Subsidies are disappearing, says NYT

[Tangible]

According to an article in the New York Times today many states are canceling their EV tax credits, and some are even adding fees because EVs don't pay gasoline taxes. The federal subsidy is also in trouble, they say.

The new administration is Washington is very friendly to the fossil fuel industry, and very skeptical about human-caused climate change. Given that, EVs are the enemy.

If you're considering a Tesla you might want to take delivery soon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

[kort677]

According to an article in the New York Times today many states are canceling their EV tax credits, and some are even adding fees because EVs don't pay gasoline taxes. The federal subsidy is also in trouble, they say.

The new administration is Washington is very friendly to the fossil fuel industry, and very skeptical about human-caused climate change. Given that, EVs are the enemy.

If you're considering a Tesla you might want to take delivery soon.

yes you are correct that some states have lessened their tax support for ev purchases. and some states have or are considering levying road use fees on evs to supplant the road taxes that are collecting when buying fuels that ev owners are not paying.
however you go off the rails is trying to connect this to trump and DC.
the states are considering these ideas this regardless of who the president is.
for example GA dropped subsidies and added fees under the previous anti fossil fuel administration.

as for the federal tax credit it was implemented with a sunset built in, long before trump was even in the picture. when tesla hits the sales number it is bye bye federal tax credit, to repeat this was designed as part of the original implementation of the tax credit.
parts of what you offered are factual, the attempt to claim that cause of the end of the federal tax credit is due to trump is wrong and that any sort of an anti ev agenda from him or his administration is just unsubstantiated conjecture.

 

[Tangible]

Kort, my comment about the administration was with regard to the current $7,500 credit, not the state credits.

I have no idea how Trump personally feels about the issue of federal EV subsidies, but I do know that he is an enthusiastic advocate for coal and oil. Our new secretary of state is the former CEO of Exxon, and our new head of the EPA is a very vocal skeptic about carbon emissions causing global warming. And, the planned increase in military spending is going to have to be offset somewhere.

I was not and am not trying to make a political point. There are plenty of places to argue about politics! I just think these are observable facts irrespective of ones political beliefs, and that it would therefore be wise for anyone who wants to get the tax credits to act while they're in place.

 

[kort677]

Kort, my comment about the administration was with regard to the current $7,500 credit, not the state credits.

and I pointed out that the $7500 tax credit was implemented with a sunset provision long before trump came on the scene.
so regardless trying to tie the ending of the tax credit to trump or anyone in his administration is an ill informed political remark.

 

[Electric700]

One of the tax credits was started under the Bush Administration back in 2008. See here: Public Law 110-343 - Wikipedia

Perhaps former President Bush needs to send a note to President Trump about increasing the subsidies for EVs.

 

[brucet999]

According to an article in the New York Times today many states are canceling their EV tax credits, and some are even adding fees because EVs don't pay gasoline taxes. The federal subsidy is also in trouble, they say.

The new administration is Washington is very friendly to the fossil fuel industry, and very skeptical about human-caused climate change. Given that, EVs are the enemy.

If you're considering a Tesla you might want to take delivery soon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Your conclusion - buy your Tesla soon - seems to be something of a non-sequitur.
Non-renewal of Federal tax credits is a moot question as far as Tesla is concerned. Tesla will use up its credits before the law expires anyway.
Trump administration friendliness to fossil fuels may lower gasoline prices, but unless you think that will kill off EV sales, I fail to see how it would affect Tesla buyers. Don't forget that a strong force in favor of EVs will be Volkswagen's forced commitment to EV production and infrastructure investment.
As to road-use fees for EVs, I must say that, in principal, I agree with them since EVs are heavier than similar-sized ICE vehicles but pay nothing in road taxes. My problem with the proposed "fees" in California is that it is a flat fee, irrespective of miles driven. Also, this state has shown a pattern of diverting gasoline tax revenues to general fund instead of to its intended use for highways, so it is unlikely that such fees will help at all.

 

[Tangible]

In Massachusetts, all EVs get a $2,500 rebate except for Teslas, which get $1,000. The powerful car dealer's lobby had this language inserted into the bill. It was implemented as a cap on the vehicle list price, which was set to be above that of all EVs sold by dealers and below any Tesla, so they could avoid mentioning Tesla by name.

 

[Tangible]

@Bruce: The road use taxes don't make sense even for ICE vehicles because they are assessed by the gallon, not the mile. High MPG cars therefore get an unfair advantage, just as EVs do, only to a lesser extent.

The only fair approach is to assess the tax by the mile driven. States with annual inspections could log the odometer reading, and maybe collect the tax.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I wish I had the opportunity to be irritated by this, but MN has never had an EV tax credit...or really EV incentives of any kind.

