-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Does your state charge you a penalty for owning a Tesla?
- Thread starter mm9351
- Start date
The next worst option is just to use the odometer and a pay a per mile fee, which could vary based on basic curb weight (use VIN) or registered weight. You can either just suck up cross-border travel, or states that implement fees can try and make some reciprocal arrangement. (Fuel taxation also has some cross-border issues, though not as much..)
You could layer on a commercial and optional program that goes into more detail using GPS to distribute fees better.
It doesn't have to be perfect, but unless we should _all_ be paying fixed fees, I don't want a road pricing system that strongly discourages low mileage drivers from buying used EVs.
For what it's worth, I think that Virginia is using some form of MBUF these days.
andaconda
Active Member
Montana - $130 extra per year for full EV's - $70 extra for PHEV's.
NO tax incentives for EV purchases.
Trying to initiate $.03 per KWH on top of basic EV charging stations. (don't know if it is implemented yet.)
NO tax incentives for EV purchases.
Trying to initiate $.03 per KWH on top of basic EV charging stations. (don't know if it is implemented yet.)
Yes-a-butta.
There is this fundamental problem with roads and EVs: The roads have been, historically, funded by User Fees in the presence of state and federal gas taxes. Before EVs (and probably PHEVs) the bigger a car was, the more damage it did to the roads, and the worse MPG the car would get: This resulted in the damaging vehicles paying more for the damage they did which, frankly, is fair. And if one drives a lot and does more damage to the roads, then, via the gas tax, one would pay more for all that gasoline/diesel one was burning and, again, that was fair.
One can argue about whether there's waste in government, or if the government is siphoning off gas taxes to pay for general revenue, and the usual: But, by and large, the system tended to work.
With the advent of BEVs and PHEVs the system breaks down. A straight Hybrid can be considered just a better ICE vehicle and, well, it bends the rules a little: A PHEV or BEV just breaks the rules completely. Those roads have to be funded somehow.
So, $130/year for a full EV and $70 for a PHEV sure doesn't seem out of line. I mean: The mileage part of the gas tax isn't there, but some kind of fee sounds reasonable.
I did a little calculation recently. In NJ, they're talking about doing Something about the road taxes with respect to BEVs. Let's suppose one is driving an M3 with 250 W-hr/mile and it's being driven 15,000 miles a year. Cost of electricity 'round these parts is $0.18/kW-hr. Then, the cost of just driving the car for those 15,000 miles is:
15,000 miles * 0.25 kW-hr/mile * $0.18/kW-hr = $675.
Now, consider an ICE car getting 30 MPG. And let's say that gas is $3.00/gallon. Then, for that car, the cost of driving it around that 15,000 miles is:
15000 miles / (30 miles/gallon) * $3.00/gallon = $1500
Now, for the tricky bit. In NJ, of that $3.00/gallon, the state gas tax is $0.432 per gallon and the federal gas tax is $0.184/gallon. That's a $0.616/gallon tax. So, for that car, paying its fair share of keeping the roads repaired (and new ones built), both federal and state, is
15000 miles/(30 miles/gallon) * $0.616 = $308.
So, it really should be costing the BEV a total of $308 + $675 = $983 for driving that 15,000 miles a year. Still cheaper than driving the ICE, but not by as much.
Getting off with $130/year in Montana for a BEV sounds like highway robbery, given that BEVs are heavier than the usual auto.
It would be better, in my opinion, if the amount paid per year in road taxes was based upon a function of the distance driven and the weight of the BEV.
Comments?
This would be ideal, and I think for states that require an annual inspection, the inspecting shop should be required to report the gross weight and mileage of the vehicle as well as to collect and remit the road tax.
I agreed with a good portion of this. I’m more than fine to pay $130 a year.
You said this though:
given that BEVs are heavier than the usual auto
This isn’t true in the US I’m pretty sure. Avg vehicle weight in US is now like 4300+
When I looked at weights, it really isn't a big deal.
Yes - a comparable EV will generally weigh more than a comparable ICE. Especially one with a 300 mile range.
But - EV's also favor efficiency because of range so that leads to generally better aerodynamics and being better about weight. You also get more usable room per total vehicle volume if designed well.
So the weight issue depends how you look at it. But the Y is basically an average weight car and it is the number 1 selling EV by a long shot.
But you can certainly get some points on the other side of this debate...
Yes - a comparable EV will generally weigh more than a comparable ICE. Especially one with a 300 mile range.
