-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
A Graph for Electrify America
- Thread starter SageBrush
- Start date
RenMan68
Member
I looked for a while and couldn't find a really good place for this post but this seemed the best. If a moderator can move this to a more appropriate location I would be grateful.
So, electrify America... sort of what I'm thinking about. A "friend" of mine and I were discussing electric vehicles and he brought up the point about the tax credit being really unfair. He does not think people should be incentivized to buy these vehicles (at all) and specifically not by giving us tax money. He says that road repair is paid for by gas tax and EVs people are not contributing so it's a double-whammy that EV buyers get tax money to buy their car and then go on to not pay anything for road repair.
I'm not interested in arguing the point of using an incentive to promote EV adoption - that's another discussion. I am interested, however, in discussing the topic of tax revenue and road repair. It makes sense to, in the pre-EV days, tax gasoline for road repair. In Georgia it seems to be about 26%. (varies with municipalities). This is not perfect but pretty good in that wear on a road is caused by a vehicle in proportion to two things, primarily, the number of miles driven and the weight of the vehicles. Thus, a percentage tax on gas makes sense because people pay more if they drive more miles and they pay more if their vehicle is heavier, both conditions which increase the wear on the road.
Then EVs come along and complicate this. As an EV owner (Tesla Model 3) I agree that, since I use public roads, I should contribute to their maintenance. Makes sense. But since I don't buy gas and pay gas tax, what is a fair way to do that? In Georgia, I essentially pay more tax because I use more electricity than I would if I drove an ICE. There does not seem to be an explicit tax on electricity, but it's there in that the power company pays tax on the fuel it uses to generate electricity and passes that tax cost on to me through a higher price/kW-h rate. So, by using more electricity, I am adding to the state's tax revenue. The actual amounts are difficult to extract, but it seems clear that it's far less than 26% per equivalent gallon - mile so I'm contributing less on a per-mile basis than ICE drivers. So, how to compensate?
Options and considerations:
(1) Make EV owners pay a flat surcharge when renewing their tag
OK, but how much? It's not fair that a guy who only drives to the store on Sundays pays the same as the traveling salesman who puts 75,000 miles on his car each year.
(2) Have EV owners report their miles driven when they file their taxes and pay a percentage on the miles driven.
Not bad, but requires honesty. Still OK.
But how much? Do you pick a car that's roughly the same weight and apply its MPG rating to my miles then calculate an equivalent number of gallons (and thus tax) used? A problem with that is that even though weight plays a role, it's not the best indicator of efficiency. The 5.0L Mustang uses 30% more gas than the 2.3L Mustang but they're the same otherwise. Do we take the more efficient number, based on the fact that eMPG for a Model 3 is something like 132? If it's scaled that way, the Tesla driver uses about 19% as much "gas" as the 2.3L Mustang. Do I then pay 20% of the amount of gas tax the Mustang driver pays even though the cars are doing about the same wear on the road?
(3) Separate EV charging meters in homes
I have heard proposals along this line but it is highly problematic.
First, the cost to install separate meters in every EV house would be huge. Second, monitoring a separate meter doubles the effort of the power company to monitor and bill you. What a pain. Third, who's to stop me from charging my EV from a different outlet than the monitored one? What if I charge mostly at ChargePoint and Supercharger stations? Is the electricity I buy from those sources taxed? If it is, and I suspect it is, then options 1 & 2 are a problem because I'm being taxed TWICE on the same bundle of electrons.
This is a complicated problem to solve but I do feel that, as en EV owner who uses public roads, I should contribute *some* to their repair. I just don't know what would be a fair and feasible way to do it.
Anybody have thoughts on this?
So, electrify America... sort of what I'm thinking about. A "friend" of mine and I were discussing electric vehicles and he brought up the point about the tax credit being really unfair. He does not think people should be incentivized to buy these vehicles (at all) and specifically not by giving us tax money. He says that road repair is paid for by gas tax and EVs people are not contributing so it's a double-whammy that EV buyers get tax money to buy their car and then go on to not pay anything for road repair.
I'm not interested in arguing the point of using an incentive to promote EV adoption - that's another discussion. I am interested, however, in discussing the topic of tax revenue and road repair. It makes sense to, in the pre-EV days, tax gasoline for road repair. In Georgia it seems to be about 26%. (varies with municipalities). This is not perfect but pretty good in that wear on a road is caused by a vehicle in proportion to two things, primarily, the number of miles driven and the weight of the vehicles. Thus, a percentage tax on gas makes sense because people pay more if they drive more miles and they pay more if their vehicle is heavier, both conditions which increase the wear on the road.
