there was a bearing yesterday and they changed the fee rate to be determined at a future date. Not sure what the next step is. Not a fan.
SB 6586 - Do NOT let this happen!
- Thread starter ChrisH
- Start date
there was a bearing yesterday and they changed the fee rate to be determined at a future date. Not sure what the next step is. Not a fan.
“We need more money” “Thank goodness we decided to announce the fee at a later date!”
FYI, this bill is being discussed at a public hearing today at 1:30pm. Can watch here: watch – TVW, Washington States' Public Affairs Network
Hi what does this mean for us Tesla owners? When our tabs are due this year, will there be an additional line item reflecting yet another additional per mile fee?
Salvo
Member
I finally took the time to write my representatives. I told them this bill is crazy and that I oppose any pay per mile tax. #NoNewTaxes
I actually think a pay per mile (with weight taken into account as well) is more fair than the flat EV fees we pay currently.
Unless I am missing something, it does not appear that this bill made it out of the senate by the cut-off. So, it should be dead for this session.
im.thatoneguy
Member
That's what they said about the additional EV fee last year. They being my representative. "Don't worry about it, it didn't leave committee. BAM! Passed as amendment on other legislation.
Now that I think about it, since it could be considered a budgetary bill, it may not be subject to the normal session cut-off rule. We'll see.
Foxhound199
Member
I feel like the response to legislation like this seems muddied, with a lot of people complaining about the idea of any tax, or arguing that they couldn't possibly afford it. That may well be how you feel, but it is hardly a productive argument--especially as the fallout from Eyman's initiative will have the state frantically searching for new revenue streams.
Regardless of your overall opinion of taxation, I would encourage those who contact their representatives to remain focused on the specific problems with this proposal. That is, that this very specifically taxes electric vehicles in a way that is inequitable, punishing drivers for no other reason than having an electric drive train. This is evident from the fact that it is not some form of luxury tax, as the tax is indifferent to the actual value of the vehicle. I think this is an important distinction, as the authors of the bill have frequently pointed to the fact that EVs owners generally seem to be a little more affluent than average. Again, I would caution against arguing opposition to the idea of progressive taxation in general, and rather point to the fact that this is not a true progressive tax. We all hope that EVs will continue to gain traction and decrease in price, and the lower maintenance and fuel costs will make them great options who want to keep their monthly costs low and predictable. Meanwhile, the vast majority of luxury cars are not EVs, meaning that only a small subset of somewhat affluent drivers are actually shouldering the burden. As such, this is much more akin to a vice tax--a tax levied against a specific class of products for the express purpose of discouraging its use. So the question we should all be asking our legislature is why we would want to specifically discourage the use of electric vehicles and encourage the use of gas powered transportation?
Regardless of your overall opinion of taxation, I would encourage those who contact their representatives to remain focused on the specific problems with this proposal. That is, that this very specifically taxes electric vehicles in a way that is inequitable, punishing drivers for no other reason than having an electric drive train. This is evident from the fact that it is not some form of luxury tax, as the tax is indifferent to the actual value of the vehicle. I think this is an important distinction, as the authors of the bill have frequently pointed to the fact that EVs owners generally seem to be a little more affluent than average. Again, I would caution against arguing opposition to the idea of progressive taxation in general, and rather point to the fact that this is not a true progressive tax. We all hope that EVs will continue to gain traction and decrease in price, and the lower maintenance and fuel costs will make them great options who want to keep their monthly costs low and predictable. Meanwhile, the vast majority of luxury cars are not EVs, meaning that only a small subset of somewhat affluent drivers are actually shouldering the burden. As such, this is much more akin to a vice tax--a tax levied against a specific class of products for the express purpose of discouraging its use. So the question we should all be asking our legislature is why we would want to specifically discourage the use of electric vehicles and encourage the use of gas powered transportation?
