jeffro01
Active Member
It absolutely is but unfortunately I wouldn't get your hopes up as per mileage based tax plans are seen as big brother is watching you stuff and have yet to really gain much traction...
Jeff
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Illinois Infrastructure Plan Would Raise EV Registration Fees to $1,000/yr
- Thread starter annetoneyo
- Start date
It absolutely is but unfortunately I wouldn't get your hopes up as per mileage based tax plans are seen as big brother is watching you stuff and have yet to really gain much traction...
Jeff
Dre78
Member
How do we reach out to the owners of Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, and other affordable EV owners?
But it is not now free. Every owner in IL pays a registration fee. It is just that the ONLY benefit EVs get is a reduced fee. Other progressive states provide other incentives which IL doesn’t. Also, we pay taxes on electricity, so it is not like EV owners pay nothing.
If IL wants to raise the fee for EVs to compensate for not paying gasoline taxes, that would be ok, but not so much larger than comparable ICE owners pay in gasoline taxes. I believe this is an effort by the auto dealers association to make EVs uneconomic for all but wealthy people.
Right, they do.
It still makes little sense since you can use almost no gas in a Volt (depending on how it's used), but you'd inevitably use some gas. (Search "Volt Engine Maintenance Mode" and/or "Volt Fuel Maintenance Mode".)
But if lawmakers want to force EV owners to pay extra to make up for lost gas tax revenue, they'd have to draw the line somewhere. (Unless they want to do something more complex like having a sliding scale based on mpg or have a mileage tax or a weight tax.)
To avoid cross-posting... my email to various legislators and the gov here: Illinois EV registration proposal to increase fee to $1000/year!
Feel free to reuse any or all.
Feel free to reuse any or all.
Dre78
Member
Is it the Bolt I'm thinking of!? I get 'em confused. Whatever the all electric is. Or are the Leaf and Chevy so light they are exempt?
I ended up on TV last night talking about this topic.
About 24 minutes in my bit begins. Wttw Chicago, Chicago Tonight May 14th if you don't trust random links on the internet.
I would expect plug in hybrids to become much more popular here if this goes through.
I have quite a bit of content I couldn't get through due to time.
Let me know what you think.
FVEAA President
About 24 minutes in my bit begins. Wttw Chicago, Chicago Tonight May 14th if you don't trust random links on the internet.
I would expect plug in hybrids to become much more popular here if this goes through.
I have quite a bit of content I couldn't get through due to time.
Let me know what you think.
FVEAA President
Last edited:
Suggest you tighten up your talking points until you can hit the nail with one sentence each. I’d skip the whole incentives thing. That was yesterday. Main points should be: equitable ($1000 ain’t), use based (registration fee ain’t), tax all road users (only in state misses high % road use), keep IL in front on sustainable energy and clean air, and IMO head on address how this crap gets started. I’d say “make no mistake, this ridiculous $1000 number is the auto dealers taking another shot at Tesla. Not because they are EVs, but because they have a direct sales model that cuts out the dealers. Let’s pay for roads by all means, but let’s make it fair!
I’m also big on graphic example. Fact is that gas driver would have to drive 58,000 miles per year to pay 1,000 in gas taxes. Drop mic.
I will keep that in mind, but I am definitely not a professional at talking on TV or radio. First time for me. I wasn't trying to be negative but constructive on how to proceed.
Did you like the idea of taxing DC fast charging?
It sounds like you generally agree with the points I was able to make, so I wasn't way off base.
Did you like the idea of taxing DC fast charging?
It sounds like you generally agree with the points I was able to make, so I wasn't way off base.
After watching this and hearing the other guy say that under the proposed plan the average gasoline vehicle driver would pay $600-$700/year in state+federal taxes and registration fees, I was flummoxed at first. That sounded way too high to me.
BUT, then I remembered IL charges sales tax on gasoline sales, so the total state tax rate per gallon would be higher than the proposed $0.44/gallon excise tax. It might be closer to $0.60/gallon.
And one could argue* that you should also include the $0.184/gallon federal gas tax in these revenue comparisons since most of the federal gas tax revenue goes back to the states in the end. (I'd disagree with this argument, but nevertheless...)
If you include the state sales tax and federal gas excise tax on top of the state gas excise tax and annual registration fee, I calculate that a driver with a 22mpg vehicle driving 12,000 miles/year would pay ~$575/year in taxes and registration, so pretty close to this guy's estimate. Still a far cry from $1000/year, but not as dramatically so as my previous estimates.
But it's still a fundamentally specious argument that EV drivers should pay the same as the average ICE driver, since that dollar figure is pushed way up by all of the gas guzzlers on the road. A fairer approach would be to compare costs to the driver of an efficient hybrid, or even by using an EV's MPGe figure to approximate gas taxes that way. (Assuming mileage taxes are not being considered.)
I know, TV is difficult. I've been media trained and done it a number of times, but when the red light goes on, it is difficult without a lot of practice.
I personally feel STRONGLY that there should be incentives for EVs. Because that's about the ONLY lever a government has to "steer" otherwise free enterprise towards a specific outcome. And, the huge subsidies for oil have become so institutionalized that they are invisible to most people. So, States SHOULD provide subsidies a) to get people to move to EVs because they CAN run off sustainable energy sources, and b) to get people to move to sustainable generation (e.g., solar, wind). However, I feel today that is a WEAK argument politically.
