$100 Electric Vehicle Tax? State of Washington Should Think Again
U.K. Onboard For Electric Vehicle Deployment
The British government has announced a major plan for electric vehicle market penetration. The plan... Read More
- N/ALEADERBOARD RANK
- 10ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED
- 0COMMENTS POSTED
The State of Washington is currently considering a new policy that would implement a new annual registration fee of $100 on electric vehicles. This new fee would be in addition to other registration fees currently assessed on all highway vehicles. Is this a fair policy for electric vehicle owners?
Apparently, the Washigton State Senate is concerned about losing revenue from state gas taxes from plug-in vehicles. This preemptive fear could be a result of recent statements from the Federal Highway Trust that allude to losing revenue from plug-in cars.
Interestingly enough, however, the bill (known as SB 6377) takes a rather optimistic perspective towards the role that electric vehicles have as part of the state's transportation system. The authors of the bill state that the new policy is necessary "as the state's fleet changes from motor vehicles powered by traditional sources, such as gasoline and diesel, to those powered by electricity."
In fact, the authors of this bill, who compose the Transportation Committee for the State of Washington, are rather "bullish" on the topic of electric vehicles. In a conversation with Jason Doudt, the Session Intern for State Senator Sheldon, I learned that these policymakers "definitely want state fleets to go electric" and "approve highly of green energy."
So, in an attempt to "create a system where each driver pays for a fair portion of his or her use of the road," legislators have proposed a simple strategy - charge $100 every year. This is a far more simplified approach than a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax, as proposed by the U.S. Federal Government or by some European countries. In this way, you avoid complicated GPS tracking systems or other taxes calculated by weight of the vehicle, as has been proposed under a VMT tax.
But is it fair? And, just what kind of electric vehicle is included under this policy? Under this policy, only "vehicles that use propulsion units powered solely by electricity" are charged $100. So, that means that owners of a 2011 Chevy Volt won't have to pay this fee, but owners of the 2011 Nissan Leaf will. This seems rather arbitrary, considering that plug-in hybrid owners can do most of their driving in all-electric mode, but will still be exempt from this fee.
In the near future, it appears that the owners of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) will be the ones mostly affected by this bill. This is unfortunate, considering that most NEVs drive far less and are lighter in weight than conventional petroleum vehicles, meaning that their impact on Washington's roads is rather minimal.
Washington State Senators should realize that such a policy proposal is rather short-sighted and could potentially hinder the sale of plug-in vehicles in the state. This is obviously the "politically weak" choice for generating revenue for the state transportation system. State gas taxes, as well as federal gas taxes, have remained stagnant for over a decade.
If policymakers are really concerned about generating revenue for roads, they should consider imposing higher taxes on the vehicles that are primarily responsible for their degradation.
What policymakers should also realize is that the state stands to benefit more from plug-in vehicles than they currently recognize. For example, the mass penetration of plug-in vehicles into the market could save money spent on state health care costs for treating respiratory illnesses associated with petroleum emissions. With a little more foresight and knowledge, policymakers can craft policies that provide a win-win situation for both the state and EV drivers.
Shannon Arvizu is a clean-tech strategist and educator at Columbia University. You can find at more at www.misselectric.com.
Related Articles
-
Americans Are Driving Less, And Have Been Since 2005
-
Nissan Leaf Joins Drivers’ Ed, Passes No-Gas Student
-
Chevy Engineers, 2012 Cruze LT, Demonstrate Fuel-Smart Driving
-
Electric Cars Are Coming, Believe It Or Not, Nissan Leaf Driver Says
-
Want To Drive Greener? Move Closer To Your Job, Save Cash Too
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
Most Popular This Week
More »
Tesla Model S Vs Chevy Volt: Owner Compares Electric Cars 
Electric Cars: Eight Important Things Everyone Should Know (But... 
Is Tesla About To Offer Battery-Pack Swapping For Model S? 
BMW CEO To Germans: Get Over Your Angst, Buy Electric Cars... 
Diesel Cars: Six Important Things Everyone Should Know (But May... Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?
George Posted: 2/19/2010 6:21am PST
Todd Horst Posted: 2/19/2010 6:23am PST
Noel Park Posted: 2/19/2010 12:32pm PST
All over the country, our highways are falling apart. If no one wants to pay for maintenance, let alone new construction, what will become of them? $100 sounds pretty nominal to me. It's a lot less than I'm pauing in gas tax now. And way better thatn the Byzantine methods dreamed up by the Feds, as mentioned in the post.
