mspohr
Well-Known Member
The point of a gas tax is to make it cost more so people will use less (drive less, drive more efficient cars, etc.).
Taxing the value of a car does nothing to reduce the use of gas.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Bloomberg: California Considers Following China with ICE Ban
- Thread starter ohmman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Taxing the value of a car does nothing to reduce the use of gas.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Often, yes, but not from my POV. I just want the cost externalities covered. It could be that the end result is less consumption but that is just consumer choice, usually driven by less expensive alternatives if available.
It follows the same reasoning as a road tax. The tax is not there to discourage use, but to cover expenses.
According to The Jerry, the gas tax was for road repairs since they put registration and auto sales taxes in the general fund as well as some of the fuel taxes.
Today, even luxury cars and SUVs as well as pickups get better fuel economy than cars from 2010 with few exceptions. They even tightened up the EPA numbers and MPG still climbed. If you are a fan of cars over the years, it's nothing shy of amazing. Good mileage for a 2005 large luxury car was 18mpg combined (2017 EPA spec). A 2016 of the same size, weight, and HP is 25 mpg combined (HP is actually higher due to SAE changes). So driving less has much less effect on economics for the wealthy as you'd think.
Most people are not that aware of the MPG change in luxury and large vehicles since it has been gradual and steady. It is an interesting game the EPA is playing with MPG to deceive the public into believing fuel economy is not dropping as much as it is. About 10% 'paper' loss in MPG for this year IIRC. And it's the prime reason they need to increase taxes for roads since the MPG on the 'guzzlers' is increasing faster than the MPG for the economy cars.
If you thinking gas tax is to suppress ICE driving, you're probably thinking about Jerry's EV policy. The wild increase in 'peak-demand-based' electricity rates just enacted had the stated intent to reduce consumption. But the highest demand device in common use by normal people is an EVSE. $17.32 per kW for demand increases. So a 10kW EV charger can cost $173.20 during the day plus the actual kWh you use. This was Jerry not even thinking about EVs while making con-job speeches about his desire to transition to ZEVs. Say one thing, do the opposite. That's Jerry in nearly all his policies on everything from education to immigration. Say one thing, do another.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
But you are my prime example!
You bought a Tesla because you wanted it. You didn't have to. Apparently an automaker built a car you liked, and you rewarded their efforts.
I firmly believe as more people are exposed to electromotive drivetrains in cars they will switch over. Cost, range, and remote refueling are the downside right now. Those are going to diminish with time.
But right now, few people have even been in an electric car, much less lived with one. Things change. There was a time when nobody believed the 1960's horsepower wars would ever be eclipsed either. Oddly enough, if cheap Li battery technology was around in 1975, the death of the ICE as a passenger car engine would have been quick. Cars ran like crap back then and had poor reliability.
Your philosophy would work in an idealized free market system, but our market is not free, it is dominated by those who grease the palms of politicians to manipulate the markets. In our defacto quid pro quo system, the customer does not have adequate alternative choices because the market has been manipulated. We are just extremely lucky that someone like Musk came along and outsmarted the market. But, don't forget we were just a couple minutes away from Tesla going bankrupt; and had that happened there would be no compelling EVs from which to choose today.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Now you're just making stuff up.
The highest peak demand rate for PGE is $0.20 kWh for business, up to $0.40 for residental. Your numbers are off by a factor of about 100... exaggerate much?
Peak Day Pricing
Take control with Time-of-Use rate plans
Of course you won't provide any reference.
It seems you have a problem with Jerry Brown. Have you seen someone about this?
Our auto market is dominated by the EPA/CARB/NHTSA/Etc. The government bureaucrats and politicians decide what you can or cannot buy. They could decide tomorrow that EVs are too dangerous and ban them. Highly unlikely, but not unprecedented for the government to ban things for political reasons instead of scientific or logical reasons.
After that, they are dominated by the consumer. There are currently no laws in place that force you to buy cars. Heck, today you can still buy a motorcycle or a convertible car! This I can't understand based on NHTSA decisions of the past, but I'm glad we are not at that point yet.
Ugghh... not this again. You apparently do not buy commercial power or have any experience with the tariff changes of July 2017.
Peak Demand has never, ever, ever, been measured in kWh. It's only, always, forever, measured in kW.
If you've never seen a bill with Demand TOU rates, I do not know what to tell you that you would believe. You'll think I'm making it up or my scanned bill is a photoshop.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
So... where on that PGE business rate page that I linked to does it say $17 kW and how on earth does that translate to $173 for 10 kWh. (There is a difference between kW and kWh... you can't just multiply)
You do not understand.
A kWh is an amount of electricity you have used.
A kW is how much power you pull.
If I post the electric bill will you promise never to ever discuss what commercial power costs or does not cost in California? I have to drive to work and scan it.
While I'm gone, practice stretching your mouth unless you have very small feet.
I don't disagree with the concept, but doing so would tank the economy by pushing the prices of everything up. Government mandates might work in other countries, but in the US we have too much of an emotional bond to our cars. If you want to get rid of ICEs, I think the campaign against tobacco is a better blueprint--a combination of education and indirect legislation that made smoking difficult and socially marginalized.
