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

SB 16 in California: $100 annual fee for ZEVs

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by RandyS, May 18, 2015.

  1. RandyS

    RandyS Fan of Elon

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    San Diego
    fyi, in case you haven't heard...SB 16 is working its way through the process to help raise funds for California's roads...

    Features (so far) include:

    * Increase California vehicle registration from $43 to $78
    * Increase California fuel tax 10 cents per gallon for gasoline and 12 cents per gallon for diesel
    * Increase VLF fee/tax from 0.65% of car's value by 0.07% each year for 5 years (ultimately to 1%)
    * Add a new ZEV fee of $100/year

    Read More:
    Bealls Future | Senator Jim Beall

    SB16 | California 2015-2016 | Department of Transportation.
     
  2. CHG-ON

    CHG-ON Still in love after all these miles

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,754
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Mountains, USA
    Well, we are using the roads and they are losing all that revenue that we used to pay when we bought gas. I guess I am willing to contribute. It's a lot less than the gas taxes I used to pay.
     
  3. RandyS

    RandyS Fan of Elon

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    San Diego
    I agree. I think $100/year is fair...The increase to the VLF tax will hit Tesla owners harder than owners of cheaper cars, though...
     
  4. apacheguy

    apacheguy Sig 255, VIN 320

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    3,704
    Location:
    So Cal
    Strongly disagree. You want to know who's damaging the roads in California? It's not EVs, it's not even most ICE sedans. It's big rig truckers. For proof just ride in their lanes and notice the difference. They chew up our roads so bad.

    i will also reiterate my strongly held opinion that California needs to increase EV incentives in order to achieve Gov Brown's targets related to ZEV purchases and the broader GHG reduction targets. We ought to strive to look more like Norway, which does a very impressive job of spurring EV sale growth.
     
  5. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    10,321
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    I am happy to pay that EV fee. Yes,nbig trucks are hard on roads, but they already pay huge road use fees. Everyone who uses public roads needs to pay for their upkeep, including EVs.
     
  6. igotzzoom

    igotzzoom Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    Laguna Hills, CA
    Nobody likes to pay more taxes, but as more EVs hit the roads, and as gas tax revenues continue to decline, there has to be some way to make up the shortfall for road maintenance. It's either that or Big Brother tracking you 24/7, or toll roads everywhere.
     
  7. DrComputer

    DrComputer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    891
    Location:
    Sherman Oaks, CA
    This is why we should change the way vehicle registration in California is calculated from the value of the car to the weight of the vehicle (as other states do). This would more fairly represent the wear and tear on the road than the cost of the car does.
     
  8. apacheguy

    apacheguy Sig 255, VIN 320

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    3,704
    Location:
    So Cal
    EVs currently comprise a negligible percentage of new car sales. We need to get that number up before we begin to think about curtailing incentives. Perhaps Norway is at a point where they can start weighing these options but CA most certainly is not.
     
  9. miimura

    miimura Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,241
    Location:
    Los Altos, CA
    In general, I agree with what they're trying to do. However, I prefer to align fees to costs. The registration fee will go from $43 to $78. Where does that money go? Certainly, it does not cost $78 to process license plate renewals and mail a printout back to owners. They should just add a new $35 Road Use Fee or something. I think in order to qualify the VLF as a Personal Property Tax, it must be percentage based, otherwise I would suggest to add the flat amount there. Also it was stated that the Bill proposes to move the Truck Weight Fee from the General Fund and earmark it for road maintenance. This is good. However, they don't say where the $100 ZEV fee will go. If you're going to claim that EVs are not contributing to road maintenance, then you should earmark the fee so that it actually gets used that way. Appearances are important in this regard.
     
  10. liuping

    liuping Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    San Diego
    As long as they actually use the taxes and fees for road maintenance, I'm okay paying a little more. In the past they have taken a large part of the gas tax and used the money for the general fund.
     