Eletruk Posted: 2/19/2010 3:14pm PST
Myself Posted: 2/19/2010 3:49pm PST
Myself Posted: 2/19/2010 3:50pm PST
The progression of technology is great! I hope to see us wean off petroleum eventually. And I work in the oil and natural gas drilling industry! But I want it to be an orderly change after having properly evaluated the potential technologies involved including how they impact the economy, not just the perception of the environment. Mostly, I want people to lose the attitudes and the insane fanaticism about EV's or hybrids running biofuels vs regular gasoline or diesel driven vehicles. Regardless of people's opinions these days, the world owes a lot of gasoline and diesel transportation. Even if they have visions of some "green" utopia, their world revolves around oil for the time being. Live with that, but work for a brighter future. Don't castigate others whose opinions you don't share.
eric E Posted: 2/19/2010 9:01pm PST
In this case the fuel is electricity. The tax increase on electricity would be so small no one would even notice.
As the cars become more ubiquitous, increase the tax only enough to offset the loss of gasoline tax revenue.
Chris O Posted: 2/20/2010 11:26am PST
Jimza Skeptic Posted: 2/20/2010 3:35pm PST
Chris O Posted: 2/21/2010 1:30am PST
troublemaker Posted: 2/21/2010 10:21pm PST
Tacoma energy used to have a site that mentioned this part of Washington has a yearly daily average of 3 1/2 hours of sun. I calculated the cost of a solar set up to supply all my electrical needs of a modest home would be $60,000. The Bob Rivers show would have a guy come on and say he could do it for $30,000 and at some point have to admit that would supply half the home's needs. Like solar, wind is also an off and on thing. It's mostly available outside the hours of higher demand. It does not have electricity storage so must be combined with hydro(already at capacity)/biomass/natural gas/coal for off-times just like solar.
If people are causing my energy grid rates to go up, a grid that utilizes coal and natural gas(pollutants like gas and diesel), insisting on no new nuclear power plants, contributing to congestion, causing wear and tear on the roads, then they should help pay for the roads like the rest of us.
Logic Posted: 2/22/2010 8:28am PST
This is a slap in the face to electric vehicles.
Truth Posted: 2/22/2010 8:36am PST
Show me how the Volt's electric motor, it's only source of direct propulsion, can run without electricity and I'll start taking you more seriously.
Jimza Skeptic Posted: 2/23/2010 2:42am PST
What I find humurous is all of these people that think there are no emissions from electrics. Coal & Natural Gas are emissions and anyone who has had high school physics knows that you transfer engergy from point to point you lose efficiency. Significant amount of electricity produced (emissions) is lost just going from power plant to your home. Battery loses energy just sitting in garage. Unless your personal source is straight solar, wind or Nuclear, you are contributing an equal amount of emissions as a typical gas engine.
Shannon Arvizu Posted: 2/23/2010 7:07am PST
Also, in regards to the all-electric mode of the Chevy Volt, correct me if I'm wrong, "Truth," but the Chevy Volt is a series hybrid that is intended to run based on electricity alone for the first 40 miles. 70% of Americans commute less than 40 miles/day. For that reason, most Americans can do most of their driving in all-electric mode, if they choose.
Finally, policies send signals to the public. In Denmark and Israel, countries that are taking petroleum independence seriously, state taxes for petroleum vehicles are much higher than electric vehicles for a reason - to send a signal that electric vehicles benefit the public more than internal combustion engine vehicles.
Truth Posted: 2/23/2010 9:15am PST
Your comment about the Volt does not address the point in question, that you claimed that Volt owners would not have to pay the fee, refuted by the fact that the Volt uses only an electric motor, which is its only propulsion unit, powered solely by electricity. I'm still waiting for you to show us how an electric motor provides propulsion without electricity. You seem to be confusing enery sources, energy carriers and propulsion units, the last of which which in the case of a Volt is only an electric motor. It is the last in that list that matters for the Washington law, as you cited it.
Jimza Skeptic Posted: 2/23/2010 2:57pm PST
Shannon is right in that the bill up for debate, will tax straight BEV's like the LEAF. The Volt is not subject, because it is "assumed" the Volt owner will buy enough gasoline over the year to cover. Shannon believes that most Volt users will not ever hit the $100 limit.