Then EVs come along and complicate this. As an EV owner (Tesla Model 3) I agree that, since I use public roads, I should contribute to their maintenance. Makes sense. But since I don't buy gas and pay gas tax, what is a fair way to do that? In Georgia, I essentially pay more tax because I use more electricity than I would if I drove an ICE. There does not seem to be an explicit tax on electricity, but it's there in that the power company pays tax on the fuel it uses to generate electricity and passes that tax cost on to me through a higher price/kW-h rate. So, by using more electricity, I am adding to the state's tax revenue. The actual amounts are difficult to extract, but it seems clear that it's far less than 26% per equivalent gallon - mile so I'm contributing less on a per-mile basis than ICE drivers. So, how to compensate?
Options and considerations:
(1) Make EV owners pay a flat surcharge when renewing their tag
OK, but how much? It's not fair that a guy who only drives to the store on Sundays pays the same as the traveling salesman who puts 75,000 miles on his car each year.
(2) Have EV owners report their miles driven when they file their taxes and pay a percentage on the miles driven.
Not bad, but requires honesty. Still OK.
But how much? Do you pick a car that's roughly the same weight and apply its MPG rating to my miles then calculate an equivalent number of gallons (and thus tax) used? A problem with that is that even though weight plays a role, it's not the best indicator of efficiency. The 5.0L Mustang uses 30% more gas than the 2.3L Mustang but they're the same otherwise. Do we take the more efficient number, based on the fact that eMPG for a Model 3 is something like 132? If it's scaled that way, the Tesla driver uses about 19% as much "gas" as the 2.3L Mustang. Do I then pay 20% of the amount of gas tax the Mustang driver pays even though the cars are doing about the same wear on the road?
(3) Separate EV charging meters in homes
I have heard proposals along this line but it is highly problematic.
First, the cost to install separate meters in every EV house would be huge. Second, monitoring a separate meter doubles the effort of the power company to monitor and bill you. What a pain. Third, who's to stop me from charging my EV from a different outlet than the monitored one? What if I charge mostly at ChargePoint and Supercharger stations? Is the electricity I buy from those sources taxed? If it is, and I suspect it is, then options 1 & 2 are a problem because I'm being taxed TWICE on the same bundle of electrons.
This is a complicated problem to solve but I do feel that, as en EV owner who uses public roads, I should contribute *some* to their repair. I just don't know what would be a fair and feasible way to do it.
Anybody have thoughts on this?
Yes. You have bought into the fallacy of partial accounting.
Your friend notices that you do not pay your 'fair share' in road maintenance but ignores the cost of pollution he dumps on you. He ignores the military burden you are forced to carry so that he has oil. He ignores the cost of AGW he foists on you. He ignores the cost of petro-dollars leaving the country. And he ignores the cost of state sponsored terrorism funded by oil.
RenMan68
Member
Hi SageBrush, Thanks for responding. Very interesting counter-points. I hadn't thought about the pollution contribution - do you know if anybody has calculated the pollution reduction? Again, it's not a simple thing although I'm sure the pollution is greatly reduced but it varies by state. I think California has a large percentage of non-polluting energy sources (solar, hydroelectric, wind, etc.) but in Georgia here coal is about 25% and natural gas about 41%. It looks like New Mexico is 33% natural gas, 47% coal, and 20% renewables. It would be interesting to see how much pollution my added electricity consumption is relative to a (well-maintained, to be fair) ICE. Off the cuff, with no backup whatsoever, I'm guessing an EV is resulting in < 5% of the pollution an ICE generates. That assumes power plants are conforming to pollution control regulations and the regulations are not being dismantled by the federal government... as we speak.
As for your other points, what is AGW?
Military burden, oil-funded terrorism - valid topics. That kind of discussion always leads into a debate about the 'directness' of the causal relationship. However, no matter at what point of the chain you decide to analyze the situation (ranging from state-sponsored terrorism to fixing a pothole) it seems that EVs are good for the host country, in this case the USA, since it's very unlikely, almost inconceivable to me, that electricity would be imported. That's not to say that oil which is then used to make electricity, isn't imported, but solar panels, for example, are perfect for the US which has lots of horizontal space and gets a lot of sunlight. (latitudes conducive to lots of sun). The USA apparently has lots of natural gas, too, which is used often to make electricity and, as I understand, is much 'cleaner' than coal. Nuclear plants, of course, make lots of electricity without pollution (the discussion about storage of spent fuel is another ball of wax) but hydroelectric and wind are gimmes - domestic, clean, etc. You're right in that getting away from importing foreign oil changes the economics and politics of energy in a very dramatic way and almost certainly for the better. Countries whose economies largely depend on oil exports will go through a *significant* economic and cultural shift along the way... but get rid of lots of problems in the process.