I DO like your idea of taxing fast charging because it is use based, captures out of state revenue, and can be tweaked to be roughly equivalent to gas taxes.
If I were you, my batting order would be:
1) It is inequitable.
a) A person driving a gas powered car would have to drive ~58,000 miles per year to pay $1000 gas tax (@$0.44 per gallon).
b) It is not tied to use. Someone driving 30,000 miles per year is paying more than someone driving 5,000 miles per year.
c) It does not capture revenue from out of state EV drivers and transport companies who use our roads.
2) A good use-based approach would be:
a) tax DC high voltage shared charging stations at a rate roughly equivalent to the gas tax, and
b) have drivers submit their odometer reading at registration and charge a tiered price that is roughly the same as the gas tax.
3) After all, don't we believe in sustainable energy and clean air in this State? Why are we proposing to penalize EV drivers and discourage the move to EVs when the market for them is growing exponentially and more manufacturers (e.g., VW/Audi, etc.) are bringing great products to market?
4) I suspect that an underlying motive for this is the automobile dealers' desire to kill Tesla because they sell direct to customers rather than through dealers... Ironically, an AMERICAN company making innovative cars in AMERICA and succeeding against great odds. This collaboration of politicians and auto dealers is an example of cronyism trying to protect a failing commercial model that most consumers dislike.
You may feel it is too controversial to get into #4... but to me this is clearly the origin.
I personally feel STRONGLY that there should be incentives for EVs. Because that's about the ONLY lever a government has to "steer" otherwise free enterprise towards a specific outcome. And, the huge subsidies for oil have become so institutionalized that they are invisible to most people. So, States SHOULD provide subsidies a) to get people to move to EVs because they CAN run off sustainable energy sources, and b) to get people to move to sustainable generation (e.g., solar, wind). However, I feel today that is a WEAK argument politically.
I DO like your idea of taxing fast charging because it is use based, captures out of state revenue, and can be tweaked to be roughly equivalent to gas taxes.
If I were you, my batting order would be:
1) It is inequitable.
a) A person driving a gas powered car would have to drive ~58,000 miles per year to pay $1000 gas tax (@$0.44 per gallon).
b) It is not tied to use. Someone driving 30,000 miles per year is paying more than someone driving 5,000 miles per year.
c) It does not capture revenue from out of state EV drivers and transport companies who use our roads.
2) A good use-based approach would be:
a) tax DC high voltage shared charging stations at a rate roughly equivalent to the gas tax, and
b) have drivers submit their odometer reading at registration and charge a tiered price that is roughly the same as the gas tax.
3) After all, don't we believe in sustainable energy and clean air in this State? Why are we proposing to penalize EV drivers and discourage the move to EVs when the market for them is growing exponentially and more manufacturers (e.g., VW/Audi, etc.) are bringing great products to market?
4) I suspect that an underlying motive for this is the automobile dealers' desire to kill Tesla because they sell direct to customers rather than through dealers... Ironically, an AMERICAN company making innovative cars in AMERICA and succeeding against great odds. This collaboration of politicians and auto dealers is an example of cronyism trying to protect a failing commercial model that most consumers dislike.
You may feel it is too controversial to get into #4... but to me this is clearly the origin.
I think it's a sad reality we will all face soon.The logic of it is simple: As EVs replace ICE cars over the next 10 years, all of the tax revenue from hydrocarbon transportation and sales will evaporate. I don't understand what savings a state will incur when that happens but one thing is for sure, there will be a shortfall they will need to make up somewhere!
LMFTFY
“Please forget this come election season. I blindly took the proposal from my auto dealer buddies who donate copiously to my campaign, not realizing that the registration fee was crazy high, nor that there were enough people driving electric cars who would notice and make noise.”
I just went through this in ND. Some points and questions for you:
1. The federal should not be considered. The states do not collect federal taxes. The feds could impose their own fees at any time. In reality the (intelligent) feds want EVs as it would reduce healthcare costs among other reductions long term (short term in pollution at local levels in dense populations).
2. The gas car number at $575 is fuel and registration. Does an EV not pay registration in IL already?
a. In ND we now pay $120 per EV (which is dumb, if I'm one person I can't drive 2, 3, 4 EVs at one time, but if I own more than one I'm charged like I drive them all at the same time.
3. Per mile: This was in NDs first proposal but they removed it after my testimony that told them of the issues of it long term (other states charging me tax for electricity when traveling) but for now it works since other states do not do that (MN is moving towards paying at the "electrical pump"). Even after testifying again it was completely unfair unless a person drives 12,000 miles a year. Not all EVs do that. I drive about 80% more than that. I should pay per mile and pay my (higher amount) fair share.
4. We both calculated on mpg of gas cars. I was told in testimony the fuel tax incentives more fuel efficient vehicles. Yet EV numbers are calculated on typical ICE cars all while the EVs are typically around 3-4x as fuel efficient. (BTU efficiency used for calculations).
Are you talking only road use tax or are you adding in sales tax? They should be separated out if both are charged because road use tax is specific, sales tax is not. Two different items to make "fair" and road use should not be combined with anything else since it is specifically earmarked.
Similar threads
