California, calls and signatures needed to stop EV fee's of $165 per EV per year!!

[gene]

California, calls and signatures needed to stop EV fee's of $165 per EV per year!! You can thank the oil industry for being the money behind these many state laws that have been passed.

http://hq-org.salsalabs.com/o/2711/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1362240

 

[Az_Rael]

I think EVs should be paying a mileage-based fee for a road tax vs a fixed amount. More fair that way.

$165 per year is probably less than I paid in gas taxes every year, but I do drive 28k per year. I probably should be paying closer to $250 I would estimate based on my previous car.

 

[aesculus]

EV's should pay their share of the highway fees but understand that many of the programs that CA has enacted are to help promote EV adoption by reducing costs or providing rewards so you find yourself between a rock and a hard place here.

Personally I am willing to pay for it.

 

[ecarfan]

EV's should pay their share of the highway fees but understand that many of the programs that CA has enacted are to help promote EV adoption by reducing costs or providing rewards so you find yourself between a rock and a hard place here. Personally I am willing to pay for it.

I agree. I don't have a problem paying for road infrastructure. Since I haven't paid a penny of gasoline tax since October 2014, there needs to be a system in place to compensate for that. Whether the current system is the best approach or not is another issue. For now, EV owners should be assessed something to make up for the loss of gas tax revenue.

 

[Merrill]

Sometime next year this will all change with once the pilot program called California Road Charge is place. They are looking at several ways to collect money for the road maintenance, you will probably be able to choose from several systems. How many miles per year you drive, a flat fee per year based on your yearly mileage or pay as you go. Not sure why these bills are being presented when that all could change.

 

[X Fan]

Classic Government Bait & Switch.....notwithstanding, if everyone drove EV’s (which I favor btw), we would still need for the roads to be maintained. Thus, road fees for EV’s is fair.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

The CA road charge pilot pricing is 1.8 cents/mile. I have driven ~14k/ year in my S ..which would be ~$250 / year.
CA state facilities are currently trying to put in EV charging that would be free for public and state employees. Pretty big push for this at Caltrans right now.

 

[McRat]

In 2015, about $5.6 billion was collected from new cars sales taxes. Caltrans spends $10.5 billion currently.
Using sales taxes on new cars comes closer to parity and the tradition of taxing the wealthy in California. Lower income folk tend to buy cheaper cars. People who drive less tend to keep their cars more years. Everybody pays, those with more money pay more, those who drive less pay less.

 

[bxr140]

I'd very much like to see a road use fee based on weight and mileage. And I drive my heavy MS a lot!

 

[ecarfan]

In 2015, about $5.6 billion was collected from new cars sales taxes. Caltrans spends $10.5 billion currently. Using sales taxes on new cars comes closer to parity and the tradition of taxing the wealthy in California. Lower income folk tend to buy cheaper cars. People who drive less tend to keep their cars more years. Everybody pays, those with more money pay more, those who drive less pay less.

Fair point. However it doesn't directly address the issue of miles driven, which varies tremendously regardless of vehicle cost.

I'd very much like to see a road use fee based on weight and mileage. And I drive my heavy MS a lot!

Reasonable, but I question whether a 5,000 lb car causes twice the road damage that a 2,500 lb car causes.

I can envision there being weight categories, each with a range, and relatively minor fee increases for the heavier categories, with the primary fee driver being miles driven. But how will the state track miles driven for each car in a way that ensures accuracy and compliance?

 

[Skotty]

If to actually pay for road use, yes. If to push a pro fossil fuel agenda, then no. Intent matters.

 

[3Victoria]

My understanding is that most road damage is from trucks and other large vehicles.

 

[Dave EV]

I'd very much like to see a road use fee based on weight and mileage. And I drive my heavy MS a lot!

Yep - if it were anything but a flat fee, I'd be for it. At the very least, it should be odometer based (no GPS trackers). In addition, there should be factors for vehicle weight and pollution level.

 

[Lloyd]

How is the fuel tax money spent?