 

[brucet999]

@Bruce: The road use taxes don't make sense even for ICE vehicles because they are assessed by the gallon, not the mile. High MPG cars therefore get an unfair advantage, just as EVs do, only to a lesser extent.

The only fair approach is to assess the tax by the mile driven. States with annual inspections could log the odometer reading, and maybe collect the tax.

You make a good point. Many states do have inspections; CA only a biennial smog test that wouldn't apply to EVs at all, so I'm not sure how mileage data would be collected - maybe self-declared on annual re-registration.

 

[snowphoenix]

Road damage can be modeled by miles and weight. Weight plays such a large contribution that a very significant portion of road damage comes from the heaviest vehicles like buses and large trucks (20000 to 80000 lbs). The approximation is to the 4th power...i.e. doubling axle weight equates to about 16x damage. Personal passenger vehicles, even EVs like Teslas, play a small role relative to this. Tesla Model S isn't that far in weight from comparably sized vehicles. (Tesla Model S 4,323-4,936 lbs vs Porsche Panamera 4,123 lbs. The 2015 Ford F150 pickup truck is also approximately 4500 lbs depending on exact model.)
See road damage weight at DuckDuckGo

There's no need to use GPS or any tracking equipment to adopt a weight-mile system. All you need is the vehicle GVWR and the self-reported odometer reading taken at the time of registration and/or an annual license tab renewal. Any underreporting would easily be discovered/corrected when the car is sold.

 

[bonaire]

I wish I had the opportunity to be irritated by this, but MN has never had an EV tax credit...or really EV incentives of any kind.

Think about the carbon footprint of living in MN in the winter. The energy needed to keep cities and homes and "malls of America" warm all the chilly winter of MN is not something that politicians want to give away money for select-few new car buyers to claim. Heating-based NG, oil and coal burned in the state must be huge every year.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

There's no need to use GPS or any tracking equipment to adopt a weight-mile system. All you need is the vehicle GVWR and the self-reported odometer reading taken at the time of registration and/or an annual license tab renewal. Any underreporting would easily be discovered/corrected when the car is sold.

What about people who might do a majority (or a large percentage) of their driving in a different state than the state that the car is registered in? I live in Colorado and have a short commute. Most of my family lives in central Nebraska and eastern Kansas and for the first month that I owned my car, close to 75% of the miles were driven in Kansas, not Colorado, and that was due to just one long road trip out of state. While that percentage has decreased somewhat after a couple of in-state road trips, out-of-state driving still makes up over 25% of the miles on my odometer since delivery and will be increasing back to 35% after a road trip later this month.

If they use a self-reported odometer reading and only take into account the miles driven then I would be taxed in Colorado for miles driven in Kansas, Nebraska or any other state. Look at other metro areas around the US such as Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. If someone lived in Portland but worked in Vancouver (or vice versa), then they could be unfairly taxed for miles driven in another state. A way to fairly assess the taxes would be to use GPS data. They could scrub the data to only include state information so that each state would be able to tax drivers based on miles actually driven in that state. If such a method was used, the the state collecting the taxes could distribute the funds to states where the driving actually took place.

 

[kort677]

In Massachusetts, all EVs get a $2,500 rebate except for Teslas, which get $1,000. The powerful car dealer's lobby had this language inserted into the bill. It was implemented as a cap on the vehicle list price, which was set to be above that of all EVs sold by dealers and below any Tesla, so they could avoid mentioning Tesla by name.

in the people's commonwealth of MA, it appeat that the citizens are not afforded equal protection under the law.
I am surprised that this discrimination against a class of EV owners was never challenged in the courts

 

[brucet999]

What about people who might do a majority (or a large percentage) of their driving in a different state than the state that the car is registered in? I live in Colorado and have a short commute. Most of my family lives in central Nebraska and eastern Kansas and for the first month that I owned my car, close to 75% of the miles were driven in Kansas, not Colorado, and that was due to just one long road trip out of state. While that percentage has decreased somewhat after a couple of in-state road trips, out-of-state driving still makes up over 25% of the miles on my odometer since delivery and will be increasing back to 35% after a road trip later this month.

If they use a self-reported odometer reading and only take into account the miles driven then I would be taxed in Colorado for miles driven in Kansas, Nebraska or any other state. Look at other metro areas around the US such as Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. If someone lived in Portland but worked in Vancouver (or vice versa), then they could be unfairly taxed for miles driven in another state. A way to fairly assess the taxes would be to use GPS data. They could scrub the data to only include state information so that each state would be able to tax drivers based on miles actually driven in that state. If such a method was used, the the state collecting the taxes could distribute the funds to states where the driving actually took place.