I contacted Mariya Frost, the Director of the Coles Center for Transportation at Washington Policy Center, about this bill (in Dec. 2020). Here's her response:
Thank you so much for your email. This bill was introduced last session and though it passed through the Senate Transportation Committee, it did not make it to the floor for debate (or move to the opposite house for consideration). The bill died, but it could be reintroduced in some form during the 2021 legislative session. I will be keeping an eye on it, and any other legislation related to the Road Usage Charge. One of the best ways to receive updates is to sign on to my transportation distribution list – where I send blog and publication updates to those who are interested. I would be happy to add you to that list and make sure you remain in the loop throughout session.
SB 6586, to impose a mileage tax on owners of electric and hybrid vehicles
whitex
Well-Known Member
Oh, they will try it again. The window of opportunity to pass such a tax shuts as the market share of EV's increases (let's see them try imposing the same for all cars). The way taxes are voted in is when they affect a small minority, so not to attract too much opposition, then the tax is expanded without voter approval (heck, the $150 EV fee passed as a $10 fee on a ballot, then immediately became $100 the following year, then $150). Perhaps next time they will attach some exceptions, exempt anyone who is a part of some social group (who wouldn't be the primary target for the tax anyways), in the hopes it will get them some social justice votes to help put it over the top. Governments are experts at manipulation when it comes to getting things voted in.
whitex
Well-Known Member
I think the answer to you question is that "legislature" is a not single, cohesive unit. There are multiple conflicting interests in legislature, and each side has wins and loses. Even when Washington had a sales tax exemption on EV's, another part of the legislature was working (and succeeded) on adding EV fees to registration and killing the incentives, then another set of players voted it back in with limitations, etc, etc. Washington never gave EV's HOV access like many other states (and provinces in Canada) with the official reason given by DoT being "Washington does not have a car pollution problem, it only has a traffic congestion problem". So really, a large part of Washington state government doesn't give a rat's ass about polluting cars, but they do about money. Part of out legislature would probably happily vote in a gas-guzzler incentive if it didn't make them look bad in a blue state.
These registration EV fees we’re forced to pay are very annoying in WA. I’d really like to know what I personally get from these fees? I believe it was intended to fund the “West Coast Green Highway”, but that thing is a joke. It does not support Tesla’s very well as the morons chose CHADEMO and J-1772, why no CCS? Sure I can spend $450 in a CHADEMO -> Tesla adapter, but $450 pays for lot of supercharging. I don’t understand why they didn’t purchase CCS. So does me no good in my BMW i3, another $225/yr with zero benefit. Sure I can sit for half a day on L2. Sure CHADEMO still helps Leaf owners, but CHADEMO is a dying platform. Nissan’s next venture Aria is CCS, which tells be Nissan sees the writing on the wall.
Don’t want to be self centered, but you’ve got to ask what’s in it for me?
Don’t want to be self centered, but you’ve got to ask what’s in it for me?
DanL3
Member
Inslee is clearly not the "Green" governor that he claims to be. Washington is now supporting Gas Emissions with the way they are taxing EVs.
1965Falcon
Supporting Member
I think I'd be fine for the pay per mile as long as it was implemented to all vehicles. Then add a "pollution tax" to replace the gas tax and use it specifically for green infrastructure.
Factor in vehicle weight as well. A heavy pickup does more damage to roads than a Prius.
Miles driven x vehicle weight x CO2 emission = your road use tax
If pandemic life continues for me into much of 2021 (likely) it's going to suck when I have to pay my renewal fees! I've had my Y LR for almost exactly two months and have just over 650 miles on it... extrapolate that out to a year and I'll have added 3,900 miles in one year of ownership... if renewal is like it was on my old Model 3, I expect to pay ~$300 just in "EV Fees" which means effectively I'll have paid 7.7c per mile in EV tax... or equivalent to my car getting 6.4mpg.
Now obviously gas car owners aren't driving as much either... but they pay per gallon, so they'll see a savings with the less miles driven. Will we as EV owners get a rebate on our EV Fees because the state knows people have been driving less this year? Will they give us the option to submit an official request to get a rebate or something?
Now obviously gas car owners aren't driving as much either... but they pay per gallon, so they'll see a savings with the less miles driven. Will we as EV owners get a rebate on our EV Fees because the state knows people have been driving less this year? Will they give us the option to submit an official request to get a rebate or something?
Similar threads
