Ohio Proposed EV Ownership Fee

[5_+JqckQttqck]

This is up in Nebraska also where they want to increase the fee from the current $75 to $150/year. You have to compare the 126 MPGe of a Tesla to the same ICE car. Based on Nebraska ~$.30/gallon tax that same car would pay ~$25/year.

Without getting environmental the only fair way would be to tax based on miles driven. A Prius is currently paying 10x less per mile in tax then an old truck or sports car.

This all comes down to an easy money grab.

Two fronts - discourage EV adoption by increasing operating costs and money grab because people who can afford EVs can afford more taxes.

 

[C141medic]

One of my main issues with an EV “tax” is no one truly knows where this revenue goes. If it’s truly earmarked for infrastructure maintenance and repair, then yes I’m okay with it. However, if the revenue is reappropriated and does not go to that specific intended purpose then, it’s an issue. I’m surprised that in NJ not only do we not pay sales taxes on EV’s but there’s no use tax, yet.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The national average is less than 25 mpg.

So what? If the fuel tax is the "right" way, then guzzler buyers pay more and a Model X owner should pay more per mile than a Model S owner should pay more than a Model 3 owner.

A fixed fee _changes the way roads are priced_.

Sure, but then you'd be driving a Prius. Which is a pretty crap experience compared to driving a Tesla (having spent a decent amount of time both riding in, and driving, both).

The cost of road use is nothing to do with how nice your car is.

Currently (and for decades) most states paid for roads 2 ways (at the state level, 3 ways if you count federal money which is a whole other topic).

1) Road use/registration fees. Everyone paid them regardless of driving 5,000 miles a year or 50,000 miles a year. Sometimes it's a flat fee, sometimes it's based on vehicle value (which seems weird but many states do it. This still works fine for EVs or other alternative fuel vehicles other than the weirdness of connecting car value to road costs which exists for all cars.

Cost based on vehicle value is a property tax. That's how towns here get a lot of their revenue. That's wealth-based taxation of a public good.

2) Fuel taxes- this captured the "per mile" usage by charging X per gallon of fuel type. EV owners avoid this tax entirely. Therefore they have to have an EV fee to replace it.

Yes, have an "EV fee". But they can _easily_ replace it with something that works like fuel taxes.

You could certainly toss out the whole system and start from scratch... but that's not really a thing governments tend to do often, or well.

And when it involves changes to taxation for a large # of people it's even harder to actually make happen.

It's hard to make taxation changes that radically change pricing. But that's precisely what they're trying to do. EV owners and other interested parties need to oppose these fix fees by pointing out the obvious inconsistency.

The Honda Insight was first sold in the USA in _1999_. They've had 20 years and two fuel price spikes during which they could have fixed the system, but they've done nothing but whine.

It's an _easy_ change to make a simple system that matches with fuel taxation. A VIN and odometer reading is all the information you need, and they're both _already on the title and registration_. Then you just need a way to track payments against the VIN.

 

[brkaus]

Maybe focus strictly on roads and have the flat tax for all cars.

 

[Knightshade]

So what? If the fuel tax is the "right" way, then guzzler buyers pay more

And they do.... they buy more gallons so pay more fuel tax.... not sure what you're missing here?

and a Model X owner should pay more per mile than a Model S owner should pay more than a Model 3 owner.

There's no realistic way to capture this now unless you change the EV tax to be per-vehicle (and per options within vehicle)- which I suppose you could do but you'd need 50 states to all get on board AND all keep this detailed and updated.

A flat fee is vastly simpler/easier to administrate- so it's what virtually all do instead.

A fixed fee _changes the way roads are priced_.

Sure. It eliminates the ability to charge those who use it more more money for example.

The cost of road use is nothing to do with how nice your car is.

Agreed- which is why taxing for roads based on vehicle value is silly- as I already said.

Cost based on vehicle value is a property tax.

That is not true in all states. (which is why when you do your taxes if this is deductible or not varies by state)

Yes, have an "EV fee". But they can _easily_ replace it with something that works like fuel taxes.

Such as...what?

It's hard to make taxation changes that radically change pricing. But that's precisely what they're trying to do.

Nope... as pointed out the EV fees mostly are comparable (or in many cases cheaper) than what the average ICE owner pays in gas taxes.

It's an _easy_ change to make a simple system that matches with fuel taxation. A VIN and odometer reading is all the information you need, and they're both _already on the title and registration_. Then you just need a way to track payments against the VIN.