But - EV's also favor efficiency because of range so that leads to generally better aerodynamics and being better about weight. You also get more usable room per total vehicle volume if designed well.
So the weight issue depends how you look at it. But the Y is basically an average weight car and it is the number 1 selling EV by a long shot.
But you can certainly get some points on the other side of this debate...
I do not entirely agree with this analysis. Gasoline vehicles cause damage that goes beyond road use as ICE vehicles cause air pollution, including, of course, carbon dioxide. In my opinion it is insufficient to simply compare road use fees generated by gasoline taxes to arrive at what would be considered a reasonable road use fee for a BEV. BEV's provide a societal benefit, and missing from all of these calculations is the environmental cost of ICE vehicles imposed on everyone. Therefore there are good reasons to provide incentives for BEV's, such as relief from road use costs. If there is to be a road use fee imposed on my Tesla, then there should also be a carbon tax imposed on each and every ICE vehicle. Perhaps we need to completely rethink how our road and highway systems are funded.
As long as road use construction and maintenance are partially funded by gas taxes, all vehicles that use roads should pay their fair share somehow, including EVs. Since EVs don't buy gas, a fee with registration makes sense. Road taxes have never come anywhere close to funding roads, so rethinking that funding has been an issue for decades, before EVs ever appeared. I pay an extra $179/year in my state, a little excessive but that's OK.
Emissions is another dimension that is worthy of discussion. But EVs caused pollution as well, albeit reduced, just at power plants versus tailpipes. There are a few people who charge their EVs using renewables only, but they are very rare.
We know that EVs are less environmentally damaging than ICE vehicles, but to me that's unrelated to whether or not they should pay for road maintenance.
My opinion (because everyone likes lots of those
) is that each thing should pay for itself. EVs not paying for roads because they pollute less just doesn't make sense to me. It's how government got so convoluted to begin with.Well, friend, I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree on this. Though I do understand your point, I see see a direct connection between subsidies for ICE vehicles (free pollution, no tax on the 20 lbs of CO2 emitted per gallon), and subsidies for EVs (relief from some, not all, road use taxes). If one believes that each should pay for what they use, then eliminate all subsidies and allow market forces to control. Otherwise, it makes sense to provide incentives for EVs to hasten adoption and eliminate fossil fuel vehicles.We know that EVs are less environmentally damaging than ICE vehicles, but to me that's unrelated to whether or not they should pay for road maintenance.
My opinion (because everyone likes lots of those
As far as “convoluted” is concerned, I doubt there is a simple solution to what appears to me to be complex (management of roads in thousands of jurisdiction). For example, where I live, the County imposes a half-penny sales tax to fund roadway improvements, as well as general revenues (my property tax). But within the County, incorporated cities have their own highly local taxation for that purpose. As most of my local roads I doubt that I have any benefit from the state gasoline tax, on the turnpike I pay the tolls like anyone else, and of course I pay the county taxes.
I’m sure this can be easily looked up but I’m curious how other countries, especially Nordic countries like Norway are doing this. They have transitioned to like 80+% BEV sales and huge % of total vehicles are BEV.
Obviously they are a lot smaller and lots of other differences but just curious how they made this transition.
Obviously they are a lot smaller and lots of other differences but just curious how they made this transition.
Apparently Norway uses use tolls to finance road construction and maintenance:
AutoPASS Guide: Best Practices for Norway's Toll Roads
Discover Norway's AutoPASS toll system: from setup for foreigners to navigating toll roads, ensuring smooth payments, and addressing common queries.
norwayexpat.com
From what I have read, in order to accelerate the transition to EVs, Norway has significant tax incentives (although less now than in the past) as far as the value added tax is concerned, and there are (in effect) penalty taxes on gas and diesel vehicles, making EVs less expensive to purchase.
I would imagine that Nordic countries never tied building and maintaining roads to their gas tax.
While there is something clean about gas tax paying for roads, the vast majority of what taxes pay for does not work that way because it can't. So they just pay for roads out of the general budget which is so logical that I can't stand it.
As most everyone knows, the real issue with road maintenance is not cars - it is trucks. And sure, they pay a lot of taxes but not enough for their damage.
We somehow tie house value to paying for schools which is the opposite of anything that a Nordic country would do.
Stop trying to make paying for societal necessities logical in some way - you just create new problems that create more complexity trying to fix. And in the process, you make government more powerful and more susceptible to outside moneyed influence.
