared to that caused by heavy vehicle.

Additionally, I would point out that EV fuel is subject to utility taxes, at least where I live. In a sense that is the counterpart to gasoline taxes

When the happy day comes when significant numbers of EV's are on the road, then sure, of course, we need to share the costs of the roads. But in the meanwhile, we are avoiding pollution, we are reducing the price of gasoline (by not using any), we are paying for horrific depreciation, and we are dealing with the inconveniences of limited charging locations. We shouldn't have to pay extra money as well. We are already doing our "fair share".

 

[michael]

While mass matters, It's probably not as simple as taxing based on weight. If a motorcycle driver pays $100 per year for his 500 pound motorcycle, is it realistic to charge the driver of a 80,000 pound loaded semi $16,000 at the California border, given that truck may have originated from Florida? What about emergency vehicles like a 27,000 pound firetruck...how much does / should the county be charged for it's share of road taxes?

I also think the more red tape you add to taxation policy, the more expensive it becomes.

In California, publicly owned (state, county, city, etc) vehicles are exempted from all licensing fees. They do, however, pay fuel tax. US Government vehicles are exempt from fuel tax. Vehicles used off road are exempt from fuel tax. Busses are exempt from fuel tax. Fuel dispensed into a drum is exempt.

It's already plenty complex.

 

[WetEV]

While mass matters, It's probably not as simple as taxing based on weight. If a motorcycle driver pays $100 per year for his 500 pound motorcycle, is it realistic to charge the driver of a 80,000 pound loaded semi $16,000 at the California border, given that truck may have originated from Florida? What about emergency vehicles like a 27,000 pound firetruck...how much does / should the county be charged for it's share of road taxes?

I also think the more red tape you add to taxation policy, the more expensive it becomes.

Mass of motorcycle means wear close to zero, so fair would be taxing the motorcycle at close to zero. 500^4/80000^4 * $16,000 = $0.000024 Fair would be a motorcycle paying 1/500 of a cent, if the truck pays $16000.

There are tradeoffs between simple, fair, easy to enforce and politically possible. Insisting on simple, fair and easy to enforce, and it would not pass as the trucking company associations take all the legislators out to dinner and feed them steak and lobster. The motorcycle drivers don't do that.

Trucking is subsidized by not paying for the wear and tear of highways and roads. $60 billion will buy a lot of steak and lobster dinners. We get the government that someone pays for.

 

[oilerlord]

[

Ultimately, yes, I agree. But for now, the government should avoid doing things which reduce the appeal of EV's. What's the logic in paying incentives and then taking them away with a substitute for gas taxes.

When the happy day comes when significant numbers of EV's are on the road, then sure, of course, we need to share the costs of the roads. But in the meanwhile, we are avoiding pollution, we are reducing the price of gasoline (by not using any), we are paying for horrific depreciation, and we are dealing with the inconveniences of limited charging locations. We shouldn't have to pay extra money as well. We are already doing our "fair share".

Buying an EV is an individual choice, driving it on a public road is a privilege. As a community, we pay for that privilege, through taxes that are collected to build and maintain those roads. The fact that we prefer driving vehicles that don't use gasoline, have horrific depreciation, and come with the inconveniences of charging stations - again are the choices we make as individuals. Keep in mind that those choices are balanced with tax credits, HOV access, and at times, "free" fuel that may be subsidized by tax payers and/or other homeowners in an HOA. I don't see it as paying "extra" money, if we're using public roads, and aren't paying to build & maintain them.

Delivery, distribution, transmission, administration, local access, and other fees we pay to our poco are for the most part, an end-to-end cost of bringing electricity to our homes, and really have nothing to do with road maintenance.

We'll just agree to disagree on this one.

 

[oilerlord]

There are tradeoffs between simple, fair, easy to enforce and politically possible. Insisting on simple, fair and easy to enforce, and it would not pass as the trucking company associations take all the legislators out to dinner and feed them steak and lobster.

Trucking is subsidized by not paying for the wear and tear of highways and roads. $60 billion will buy a lot of steak and lobster dinners. We get the government that someone pays for.

Do you think the American Trucking Associations lobby are the only group that buys legislators steak & lobster dinners? We may approve or disapprove of various lobby groups that we may or may not be aligned with, but we always get the government that someone pays for.

 

[flamaest]

Then you should care about taxing buses and trucks more, and cars less.

Exactly.

In California, when you buy a truck or anything which can haul stuff around, your yearly registration fees are calculated based on the notion that you will actually haul stuff up to a particular max weight. If you get pulled over and forced into a weigh station, and you are over the registered max haul weight , you are fined big time.

Having said this, CA already knows how much it's trucks weigh and they know trucks cause the most of the road damage. I would expect these costs to be distributed equally given that this weight data is already known to the DMV.

 

[oilerlord]

CA already knows how much it's trucks weigh and they know trucks cause the most of the road damage. I would expect these costs to be distributed equally given that this weight data is already known to the DMV.

It isn't as simple as distributing the cost equally by weight. Changes like that have cause & effect. Look around...most everything around you, and what you consume was delivered by truck (including our EV's). Do you want to pay $8/pound for bananas and $40 for a bag of coffee? Freight companies won't simply absorb the cost of a substantial tax increase - it will be passed on to you and me.

 

[WetEV]

CA already knows how much it's trucks weigh and they know trucks cause the most of the road damage. I would expect these costs to be distributed equally given that this weight data is already known to the DMV.

It isn't as simple as distributing the cost equally by weight. Changes like that have cause & effect. Look around...most everything around you, and what you consume was delivered by truck (including our EV's). Do you want to pay $8/pound for bananas and $40 for a bag of coffee? Freight companies won't simply absorb the cost of a substantial tax increase - it will be passed on to you and me.

If the wear that trucks cause is so expensive as to rise freight rates to make $40 coffee, then you will pay it one way or the other. Either with $40 coffee, or by paying taxes to fix the roads for the trucks. There is no free lunch, or free roads. Someone has to pay.

If it really does $40 in damage to move a bag of coffee, I doubt it, but it if did, it would be best put the cost on the activity doing the wear/damage so we see the real cost of the goods in the stores.