You realize not all states have odometer data annually, right? Quite a few of them in fact have none

So now you need to introduce a statewide inspection system that doesn't even exist in those states to capture that data (or a reporting system where you just take everyones word for it and have some enforcement system to follow up those who don't report, etc).

 

[Knightshade]

One of my main issues with an EV “tax” is no one truly knows where this revenue goes. If it’s truly earmarked for infrastructure maintenance and repair, then yes I’m okay with it. However, if the revenue is reappropriated and does not go to that specific intended purpose then, it’s an issue. I’m surprised that in NJ not only do we not pay sales taxes on EV’s but there’s no use tax, yet.

FWIW in my state the road use and fuel taxes are what directly funds the DOT/road builing/maintenance- it doesn't go to the general fund.

I know not all states do this but agree they should.

 

[SR22pilot]

GA is almost 10 cents a gallon cheaper state fuel tax than NC FYI.

Still, you're paying 27.5 cents per gallon there.

To be $98 you'd only be buying 356.36 gallons a year.

At national average of 24 mpg that only gets you 8552 miles.... a lot lower than the average amount of driving done in a year.



Anyway, to my point, here in NC our state fuel tax is 36.2 cents per gallon of gasoline.

An average driver (13,476 miles a year) getting average mileage (24 mpg) would pay $203.26 in state fuel taxes a year.

Versus the $130 EV tax.

So it's almost double to drive a gas car, tax-wise, in NC.

Certainly if a state is charing a lot more for EVs than a typical driver would pay in gas taxes that fee should be adjusted to be a lot nearer average- but the opposite is the case in my state at least- the EV tax is much lower.

And the Ohio one sounds the same from the #s posted so far.

I used to live 0.5 miles from work. Now I live 8.6 miles from work. My old car was a Hyundai Genesis R-Spec which would average about 21 MPG over a mix of driving. BTW, while it doesn't matter for this, gas here is currently around $2/gallon. I figure my Model 3 costs about $250 max ($150 on low end) per year for electricity. If I add in tax and a cost adjustment fee I pay $0.067271 per KWH. If I add solar (hope to just to be greener) then that goes to effectively zero since I would have the system for the house anyway. The reason for the range on the Model 3 is I find that A) I like to drive more and B) It is so cheap to drive that I tend to press the accelerator harder than I did in the Genesis.

What irks me is that there is a relatively fair way to do things. Eliminate the gas tax. Have everyone pay based on yearly mileage. ICE cars already have to get an emissions test each year. They record the mileage. For EV's just charge $5 to have the same people record the mileage. Now personally I think we need incentives to be more carbon neutral so I would favor an environmental impact fee (carbon tax) on gasoline. I wouldn't even mind if you did the same on coal and gas generated electricity.

 

[SR22pilot]

BTW, the problem with tracking mileage is it doesn't (easily) account for in-state or out-of-state use.

Nor does it account for gas bought across a border in another state. There is no perfect system. Give the tourists a break and hit them on hotels if you want. I just think a mileage tax is fairer than a blanket fee. What if I am retired and seldom drive? What if I am in sales and drive 30,000 miles a year? Flat fees aren't even close to being fair.

 

[Knightshade]

What irks me is that there is a relatively fair way to do things. Eliminate the gas tax. Have everyone pay based on yearly mileage. ICE cars already have to get an emissions test each year. They record the mileage..

In your state.

Not in many other states.

Nor does it, like the gas tax, penalize those with less efficient cars more than those with more efficient ones, for those who care about that incentive-wise.

 

[SR22pilot]

In your state.

Not in many other states.

Nor does it, like the gas tax, penalize those with less efficient cars more than those with more efficient ones, for those who care about that incentive-wise.

So your local car repair shop makes $5 for recording your mileage. As for the penalty for efficiency that is why I like a carbon tax.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

And they do.... they buy more gallons so pay more fuel tax.... not sure what you're missing here?

If guzzlers _should_ pay more than sippers , then guzzler EVs should be more expensive than sipper EVs.

I'm not missing anything.

There's no realistic way to capture this now unless you change the EV tax to be per-vehicle (and per options within vehicle)- which I suppose you could do but you'd need 50 states to all get on board AND all keep this detailed and updated.

A flat fee is vastly simpler/easier to administrate- so it's what virtually all do instead.

And it's not related in any way related to the amount of road use by the vehicle. It is adding a minimum amount to the cost of operating a vehicle.

It's not _vastly_ easier to administrate.
You only need a small amounts of information. (VIN, odometer), (VIN, payment date, payment amount).
It's easier to administrate than tolls.

