Washington considers annual flat fee for electric cars

[The Northerner]

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Drivers of electric cars may have left the gas pump behind, but there's one expense they may not be able to shake: paying to maintain the roads.

After years of urging residents to buy fuel-efficient cars and giving them tax breaks to do it, Washington state lawmakers are considering a measure to charge them a $100 annual fee — what would be the nation's first electric car fee.

State lawmakers grappling with a $5 billion deficit are facing declining gas tax revenue, which means less money to maintain or improve roads.

"Electric vehicles put just as much wear and tear on our roads as gas vehicles," said Democratic state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, the bill's lead sponsor. "This simply ensures that they contribute their fair share to the upkeep of our roads."

Other states are trying to find solutions to the same problem, as cars become more fuel-efficient and, now, don't use any gas at all.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_electric_car_fees

[Exultant Democracy]

1. What ass-hats. The real concern should be with incentivising more people to convert right now.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[pnwmom]

5. You don't think all cars should help in paying for road maintenance?

It's not as if the electric cars are weightless, or don't require roads to be in good condition.

[MH1]

10. Then change the fee structure. Get road maintenance from registration fees.

Use gas taxes to fund air pollution and climate change mitigation efforts.

Make the fees appropriate for their respective purposes.

Edit to clarify: all cars should be charged similar registration fee based on weight or whatever else might indicate their impact on the road.

[KT2000]

14. they did have fees

that were based on year and model- and on weight and type of vehicle such as sedan or trucks.
The anti-tax zealot in the state sponsored an initiative that limited that fee to $30. To maintain roads they had to come up with another source and that was a gas tax.
Now we have a 2/3 requirement to raise taxes and fees thanks to the same anti-tax zealot.
They probably think this is the most likely measure to meet the 2/3.

[pnwmom]

19. Under your plan, drivers of electric vehicles would pay more than $100.

Is that what you really want?

[MH1]

22. As long as everyone pays equitably based on some rational algorithm.

If the real cost of maintaining the roads is so high, then perhaps we should be looking more to mass transit.

Not just drivers benefit from roads. Anyone who buys food or anything else that is trucked from anywhere uses the roads. Are gas taxes the only way roads are paid for now? I don't think so, and if that's the case, it's dumb.

It's also dumb to discourage the use of cleaner vehicles.

[pnwmom]

24. How does a $100 fee, which is significantly less than the taxes

gas powered vehicle owners would be paying, work to discourage electric cars?

[Hippo_Tron]

33. It's not how much they pay, it's about the incentives to buy an electric vehicle

If you are trying to market electric cars to people through incentives, you don't want to add ANY taxes to them, even if it's only a dollar. It doesn't matter if they will end up paying more in some other way. This is an area where people don't make perfectly rational economic decisions. The perception of getting something for free is an extremely powerful motivator, even if you aren't really getting it for free and end up paying for it in the long run. In this case, you want to create the perception that buying an electric car means that you are free from ever having to pay for gas and any related taxes.

[Exultant Democracy]

27. I think we have an urgent climate problem

and we need to be pulling out all the stops to encourage a transition to cleaner cars. Avoiding or paying a lower gas tax is a natural incentive for drivers to switch over. If they need more money to pay for roads and they are concerned about having a habitable climate then they should add a surtax to the gas guzzlers rather then the environmentally friendly autos.

Of course electric cars are not weightless but when we factor in the totality of the externalities (acid rain, addiction to foreign oil, wars, poor air quality and the accompanying health problems... etc.) the drivers of electric cars should be getting paid by the state rather then being charged.

[MH1]

29. +1

[tech9413]

30. I think all should be paying to support the infrastructure

When all vehicles were running on fossil fuels it was reasonable to use that fuel tax for road maintenance. GVW was considered in the cost of registration to cover the excess wear in most states.

Now that there are alternative fuel sources they have to be figured into the equation. Here's my stupidly simple idea to make it equitable. Every state should have a yearly inspection to verify mileage from year to year. That figure should be taxed based on GVW. How that fee is levied is the tough part. It could be billed independently, added to registration fees, or any other way that makes the owner of the vehicle responsible.

Consider the current tax on fuel for road usage as an environmental hazard tax. The other factors of the vehicle and usage would be covered by the above mentioned fees.

The tough part is adjusting those three prime parameters, without undue influence, to make them equitable.

My motto has always been KISS Keep It Simple Stupid.

There have been many propositions to deal with this problem that wanted to use GPS technology and all that BS to bill drivers for their road usage. Any fool can see the error in that approach. You spend hundreds of millions, if not more, to install a system. Then you spend a million or two to keep it operational for a year. All this to collect a few million over a year. Then you get into long term maintenance. Bad gamble that I would never take.