• About 85 percent of the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon goes to highways, and the remaining 15 percent goes for transit.

• On the state side, our 48.6 cents-a-gallon tax brings in around $5 billion a year. Of the total, about 57 percent goes to highways, 36 percent for cities and counties (for various needs, mostly streets and roads) and 7 percent for transit.
  Put it together, and you get a 90/10 split between roads and streets versus transit.

But that is not the full tax.

You also have to add sales tax to the price. In California, in addition to the state, sales tax is levied by the city or county and runs from 7.5 percent at the low end to 10 percent at the high end—the average is around 9 percent

Also, oil companies need to pay a “cap and trade” fee to save the earth. The first billion of this money goes to help finance the High Speed Rail, which is going to cost, when finished, $200 billion, (Now federal funding is in question!). The fee on the oil companies is a sliding one—the lower the price of gas, the lower the fee—the lowest being ten cents. But the higher the price of gas, the higher the fee


To recap:

• 48.6 cents for state tax
• 30-42 cents for sales tax
• 10 cents for cap and trade “fee”—tax on a tax
• 18.4 cents federal excise tax

Additionally the cost of designer ingredients for California Fuels adds an additional 12.5 cents to the cost of California fuels.

 

[McRat]

Fair point. However it doesn't directly address the issue of miles driven, which varies tremendously regardless of vehicle cost.
Reasonable, but I question whether a 5,000 lb car causes twice the road damage that a 2,500 lb car causes.

I can envision there being weight categories, each with a range, and relatively minor fee increases for the heavier categories, with the primary fee driver being miles driven. But how will the state track miles driven for each car in a way that ensures accuracy and compliance?

Vehicle miles is one of the controls on the lifespan of the vehicle. So a car that is driven less, has it's taxes spread out over more years. You are essentially taxing for the future, not the present.

The way materials decay, it's tire pressure that is the killer when it comes to potholes and crack expansion. Once you reach the yield point, decay happens rapidly. So a soft spot in a roadway might never see much harm from 32psi of loading, could decay rapidly at 51psi of loading. Trucks run 120psi. Bridges, it's weight.

 

[bxr140]

I question whether a 5,000 lb car causes twice the road damage that a 2,500 lb car causes.

Be mindful of jumping to conclusions--I did not suggest the weight component be linear.

But how will the state track miles driven for each car in a way that ensures accuracy and compliance?

There's plenty of options, some of which could be combined, none of which need to be identified as the solution right now.

Just thinking of a few:
--Considering the Paranoid Of The Man component, not everyone would be willing to opt into automated annual reporting...which is of course the easiest way.
--Required official inspections could gather data with some (like Smog).
--The 'tax' could be delayed until after the vehicle sale, where self-reporting would be necessarily accurate.

 

[Eclectic]

I changed the message that was on the website to this and had the site send it to my state senator and assemblymember.

Dear Legislator,

I am contacting you today with the urgent request to approve the $100 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) fee from SB 1. The proposed $100 road usage fee would support the growth of electric vehicle (EV) adoption in California and send a strong message to potential EV drivers as being promoted and encouraged on the one hand, and able to pay their fair share for needed infrastructure on the other hand.

Please do not fall for the hysteria of the anti-government forces who are urging you, in an organized campaign, to keep EV owners from paying their fair share. Eliminating all special treatment of EV owners will normalize EV ownership.

I urge you to approve the $100 fee in SB 1.
Thank you.

Respectfully,

 

[bxr140]

Yep - if it were anything but a flat fee, I'd be for it. At the very least, it should be odometer based (no GPS trackers). In addition, there should be factors for vehicle weight and pollution level.

Pollution can be managed at the pump and/or your electricity bill.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If it's based on mileage (and ideally also weight), then that is fine. But a flat rate can unfairly penalize low mileage drivers.

 

[Merrill]

I think everyone who drives on our roads should be included in road maintenance, so the California Road Charge program will address that. As far as weight big trucks definitely do more damage so you need to factor weight on the commercial side.