If you are registering your vehicle in a new state, you will need to apply for a title, and to do that you will surrender your prior title. If you owe money to your prior state, you will have to pay the amount you owe otherwise your prior state will not accept surrendering the title.

Sure. It eliminates the ability to charge those who use it more more money for example.

Which is a fundamental change to the way the system works. If politicians want to change how the system works they should change it for _everybody_.

That is not true in all states. (which is why when you do your taxes if this is deductible or not varies by state)

Such as...what?

Odometer based pricing.

Nope... as pointed out the EV fees mostly are comparable (or in many cases cheaper) than what the average ICE owner pays in gas taxes.

There is a huge difference in cost for somebody who drives a car a few thousand miles per year compared to somebody who drives many tends of thousands of miles.

It creates a disincentive for the very people most easily able to live with an EV to own one.

And, if cheaper, it punts the problem. As EV ownership continues to increase, the EV fee becomes more important, which means that it would have to move towards matching ICEVs. Ultimately you would end up with a fixed fee based on the average cost of road use of the average EV owner and it's going to screw the low-mileage drivers, and cross-subsidize drivers with higher mileage.

The best chance to fix the problem is _now_, while numbers are still low.

You realize not all states have odometer data annually, right? Quite a few of them in fact have none

So now you need to introduce a statewide inspection system that doesn't even exist in those states to capture that data (or a reporting system where you just take everyones word for it and have some enforcement system to follow up those who don't report, etc).

I did not realize that. I know that my state requires an odometer reading and that California and a number of other states do. In any case, changing fees, requires a change to the registration system. Adding an odometer requirement would require a change to the registration system. It's not a lot of additional data required.

In your state, for example, you have an annual inspection. Taking an odometer reading at inspection would be simple.

And, as I mentioned before, titles have odometer readings. Those have to be right and the amount would have to be settled before any transfer would be allowed.

It would not be onerous or a large overhead to add in places that don't currently have the odometer.

If fuel taxes are really _not_ good, even for gasoline vehicles then fixed fees should be paid by _all_ drivers.

 

[lotusland]

know that my state requires an odometer reading and that California and a number of other states do.

CA does not track odometer readings other than when a car is sold. It does get recorded when getting smogged but many cars only get smogged every few years. Obviously some cars will never get smogged.

 

[Wyomingtim]

CA does not track odometer readings other than when a car is sold. It does get recorded when getting smogged but many cars only get smogged every few years. Obviously some cars will never get smogged.

Wyoming only records the odometer when you first title the car in the state. And WY has no annual inspections or emissions testing. You can drive damn near anything here!

 

[Knightshade]

So your local car repair shop makes $5 for recording your mileage. .

So now literally every car owner in the state needs to both pay a fee, and make a shop trip, they never had to before.

Versus the current system where they just pay at the pump?

People will hate that.

(not to mention the shops that will be responsible for paperwork and submitting data for 5 bucks.... not to mention how many would take a $20 to just lie....)

If guzzlers _should_ pay more than sippers , then guzzler EVs should be more expensive than sipper EVs.

I'm not missing anything.

You are though. Doing it for ICE at the pump is incredibly easy. Doing it for EVs not so much.

You only need a small amounts of information. (VIN, odometer), (VIN, payment date, payment amount).

None of which you have today in many states. So you need to now create an entire system to collect the data, pay for the collection, enforce the collection, apply the taxation (and enforce that).... versus the current system where this is all simply done at the pump for non-EVs (which is 99% of cars)

So yes, it's vastly more complex than a flat fee you just charge everyone.

It's easier to administrate than tolls.

Not until you get cars to auto-report their own mileage annually it's not, no.

I did not realize that. I know that my state requires an odometer reading and that California and a number of other states do. In any case, changing fees, requires a change to the registration system. Adding an odometer requirement would require a change to the registration system. It's not a lot of additional data required.

In your state, for example, you have an annual inspection. Taking an odometer reading at inspection would be simple.

Sure, but as I said- in many states no such annual inspection is required so it doesn't work there without setting up an entire inspection system that doesn't exist- or trusting self reporting (and requiring a self reporting system to exist)

And, as I mentioned before, titles have odometer readings. Those have to be right and the amount would have to be settled before any transfer would be allowed.

They have them unless it exceeds mechanical limits- which they do for a ton of older cars- in which case they just put exceeds limits- so that's not a useful enforcement mechanism for a ton of older cars which are the worst on efficiency anyway.

If fuel taxes are really _not_ good, even for gasoline vehicles then fixed fees should be paid by _all_ drivers.