Announcing a ban just creates a point of resistance where where was no one before (remember the whole thing with incandescent light bulbs). Better to focus on building out infra and setting policy in that makes EVs a better choice for the general buyer. Its the same reasons we did not have to ban horses to drive adoption of cars way back when.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Please do not go to any trouble. I really don't want to see your electric bill but I am interested in how your "demand charges" work. Everything I have read says that you pay more per kWh at peak demand times (sometimes up to $0.40 kWh). You seem to be talking about something else. Is there a CPUC tariff I could read?
Here's how it works for 20kW-200kW businesses (peak demand):
You pay rates for kWh's both a distribution and generation charge.
Then you pay another fee for peak demand. There are 3 TOU partitions. No demand fees. Off-peak demand fees. Peak demand fees.
IIRC, Off is weekends and 6pm to 6am. Off-peak is 6am-12pm, and peak is 12 noon to 6 pm.
So they measure your peak draw every 15 minutes and save the highest value each month. For every kW of draw you pay $0, $11?, or $17.32 per kW. So if you peak at 10kW, there is $173.20 added to your kWh fees each month. Now if you increase your draw, regardless how brief, over that 10kW, you bill rises another $17.32 for each kW. If you charge an EV at 10kW, you now have a 20kW peak for that month, even if you only do it once.
So even we though reduced our power consumption from 8500kWh to 7000kWh from July 2016 to July 2017, our electric bill climbed 8%. Why? Charging 2 EVs during the day yields a high demand, but my spending on energy efficiency reduced our consumption. The kWh rate didn't really change, just demand fees were added.
This blindsided us. We had no idea until we opened the bill. They sent us a letter, but it really did not explain how it would affect our business other than "we will select a new plan for you based on your history that will save you money". Uh... I think they are liars.
Yep, really really puzzling. Let me help clear up some of your confusion McRat. Have a look at the following Orange County demographic:
A bit of analysis will show that Father Time is the only party responsible for the voting shift over time in Orange County. He is not yet done "meddling" in the voting either. Republicans in California continue their downward spiral into irrelevance. Now sitting at less than 26%:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/09/state-denial-0
For those not familiar with the Josh Newman saga, see the following link:
Josh Newman recall, California State Senate (2017) - Ballotpedia
The OC Republicans are unhappy because Josh's election gave the Democrats a Supermajority in both the Assembly and the Senate. This has created what are essentially dream jobs for the few remaining Republicans in the state offices: They get to draw a paycheck, while not having to do any actual work, since their presence is irrelevant to the outcome of any Legislation.
And no, Josh Newman is not going to be recalled from office for voting for the first gas tax increase in California since 1994. Gas tax revenue has been declining rapidly since car fuel economy has been improving. But the party of "NO TAX INCREASE EVER" would simply let the roads, bridges and other infrastructure degrade into third world country status so long as they can save that $0.12 per gallon. It's all about them, apparently.
As soon as California Republicans start getting a clue and listening to what the people of the state actually want, then maybe they will be relevant again. Until then, they will have to be satisfied with voting NO on everything, and watching old reruns of the Hot Seat show, featuring the legendary Orange County deep thinking Republican luminary Wally George, live from Anaheim !
Hot Seat (talk show) - Wikipedia
RT
EV-lutioin
Active Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I think you and @McRat are talking past each other... he's referring to peak demand fees (kW) and you're referring to peak TOU rates (kWh). Either way... with peak demand fees there is software available to ensure that EVSE charging only occurs in the troughs of usage to limit peak demand fees. I know that where I worked we had ~1.5MW available in the troughs during the day... that could charge everyones car w/o increasing what we paid in demand fees... The vast majority of EV charging is going to occur off-peak anyway...
The only thing that the new Peak Demand tariffs seriously harm are daylight EV commercial site charging. The faster you charge the higher the penalty.
The new tariffs simply give businesses a very good reason not to provide EV charging.
To the best of my knowledge there is no residential Demand Based TOU plans in California at all.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Thanks for this clear explanation. I think I understand now. It seems you are paying for kWh at some rate depending on when you use those kWh just like we all understand. Then, in addition, you pay a ?monthly fee for your peak demand (however brief). This is $17.32 per peak kW draw during the month during peak demand times so if your peak demand during peak demand time is 10kW, then you have a fee of $173.20 added to your bill. If you are a 20 to 200 kW customer, you may be consuming 10,000 kWh (or more) per month so that $173.20 charge only works out to an extra $0.017 per kWh.
I can see that this would be a surprise if you didn't know it was coming and their "letter" probably didn't explain it well (or at all). Looks like you need to put some monitoring in place and some procedures to curtail demand during peak times. As @nwdiver explained, you need to charge the car during off-peak times and monitor peak demand.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The higher demand fees are to some extent a GOOD thing. They'll incentivize more solar PV, more storage and more demand response programs. I have a friend that was hired by Google a few years ago to help them expand EV charging on their campus.... they had actually tapped out the amount of power that was available to them. Everyone showing up to work, plugging in and increasing demand significantly for a few hours then being done before lunch would be kinda silly... it should be spaced out over 8 hours...
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Most commercial service has demand and volumetric charges. Whereas most residential is only volumetric. Here in NM commercial service is ~$10/kW and $0.03/kWh. To a large extend volumetric AND demand fees combined better reflect the actual cost of providing electricity. That 500MW transmission line is there wether you're drawing 500MW for an hour or 20MW over 24hours. The cost should reflect the capacity factor of the infrastructure...