Now Shannon -- Truth is correct, but went kinda of Democarat Elitest on you instead of educating you. The gas engine in the Volt does not propel the car. It runs a generator which charges the battery. So the Volt is propeled strictly with electricity.
Shannon, my whole arguement and what I am trying to educate people on is the fact that BEV, EREV, Hybrid, and ICE all tear up the roads the same way and while I am a no tax guy, I am a fair pay for use guy. So I am all for eliminating the current system of taxes and fee structures and replace it with the weight and miles driven approach. Your article leaves us to believe that "Green" cars do not damage the road, when in reality they are no different than a simular size gas burner.
And Finally, When charging the battery, even in off peak hours, a coal burning plant is dumping a lot of bad chemicals in the air. If the purpose of the change is to get off foreign oil, then Volt & Leaf are perfect solution although very high cost. If the Volts & Leaf are for Environmental reasons, then under the current grid system, they are not optimum.
Facts Posted: 2/24/2010 9:11am PST
No, they don't. Above around 10,000 pounds, additional vehice weight creates exponentially more road damage.
Almost all BEVs, EREVs and Hybrid are under 10,000 pounds, while almost all vehicle over 10,000, which cause much more damage to roads, use full ICEs for propulsion.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/EffectWeightMileTax.pdf
(see page 1)
Jimza Skeptic Posted: 2/26/2010 4:09am PST
Next line -- "Your article leaves us to believe that "Green" cars do not damage the road, when in reality they are no different than a simular size gas burner." Note the pharse "Simular size". This means that a vehicle about the same size (weight) should pay about the same tax. For example, my Honda Fit (ICE) weighs about 2,400 lbs while a Toyota Prius (Hybrid) weights about 3000 lbs. The Chevy Volt (EREV)is specified at 3,500 lbs. While the Nissan Leaf (BEV) is slated to come in at 3,500. Honda Fit (ICE) should pay less taxes as it does less damage to the road versus any of the Hybrid, EREV and BEV listed and commercially available.
So Professor Fact, you need to reduce the amount of Hippy Lettuce and start eating ICEberg Lettuce, and read a complete paragraph before posting.
Facts Posted: 2/26/2010 8:55am PST
We actually agree.
A $100 tax on electric vehicles, the topic of this article, is not a weight tax. Of course any rational person would support extending an exponential weight tax all the way down to bicycles so that road users pay for what they are using. Sure, too bad Washington State didn't propose an annual exponential vehicle weight tax, such as (more than a dime for every 100 pounds) exponent applied to base e (less than a buck a year for bicycles, less than a few bucks a year for motorcycles, $20 a year or more for a 3,000 pound vehicle and about ten times that for a 6,000 pound vehicle), a fall off a log no brainer as that would link the tax to actual road damage (and absolute vehicle efficiency, of which liquid fuel use is a now broken metric).
troublemaker Posted: 2/26/2010 1:46pm PST
Troublemaker Posted: 2/26/2010 1:48pm PST
Facts Posted: 2/26/2010 2:45pm PST
You're no trouble at all.
Right, then, we agree. We are talking about extending that 2nd weight system down to bicycles. That fully satisfies your points, as every vehicle that uses roads would pay, including electrics, on a basis that directly links user fees to road costs for all vehicles, not some whimsy that singles out electric vehicles.
It's not electrics fault that they tend to weigh less and are smaller than monster SUVs and so thus cause less road wear and tear and congestion for lower infrastructure costs.
Your grid rates and grid energy source mixes have absolutely nothing to do with road use costs or fees and electric vehicles make them grid rates and overall energy use go down, not up, for several reasons. But that should be a different article.
Jimza Skeptic Posted: 2/27/2010 3:55am PST
Regarding Environment: Unless country is willing to go Nuclear, non-ICE vehicles will be contributing more CO2 than ICE based on Coal/Natural gas plants and the true efficiency of the grid. Remember France & Germany are about 90% Nuclear. Regarding cost: Right now ICE is much lower cost, The only way to make cost effective would be to tax gas like Europe, with gas at about $8/per gallon. My guess is that only 1 or 2 in congress would ever vote for that one!
Dr William B Mount Posted: 2/21/2011 12:05am PST
Just one.
So far - no responses from the solar groups in either Seattle or Tacoma.
So - bend over solar folks and suck it up.
Honorable Grace
Dr William B. Mount
Knight of Malta
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!