Sounds unnecessarily complicated to me, not to mention invasive use of GPS. I would guess that there are probably a roughly equal number of Kansans and Nebraskans driving to Colorado as the reverse, so it would all work out.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Sounds unnecessarily complicated to me, not to mention invasive use of GPS. I would guess that there are probably a roughly equal number of Kansans and Nebraskans driving to Colorado as the reverse, so it would all work out.

If it was just GPS data for the state (not where in the state), it wouldn't be that invasive. Do you think it would be fair for Colorado to charge me for 15000 miles of road usage if I only drove 2000 of those miles in Colorado and the rest were in other states? It seems to me, those taxes should go to the state that maintains the roads that I actually use.

 

[brucet999]

If it was just GPS data for the state (not where in the state), it wouldn't be that invasive. Do you think it would be fair for Colorado to charge me for 15000 miles of road usage if I only drove 2000 of those miles in Colorado and the rest were in other states? It seems to me, those taxes should go to the state that maintains the roads that I actually use.

I refer you to my second sentence.

 

[Az_Rael]

What about people who might do a majority (or a large percentage) of their driving in a different state than the state that the car is registered in? I live in Colorado and have a short commute. Most of my family lives in central Nebraska and eastern Kansas and for the first month that I owned my car, close to 75% of the miles were driven in Kansas, not Colorado, and that was due to just one long road trip out of state. While that percentage has decreased somewhat after a couple of in-state road trips, out-of-state driving still makes up over 25% of the miles on my odometer since delivery and will be increasing back to 35% after a road trip later this month.

If they use a self-reported odometer reading and only take into account the miles driven then I would be taxed in Colorado for miles driven in Kansas, Nebraska or any other state. Look at other metro areas around the US such as Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. If someone lived in Portland but worked in Vancouver (or vice versa), then they could be unfairly taxed for miles driven in another state. A way to fairly assess the taxes would be to use GPS data. They could scrub the data to only include state information so that each state would be able to tax drivers based on miles actually driven in that state. If such a method was used, the the state collecting the taxes could distribute the funds to states where the driving actually took place.

In CA a process to account for this already exists. I drive close to half my daily commute on Federal property. I am allowed to fill out some forms, keep a log and request reimbirsement for the state gas taxes I paid (when I had an ICE) but did not use to drive on state roads.

Seems a simple way to handle out of state commuters, no GPS needed.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Sounds unnecessarily complicated to me, not to mention invasive use of GPS. I would guess that there are probably a roughly equal number of Kansans and Nebraskans driving to Colorado as the reverse, so it would all work out.

I refer you to my second sentence.

I only want to pay my taxes for my driving and for others to pay their taxes for their driving. I don't want to hope it's "roughly an equal number".

In CA a process to account for this already exists. I drive close to half my daily commute on Federal property. I am allowed to fill out some forms, keep a log and request reimbirsement for the state gas taxes I paid (when I had an ICE) but did not use to drive on state roads.

Seems a simple way to handle out of state commuters, no GPS needed.

I know there are apps that track miles for Uber, etc. so if the state would allow data entries from such an app and only tax me for the miles I drive in on the roads that they maintain, that would work for me as well.

 

[snowphoenix]

I only want to pay my taxes for my driving and for others to pay their taxes for their driving. I don't want to hope it's "roughly an equal number".


I know there are apps that track miles for Uber, etc. so if the state would allow data entries from such an app and only tax me for the miles I drive in on the roads that they maintain, that would work for me as well.

As Az_Rael mentioned, it is possible to have a refund mechanism to account for out-of-state miles. It's also possible to set up self-reporting as an option (with a refund mechanism), and in parallel, have an option for an automatic GPS-based system for who want the convenience in spite of the tradeoffs. GPS should not be a requirement in any system.

For the privacy-conscious, do note that GPS isn't required to track vehicles. Widely distributed license plates readers and toll readers (e.g. EZ-Pass) can gather a lot of the same information. Our phone apps, carriers, and for connected cars, automakers, know our locations with some degree of accuracy.

Right now, with fuel-based taxes that (AFAIK) mostly go into state general funds, we are far from the idea of road users are paying for the roads. From a repair/rebuild perspective, nationally we are living on inherited infrastructure (transportation and otherwise). Assuming a 50 year useful life, we would need to be rebuilding 2% of the infrastructure every year to just to keep things at the current level.

Roads do not exist in a vacuum either; decisions made about building density, rail and transit systems also affect road demand and use. Fully autonomous vehicles may increase road use by reducing demand for certain flight routes.