Fuel taxes worked fine for most of the last century. The 2 things making it not work so well are:

1) (mostly the problem today)- cars are a lot more efficient, and states refuse to raise the tax to keep revenue the same to maintain roads because raising tax rates is unpopular even if the "total" amount ends up the same. This is a political/perception problem, not a flaw with fuel taxes though.

2) Cars that don't use fuel. This is a nearly insignificant issue today as 99% of cars still use gas- but going forward it'll increasingly be an issue. Odometer is a fine solution here IF all states had annual odometer data-but many don't.

 

[SR22pilot]

So now literally every car owner in the state needs to both pay a fee, and make a shop trip, they never had to before.

Versus the current system where they just pay at the pump?

People will hate that.

(not to mention the shops that will be responsible for paperwork and submitting data for 5 bucks.... not to mention how many would take a $20 to just lie....)
.

This is just a rehash of the old "It isn't a perfect system and I can imagine a way it doesn't work"

In Georgia everyone gets emissions tested. It works. People don't hate it even if it is a bit annoying. Reading an odometer is a 5 minute stop on the way home. Emissions testing takes much longer. The entry is a simple computer entry.

If you have a better FAIR tax then propose it. The flat fee is not even close to being fair. If you drive very little you over pay. That's me. If you drive a lot you basically get a free ride. I hate paying a penalty when I already stretched to help the environment and the state's attitude is s**** you, we will penalize you for not supporting big oil. At the same time this EV tax went into law all EV incentives were removed. The state went from being pro clean air to being pro big oil. Now congress wants to add yet another tax on EV's. Mad? You bet I am. I'm a high school teacher who stretched to do the right thing only to have the state penalize me for it.

 

[Knightshade]

This is just a rehash of the old "It isn't a perfect system and I can imagine a way it doesn't work"

No, it's a "the current system works fine for 99% of cars, and this other system depends on data collection that doesn't even exist in like 1/3rd of US states so you'd have to create it from scratch"

In Georgia everyone gets emissions tested. It works.

This, too, is not accurate.

Not everyone get emissions tested.

But even if it were true, it's not true in lots of other states

As mentioned like 8 times now.

People don't hate it even if it is a bit annoying. Reading an odometer is a 5 minute stop on the way home. Emissions testing takes much longer. The entry is a simple computer entry.

Sure. Now you need to set up that computer system. The state needs a reporting system, and all the shops in the state need direct access to it, a secure login so people can't just fake their own data, someone needs to maintain that system- check for compliance, pass the info to the taxing authority who needs to build systems to receive it and process it and issue tax bills, etc.

You also need shops to agree to bother doing this at all, meaning you have to let them charge more than 5 bucks for it or they won't bother.


All that is doable, but it's a lot more time, money, and work than you seem to think it is compared to the current system that again works fine for 99% of cars on the road (apart from states that refuse to adjust taxes appropriately for political reasons).

If you have a better FAIR tax then propose it. The flat fee is not even close to being fair.

For ICE vehicles, which again are 99% of all vehicles, it's not a flat tax.

The more you drive, the more you pay.

The only "problem" with capturing how much you drive is EVs.

If you want states that already capture and report ODO data to base the road use tax for EVs on that- no problem. THAT is pretty easy to do.

I'm pointing out that doesn't help a lot of states who don't currently capture that data, and telling them "just capture it" isn't nearly as easy or cheap as you seem to think.

Likely it'd cost more to create and run that system than they'd collect in taxes.... (that won't be true when there's a LOT of EVs out there- but in most states there aren't- esp the ones that don't inspect today).

 

[SR22pilot]

No, it's a "the current system works fine for 99% of cars, and this other system depends on data collection that doesn't even exist in like 1/3rd of US states so you'd have to create it from scratch"




This, too, is not accurate.

Not everyone get emissions tested.

But even if it were true, it's not true in lots of other states

As mentioned like 8 times now.




Sure. Now you need to set up that computer system. The state needs a reporting system, and all the shops in the state need direct access to it, a secure login so people can't just fake their own data, someone needs to maintain that system- check for compliance, pass the info to the taxing authority who needs to build systems to receive it and process it and issue tax bills, etc.

You also need shops to agree to bother doing this at all, meaning you have to let them charge more than 5 bucks for it or they won't bother.


All that is doable, but it's a lot more time, money, and work than you seem to think it is compared to the current system that again works fine for 99% of cars on the road (apart from states that refuse to adjust taxes appropriately for political reasons).




For ICE vehicles, which again are 99% of all vehicles, it's not a flat tax.

The more you drive, the more you pay.

The only "problem" with capturing how much you drive is EVs.