Anyway, thanks again for your reply - partial accounting is certainly a topic I will bring up the next time I get into a discussion with the aforementioned guy.
Now, if I could just get a solar panel array installed on my roof...
srs5694
Active Member
Many have tried, with varying (but mostly at least vaguely similar) results. One with with nice state-by-state graphs is this US Department of Energy site. As far as I can tell, though, that site presents data based on strict state boundaries, whereas most energy distribution is more regional. For instance, my home state of Rhode Island is part of a regional network called ISO New England. Electricity produced in Massachusetts might be consumed in Rhode Island or Connecticut; and those patterns can vary with both supply and demand.
According to that DOE site, Georgia is pretty close to the national average -- 41% natural gas, 26% nuclear, 25% coal, and much smaller amounts of others (vs. 35% natural gas, 28% coal, 19% nuclear, and much smaller amounts of other fuels nationally). California relies even more on natural gas (47%), but solar is #2, at 14%, and #3 is hydro, at 13%. Some other notable clean-energy states are Washington (70% hydro) and Vermont (59% hydro, 18% biomass, 17% wind, 6% solar, and 0.08% natural gas).
This YouTube video has some interesting statistics and graphs that sort of get at this question.
It can be in border states. I don't have exact figures handy, but I know that some electricity consumed in New England is imported from Canada, which has copious amounts of hydroelectric power available. IIRC, this is especially common on hot summer days. This is definitely more the exception than the rule, at least for the US.
The information is widely available with a google search but you have to be more precise what pollution you mean: carbon (CO2), SOx or NOx ?
In the case of carbon pollution utility power plants emit about 1 kg per kWh if coal is combusted;
About 0.6 Kg per kWh if NG is combusted
Petrol ("gasoline" to Americans) is about 11 Kg per gallon between refining and tailpipe emissions
So e.g. if your state is 0.46 NG and 0.25 coal then average CO2 per kWh =
(0.46*0.6 + 0.25*1) = 0.526 Kg per kWh
Presuming 4 miles per kWh, EV driving on grid electricity would be ~ 130 grams per mile
An ICE is ~ 3x more
Or you can just look it up on the fueleconomy.gov website
---
Here is a morsel for your friend to chew on: The $7,500 EV tax credit was enacted during the last Bush administration. The amount was arrived at by estimating the cost to the US economy from the flight of petro-dollars out of the country. Imagine if just half of the currently externatlized petrol costs were accounted for. Any reasonable accounting makes it blindingly obvious fossils are bankrupting the US.
Last edited:
RenMan68
Member
Cheburashka
Active Member
We pay an EV road tax fine every year in California. $60, in addition to being taxed on the value of your car.
1. BEV pay tolls the same as anyone. (At least in my state), so zero difference there.
2. Most road damage is caused by heavy trucks, they don't pay nearly their fair share.
3. Each gallon of gas or diesel burned cause $12 to $17 in healthcare costs. ICE car drivers should pay their fair share.
4. ICE vehicles spill contaminants over the roads which have to be cleaned up. BEVs reduce that by at least 90%.
5. BEVs don't have oil changes so there is almost no recycle oil cost. (just the reduction gear oil, 0.5 liters every 100K miles or so).
6. Oil and gas companies get billions in subsidies, makes the BEV programs look like less than pocket change. I'd be all for dropping any BEV subsidies if all the oil and gas subsidies were also dropped. Note that besides the direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, there is also all the military spending to protect the oil supply. Why don't the oil and gas companies pay for that?
Wow! That is a big fee. I was concerned about California charging me $100 EV fee.
Better tell the state to double (or triple) the gas tax to make it fair for you and other Georgia EV owners.
RenMan68
Member
It does seem unfairly high since I read that the taxes on our gas are $0.31 / gallon. I drive about 1,000 miles / month so... if I had a ICE car that averaged 25 mph that would be 40 gallons / month -> 480 gal / yr -> $149. They're charging me about $65 / year extra. That's what happens in a state where EVs are despised by the politicians in charge simply because the 'other' party, by and large, likes them.
Similar threads
- Marketplace listing