  11. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    Sounds like all of it goes to the general fund:
     
  12. trils0n

    trils0n 2013 P85

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,280
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    $100 EV tax won't do anything to help with road maintenance at this point I don't think. There are far too few EVs on the road to make much of a difference. It might, however, be enough to discourage sales of EVs, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. It is not appropriate to add taxes to EVs or renewable energy at this stage. If anything we should be doubling down with subsidies for clean/renewable tech to get adoption up.

    A road use tax might be a good thing (gas tax seems to get spent on whatever, not necessarily road maintenance), but not for ZEVs at this point.
     
  13. gaswalla

    gaswalla P4201/85/airsusp/pano/19i

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,190
    Location:
    San Diego
    For us Tesla folks, a fixed fee like $100 will always be a good deal (unless, you hardly drive your Tesla). Putting a fixed fee on a ZEV regardless of how much the car is driven is not a progressive tax -- it hits the folks who drive less relatively harder on a per mile basis. Good deal for folks with longer range who use the car regularly and bad deal for folks like Leaf owners who drive less on average due to the range.
     
  14. Bonlaw

    Bonlaw Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    308
    Location:
    Orange County, Ca
    Absolutely agree.
     
  15. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,493
    Location:
    Maine
    Nobody would suggest that everybody pay the same amount, yet we're seeing politicians pull this crap all over the country. Ironically CA is otherwise actually being constructive about developing a longer-term road pricing system.
     
  16. NorCalSJ

    NorCalSJ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2014
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    I also Strongly disagree. If California wouldn't have robbed the funds that were collected through prior gas taxes, we would have funds to repair our roads and they would not be in the condition they are in today. The more money our government collects, the more they waste.
     
  17. stopcrazypp

    stopcrazypp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7,038
    #17 stopcrazypp, May 18, 2015
    Last edited: May 18, 2015
    While the licensing fees posted above may go to the General Fund, the gas tax (excise tax) is required by the constitution to go toward only transportation expenses (with a limited portion going to public transit). This has never changed.
    The confusion might be the fuel sales tax created in 1971 and that went toward the general fund during times of fiscal emergency. In 2002 this was changed so that sales tax revenue from fuel sales as also went only to transportation. The only difference now between the sales and excise portion is that the sales portion goes toward local transportation, and the excise goes toward the entire state's.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic-old/ci_23563585/state-gas-tax-rises-3-5-cents-monday
    http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_22775595/roadshow-californias-gas-tax-and-what-we-do

    While there's a lot of talk of the 2010 "fuel tax swap" diverting funds from the gas tax to the General Fund, what it actually did was stop funding certain transportation expenses (debt service on highway/road bonds) from the General Fund and made the gas tax fund it. So it remained true that every penny of the gas tax went toward transportation expenses, it's just that it had extra burden it didn't have before.
    http://www.mtc.ca.gov/legislation/state_budget_3-10.htm
    http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2011/transportation/tax_swap_012511.aspx

    If it was true that the gas tax was able to cover all our transportation expenses (with no burden on the General Fund), then such "swaps" would have no effect, but that's obviously not true. A lot of our transportation expenses are funded by bonds through the General Fund.
    http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/fundchrt_files/Transportation_Funding_in_CA_2014.pdf
     
  18. rickgt

    rickgt Enthusiast owner/member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    316
    Location:
    Carmel
    amen!

     
  19. omgwtfbyobbq

    omgwtfbyobbq Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    447
    Location:
    Southern California
    Do they pay fees proportional to the damage they do? I have a feeling that isn't the case, but I could be wrong.
     
  20. Merrill

    Merrill Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,096
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    I'm happy to pay for driving on our roads, but in California we pay the highest percentage of gas tax for road repair that ends up in the black hole. We are voting on this exact subject in Sonoma County for road repair and all the politicians say the monies collected will only go to road repair. There is so much corruption and waste in government that we really do not know where the money ends up. So create a fund that can only be used for road repair (not a transportation fund) and then fix the roads.
     

Share This Page