TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Federal Highway Bill Extends New User Fee to Electric Vehicles

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Lanny, Jul 22, 2015.

  1. Lanny

    Lanny @Lanny

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    641
    Location:
    Maryland
    The U.S. Senate’s long-term transportation bill called the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy (DRIVE) Act (H.R. 22) includes "user-based alternative revenue mechanisms" that are essentially user fees designed to support the Highway Trust Fund.

    The following line is in the summary from the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee:
    Extends new user fee to electric vehicles: The DRIVE Act ensures all users of the roads and bridges pay their fair share with a new federal share program initializing new state controlled user fees.

    Lanny
     
  2. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    Whenever I hear this phrase, my instinct is to make sure my wallet is still in my pocket.
     
  3. wycolo

    wycolo Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,423
    Location:
    WY
    BEVs should also receive a credit for virtually complete elimination of liquid fuel spills, at the delivery as well as the vehicle end.
    --
     
  4. cpa

    cpa Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    936
    Location:
    Central Valley
    Section 11022 mandates money be set aside for identifying, developing and improving EV charging stations across the country, including improving electrical infrastructure. (I really do not know how to reproduce three pages of text in a 1000-page bill, sorry!)

    If I read the text correctly, part of this requirement is to develop unified infrastructure and charging standard needs for utilities, charging stations and vehicle manufacturers. (At least there will be a report on same.)

    It appears to me that Congress perceives the arrival of BEVs is here to stay, and they want to persuade manufacturers to start thinking along those lines.

    I would be surprised if many of the target dates will be met--we all know how slow the bureaucratic process takes, and how much pressure will come from the various players involved directly or indirectly to develop these corridors and standards.
     
  5. nwdiver

    nwdiver Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,401
    Location:
    United States
    I will resist any and all efforts to pay my 'fair share' for the roads while bubba and his corvette get a free ride dumping waste in my air....

    I agree that roads aren't free.... neither is climate change... Carbon Tax FIRST... then I pay for road maintenance.
     
  6. drees

    drees Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,121
    Location:
    San Diego
    This seems to be a favorite phrase with politicians, yet it's only used when things are distinctly not fair.

    If you wanted a fair road use fee, you'd simply make the tax based on vehicle weight (the heavier a vehicle is, the more damage it does, and heavier vehicles do dis-proportionally more damage than lighter vehicles) and highway miles traveled. Annual odometer readings would suffice.

    As others have said, once all polluters pay their fair share for damage done, I'd be more than happy to pay a road use fee that is actually fair.
     
  7. Lanny

    Lanny @Lanny

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    641
    Location:
    Maryland
  8. FlasherZ

    FlasherZ Sig Model S + Sig Model X + Model 3 Resv

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    7,019
    Always ranks up there with "commonsense".

    Any time you hear a politician say "commonsense", you know he's turned up the BS-selector to 11.
     
  9. apacheguy

    apacheguy Sig 255, VIN 320

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    So Cal
    Fair share? We did an analysis of this in another thread and determined it was the truckers who aren't paying their fair share. EVs are not responsible for any significant amount of road wear.

    see SB 16 in California: $100 annual fee for ZEVs post 23
     
  10. jbcarioca

    jbcarioca Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2015
    Messages:
    1,293
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Coral Gables, FL
    We all are thinking of 'fair share' justifiably. Now we need to assess the financial impact of oil depletion allowances, US military expenses to protect the oil industry (how much is the US Coast Guard expense for patrolling oil rigs in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf from Bahrain? How about defense of Saudi Arabia? et al), not to mention all the tax and financing preferences given to oil companies, oil and gas pipelines, refineries, gas stations and assorted other infrastructure. And that is just the US. Worldwide fossil fuel subsidies are astounding. Even though EV's are charged typically using utility power that is still much more efficient than is ICE use. If the federal fuel tax Highway Trust Fund(HTF) portion is the issue they only need to think about the perverse rules now in place that fund the most from the least efficient vehicles, give large trucks a partial pass, and end out starving the HTF as CAFE and other factors improve fuel economy.

    They really need to revamp the HTF rather than penalize anybody in particular. The problem is far deeper than just EV's.
     
  11. JimmyAZ

    JimmyAZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    United States
    +1 to this!!
     
  12. Skotty

    Skotty 2014 Model S P85

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    #12 Skotty, Jul 23, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2015
    The stuff about infrastructure needs to be looked over closely to see if any special interests are trying to legislate road blocks for Tesla Supercharging. As far behind as other automakers are in that regard, I definitely wouldn't put it past them.

    -- UPDATE --
    Upon first gloss over, everything looks innocent in regards to infrastructure, though it could become a future avenue of attack.
     
  13. CmdrThor

    CmdrThor Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    854
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    We already pay $200 annually per EV in Georgia. This had better not be in addition to that fee ...
     
  14. rickgt

    rickgt Enthusiast owner/member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    316
    Location:
    Carmel
    Correct on that...


     
  15. CHG-ON

    CHG-ON Still in love after all these miles

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,755
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Mountains, USA
    I am OK paying a reasonable fee for using the roads, now that I don't pay gas taxes. But I have two requirements:

    -It's reasonable
    -They fix these completely F#$$%^* roads that are in lousy condition. If they did that, I'd be happy to pay a fee.

    But they won't.

    HEAR me REPUBLICANS! Fix our infrastructure. Show real results and I will be happy to pony up cash.
     
  16. Merrill

    Merrill Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,096
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    Again, the biggest problem is that the money collected from the gas tax that is supposed to be used for road repair does not go to road repair. Fix that first and we would not need additional money. Any taxes that will be charged to EV users need to go not to the general fund but only to road repair and maintenance. No problem paying to keep the roads I use in good shape if that's where the money collected is distributed.
     
  17. dsm363

    dsm363 Roadster + Sig Model S

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    18,235
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Agree. Funds should go towards actual roads then you'd have very little complaining from anyone.
     
  18. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,501
    Location:
    Maine
    Because if none of the money went on transit, the 25% increase in available money would by itself more than cover all necessary highway expenditure.

    Er, no.
     
  19. jerry33

    jerry33 S85 - VIN:P05130 - 3/2/13

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    12,753
    Location:
    Texas
    Agreed IF the taxes are lowered when roads are up to par. They have this law in Japan and the result is that they build more and more unnecessary roads and bridges because they have all this extra money.
     
  20. dsm363

    dsm363 Roadster + Sig Model S

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    18,235
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    There should be independent oversight from civil engineers who have no direct benefit from which bridges are built unlike the politicians who distribute the funds.
     

Share This Page