If you want states that already capture and report ODO data to base the road use tax for EVs on that- no problem. THAT is pretty easy to do.

I'm pointing out that doesn't help a lot of states who don't currently capture that data, and telling them "just capture it" isn't nearly as easy or cheap as you seem to think.

Likely it'd cost more to create and run that system than they'd collect in taxes.... (that won't be true when there's a LOT of EVs out there- but in most states there aren't- esp the ones that don't inspect today).

EV's may be small now but how about a system that makes sense 5 years from now? As for the equipment etc., Georgia was meant as an existence proof that it can be done and work reasonably well. I want a system that encourages EV adoption rather than one that discourages it. If you want to see the motivation behind this just look at the backers of the EV tax in congress and who their donors are. ICE cars damage the environment but they get a tax break compared to EV's. But... you think that's fine because there are only a few of us EV owners so messing us over is OK. The fact is that EV's will eventually dominate. We need to fund roads. So... we need a fair system that takes EV's into account. You also seem fine with a system that charges a retired couple driving 5,000 miles a year the same as a businessman driving 30,000 miles a year. I disagree with that. Hence I want a mileage tax for road use and a carbon tax on gas for environmental impact.

 

[Knightshade]

EV's may be small now but how about a system that makes sense 5 years from now? As for the equipment etc., Georgia was meant as an existence proof that it can be done and work reasonably well.

I agree it can work reasonable well in a state that already has the required inspections and reporting infrastructure

In the decent % of US states that have no such thing- not so much.


And I've mentioned it to you a few times now.... but not all cars in GA are required to get an annual inspection

GA only requires annual inspection if:

You live in one of 13 specific counties (and thus only shops in those places are set up to report back up to the state- and it's pretty much just the ones around Metro Atlanta)
AND
your car is more than 3 years old
AND
your car is less than 25 years old.

Even THEN there's a slew of additional exemptions-

Seniors age 65 or older who own a car more than 10 years old and who drive fewer than 5,000 miles per year are exempt from inspections.

Exemptions may also be given for cars that use alternative fuels and for antique collector cars that are 25 years or older.

And not every vehicle must be inspected annually. Motorcycles, RVs, motor homes and diesel vehicles do not need to get testing in order to be registered in the state.


So....lots of holes in your plan even in your own state you think is a great "example"

I want a system that encourages EV adoption rather than one that discourages it.

Charging a road use tax lower than the average driver in the average ICE vehicle would pay in fuel taxes does exactly that.

Which is what most states currently have (if they have any EV tax at all).

EVs are already an edge case.... EV owners who also drive so few miles the road use tax is more expensive than ICE gas taxes is a SUPER edge case right now.

If you want to see the motivation behind this just look at the backers of the EV tax in congress and who their donors are. ICE cars damage the environment but they get a tax break compared to EV's. But... you think that's fine because there are only a few of us EV owners so messing us over is OK.

No, I think spending millions of dollars to collect thousands of extra in taxes is financially stupid, because that's how math works.

And that's what you'd get if you wanted to roll out your suggested system in the many states that don't currently have mandatory annual inspections for all vehicles that report back up to the state (which, again, is quite a few of em- INCLUDING GEORGIA, though GA at least has that set up in SOME of the state)


I've no objection at all to such a system when they've already got all the back end and requirements in place ANYWAY- and already said so. But only a minority of states have this.


In fact- from what I can tell, only 15 out of 50 US states require periodic SAFETY inspections (meaning they don't exempt a ton of cars and areas to start with) and some do it every 2 years instead of annually

The fact is that EV's will eventually dominate. We need to fund roads. So... we need a fair system that takes EV's into account.

Yup.

At some point in the future this is a problem where it'll make sense to spend many millions of dollars to collect the "missed" revenue in a state.

Right now though it'd cost a ton more than it'd collect, since EVs are such a tiny % of the vehicle population.

So things like EV road taxes are a decent bridge for now as long as they're a reasonable amount.

You also seem fine with a system that charges a retired couple driving 5,000 miles a year the same as a businessman driving 30,000 miles a year. I disagree with that.

Funny enough- a retired couple in Georgia driving only 5000 miles a year do not need to get their car inspected there.... (even if you add a 0 to miles driven they STILL don't need to get inspected in 146 out of the 159 counties in GA).

So you couldn't tax em your way either

 

[Evoforce]

I am against it...we are helping to lower pollution. Nuff said...

 

[Plug it in]

The Ohio House passed the bill with the $200/year EV tax.
Ohio House passes transportation bill to increase fuel taxes