Same story KISS, just find a way to pay for GVW and miles per period and find a way to collect it.
My vote for finding a way to collect is just have the DMV inspection information out there for LEO's to compare to registration.
No intrusive BS.
I could argue his all night, but I'm drunk and tired and will catch a few Z's before I respond.

Night All ,

best to all

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Eventually yes, but it's counterproductive when the government is creating incentives for electric

When the technology gets to the point that electric cars are cheap enough to be widely purchased without additional incentives, then it makes sense to find some way to tax them for road maintenance. But when you're trying to create incentives for a certain behavior (purchasing electric cars) adding an additional tax is a terrible idea.

[Sherman A1]

2. There will have to be some method of maintaining the roads

as the income from gas tax (hopefully) diminishes. I am sure there are variations on a theme, but roads cost money and will need upkeep.

[truedelphi]

3. I guess the state has realized the huge amount of state gas taxes that are not being

Paid.

However wouldn't it be great if they handled the matter by taxing the larger, more polluting industries in the state, rather than those that are helping everyone by keeping emissions down.

Don't suppose the reason that won't happen has anything at all to do with the fact that Big Polluters usually have nice backroom deals with the state legislators.

[L0oniX]

4. "Washington" in this case = big oil.

[pnwmom]

6. Why shouldn't drivers of electric cars help to pay for

maintaining the roads they drive on?

[girl gone mad]

8. This will charge people even if they never drive on the roads.

[dems_rightnow]

11. Ah yes....

The off-road electric cars....

[pnwmom]

16. If they're never planning to drive on a road they don't need a car.

They can use a golf cart around their backyard or wherever.

[kelly1mm]

31. Actually, if they are not going to drive on public roads they do not need

to register their car. I have a farm only truck that I use around the property to get wood, check fences etc. Never been registered as long as I have had it (bought it used).

[csziggy]

35. There could be provisions the same for farm use fuel now

Now in most places, farmers can get an exemption from paying fuel taxes for use in their farm equipment that is never used on public roads. The same idea can be used to exempt vehicles in the future, no matter which the tax structure is eventually decided on.

[L0oniX]

9. Maybe bicyclists should pay too.

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

17. Bicyclists put very little wear and tear on a road compared to cars. n/t

[L0oniX]

20. The tax on tires is suppose to pay for roads.

[pnwmom]

25. Since when? n/t

[tritsofme]

7. Roads don't pay for themselves.

Sounds reasonable.

[SoCalDem]

12. They need to wait a while.

When the percentage flips, and there are MORE electric cars that gashogs, that's the time to impose fees.. This is just a vindictive little scheme to try & dissuade some people from bolting from the status quo

[Sherman A1]

13. And in the mean time,

the roads are maintained how?

I appreciate your argument, however repairs and upkeep are ongoing issues with ongoing costs.

[SoCalDem]

15. Roll the $100 a year into extra charges for the super-heavy SUVs

to encourage them to buy the electrics:evilgrin:

The whole idea of going OFF gas guzzlers is to save money... I realize that $100 is a modest amount, but they could surely come up with a better plan than to "punish" people , especially when their vehicles often come at a higher price..even with the incentives offered. As more are put on the road, those incentives will vanish as well. Most of the vehicles tend to be smaller too, so the "damage" to roads is probably not all that big of an issue.

I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of the gas-tax road repair money eventually gets siphoned off into fat-cat pockets too. Around here we are ALWAYS getting hit with bond issues that raise our taxes..for roads..and we buy a LOT of gasoline, so there seems to be some fuzzy math going on:)

Some states figure registration fees based on weight (potential damage creation) rather than cost of the vehicle.. That may be a way to approach it.

[Sherman A1]

21. While I don't entirely disagree with you

I don't see the fee as punishment, perhaps more of a user tax, but hardly punishment.

If you gain the benefit of the road by driving upon it, should you not help to pay for that benefit?

There are all sorts of variations on a theme for how one pays for road upkeep, but I believe in some form or another, users of that road should contribute.

[pnwmom]

18. No, it's a reasonable way to have drivers of electric cars

help pay for the maintenance of the roads they share with other vehicles.

[MH1]

23. Why not have the fee added to all registrations?

Why only electric cars?

[pnwmom]

26. Because electric cars aren't paying other taxes that owners of

gas powered vehicles pay. And with this fee an owner of an electric car would still be paying significantly less than other vehicles -- as opposed to the nothing that they're paying right now.

[MH1]

28. That's a choice the other vehicle owners make. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

34. I bet the loss in revenue is more due to people buying less gas because it's so expensive

[lostnfound]

36. Electric cars are generally lighter weight so no, they don't put as much

Stress on the road. They aren't as large as SUVs either, so you can actually pack them closer. Just look at roads in much of Europe.

[Logical]

37. What a farce! n-t