While there is something clean about gas tax paying for roads, the vast majority of what taxes pay for does not work that way because it can't. So they just pay for roads out of the general budget which is so logical that I can't stand it.
As most everyone knows, the real issue with road maintenance is not cars - it is trucks. And sure, they pay a lot of taxes but not enough for their damage.
We somehow tie house value to paying for schools which is the opposite of anything that a Nordic country would do.
Stop trying to make paying for societal necessities logical in some way - you just create new problems that create more complexity trying to fix. And in the process, you make government more powerful and more susceptible to outside moneyed influence.
Norway uses a combination of fuel taxes, registrations and toll roads.
That's the quick impression that I got by doing a Google search. Especially on the toll roads.
And, note: This implies that, for the most part, it's those who use the roads that pay for the roads.
There is the trickle-down effect: If one buys stuff at a store where goods have to be transported (which is everything for sale pretty much, whether it be a grocery store or Amazon), then one is paying road taxes as part of the markup for said goods.
Be that as it may: Those who drive private vehicles are basically doing pay-as-you-go.
Now, there are alternative means of transportation: Rail, bus, air. If it so happens that one of those has less costs with keeping that form of transportation going, then, naturally, Adam Smith's invisible hand will come down and steer users towards that cheaper form of transportation.
But "cheap" isn't always about the money. Being able to commute from a nice place not near the city center has its value, and people will pay for perceived value. Again, this is how it should be.
So, there's an argument that the societal benefits of transportation infrastructure should be paid for society at large, i.e., the general taxation fund. I think I disagree with that; I like the idea of competition for money (i.e., greed) is a better tool than a more central planning approach.
At one time there was floated this idea that All Roads Should Be Toll Roads. And, I guess if a mileage-based fee was used generally, that would fit. But, at the time, and in practice, that "All Roads" bit has been done in a truly irritating way: I'm looking at you, Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Illinois, where wildly expensive new toll roads were built in parallel with purposely hamstrung "freeways", so one could either sit in traffic for 40 minutes or speed on through with a $10 donation to government.. and I find it unlikely that those $10 fees were going for the roads, but were probably going to a general fund somewhere. A rather regressive tax, since using those expensive roads hurts the poor much more than the rich.
Interestingly, Norway uses a lot of tolls but is also having to come up with money from somewhere else to fund roads with the decline in fuel taxes.
What you might call a regressive tax might also be called a luxury tax - ie the toll road as they are being built in some areas now.
Competition for money is a great concept. But government isn't run as a free market. Applying the same rules to societal assets doesn't work the same way. There is far too much corruption and poor knowledge players - ie elected officials - that make decisions.
I think we probably would all agree that road users paying for roads seems the most fair. We would still have to come up with some pretty complicated formulas for depreciation/maintenance/construction costs and then assign those to particular people. Any change will create winners and losers. Who educates the legislature on that - moneyed interests. So you come up with a system that is paid for someone other than the moneyed interests.
But sure - weight x mileage fee. You can see why fuel was once a good proxy. But it vastly undercharges large trucks since damage isn't linear. It also undercharges the non-driver who still needs roads for safety equipment.
Roads are always centrally planned - to ignore that reality would be putting capitalism blinders on.
Greed and capitalism are fantastic and horrible at the same time.
What you might call a regressive tax might also be called a luxury tax - ie the toll road as they are being built in some areas now.
Competition for money is a great concept. But government isn't run as a free market. Applying the same rules to societal assets doesn't work the same way. There is far too much corruption and poor knowledge players - ie elected officials - that make decisions.
I think we probably would all agree that road users paying for roads seems the most fair. We would still have to come up with some pretty complicated formulas for depreciation/maintenance/construction costs and then assign those to particular people. Any change will create winners and losers. Who educates the legislature on that - moneyed interests. So you come up with a system that is paid for someone other than the moneyed interests.
But sure - weight x mileage fee. You can see why fuel was once a good proxy. But it vastly undercharges large trucks since damage isn't linear. It also undercharges the non-driver who still needs roads for safety equipment.
Roads are always centrally planned - to ignore that reality would be putting capitalism blinders on.
Greed and capitalism are fantastic and horrible at the same time.
I just disagree because so much use is elective and some can just be inefficient. Good pricing helps avoid bad financial decisions.
We would pay for some societal benefit via taxes, since the use by any public sector vehicles would have to be paid for.
Similar threads
