Honda Insight Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Madison — Wisconsin would join five other states that impose special fees on electric and hybrid vehicles if the proposed $50 annual charge put forward by the Department of Transportation becomes law.

The proposal must win approval in the Legislature and be signed by Gov. Scott Walker before becoming law. The new fee would take effect in 2016.

Steve Hiniker, executive director of the environmental group 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, said Monday that the fee would penalize people for doing the right thing by purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles.

The state DOT says that while the vehicles have a positive environmental impact, owners pay little if any motor fuel tax to help cover costs of road maintenance and operations.

Washington, Colorado, Nebraska, Virginia and North Carolina have fees for electric vehicles.
Anyone have strong opinions regarding this?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,900 Posts
Anyone have strong opinions regarding this?
A rational case can be made for either side of this argument, and I for one hope folks will remain rational on the issue.

It is true that the gasoline tax is used to support road construction and maintenance in most, possibly all states. So, when hybrid and electric owners cut back their tax, the financial support of roads is diminished. Obviously, on the other hand, the use of hybrid and electric vehicles reduces carbon emissions, and reduces U.S. dependance on foreign oil. Of course, hybrids and electrics are just part of the problem. Vehicles in general are getting better fuel economy, which in turn means less road money.


Virginia law on hybrids was repealed after public outcry. I'm not sure about the part affecting electrics. As a hybrid owner I grumbled some, and I wrote some protest letters, becoming a part of the reversal of the law. I now think I may have been wrong on that count. Our infrastructure continues to crumble, so the money was certainly needed.
 

·
Hypermiler
Joined
·
3,650 Posts
Interesting discussion. Good points on both side as Jime points out.

My position is against assessing fees on hybrid or electric owners. I think states need to figure out how to draw on registration fees to support highway upkeep. A few thoughts on this:

- I bought my Insights primarily due to cost of commuting and cost of fuel. The fuel product is simply too expensive for me, but I don't have the choice of seeking out a lesser expensive product. I chose to drive a car that uses less of the product.

- My car and others like it are very light compared to the majority of vehicles on the road. I think my car does not contribute to the wear/damage of roadways that heavier vehicles do. eg: 40 ton tractor trailers and triaxles. This leads to point 3.

- Recognizing the continued deterioration of the highway systems, gotta have revenue for road upkeep and repair. I think this can be accomplished not only with fuel tax, but with registration fees (which are already in place) adjusted to size, weight, and number of axles on the vehicle (as is in place in PA and likely most if not all other states). Registration for tractor trailers is considerably more costly than for private autos. Same for pick-up trucks.

- I believe owners of vehicles that contribute the least damage to roads and environment should have the lesser of the fees. That's the beauty of our great nation: freedom of choice. :)

and that's my $2 worth of biased opinion. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I'm with ya Mountain driver. Unfortunately large shipping companies can get around high registration fees by registering their vehicles in other states. It's a complex issue, but simply taxing all hybrid owners is not the right solution in my opinion. We may as well start taxing pedestrians and cyclists while were at it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,814 Posts
There have been recent discussions about mileage based taxes, not fuel based. Those will hit our pocket books more than a $50 per year charge, since most of us bought these due to long commutes.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,938 Posts
For electric vehicles it makes sense. I know EV owners are willing to pay for the roads they use. So some fee makes sense. Although, whoever crafted this did not make it nearly high enough.

As for hybrids?
Singling out hybrids is odd. Why are they lumped in with EVs?
How about wording it so it is is cars over a specific mpg. Say 35mpg?

There are plenty of low-mpg hybrids.
And there are plenty of high-mpg non-hybrids.

The real question is what do want to do about it?
 

·
Hypermiler
Joined
·
3,650 Posts
News, N4S, Eric: Agreed with all. This is quite a 'spirited' topic in company of large pick up owners.

I know about the registering in other states, companies I have driven for do that. Tough issue, register in 'home' state of business, or state where most business is done ? (or state with lowest fee- most likely ) Standard rate would be good, but I really don't like federal control.

As for EV's, I think registration payment by weight/axels/ use is the answer.

CA proposed mileage based recently, vehemently shot down by the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
A rational case can be made for either side of this argument, and I for one hope folks will remain rational on the issue.

It is true that the gasoline tax is used to support road construction and maintenance in most, possibly all states. So, when hybrid and electric owners cut back their tax, the financial support of roads is diminished. Obviously, on the other hand, the use of hybrid and electric vehicles reduces carbon emissions, and reduces U.S. dependance on foreign oil. Of course, hybrids and electrics are just part of the problem. Vehicles in general are getting better fuel economy, which in turn means less road money.
Here most of the state "Gas tax" is not used for roads but goes into a disgressionary fund (unless they changed that, didn't check if it really got moved)

Next there are 1400 EVs and roughly 6000 hybrids in wisconsin. We lead the nation in 4wds but little else and are behind most states in policy and in the mindset by at least 20 years.

This issue has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY.

(humor me and multiply the above by $50 and tell me how much of our 47 billion dollars in debt it covers)

It is coming up because there is a rather large group of reactionary individuals in the state that would feel better if these owners were punished.

Given the poor penetration of these vehicles into wisconsin due to an attitude shared by most residents here creating this tax will make ownership LESS LIKELY and become an excuse, to me this is probably the real reason for the tax.

And in the case of my 1981 comutacar I will likely have to take it off the road because it increases the cost per mile by a factor of 10 (no I don't drive many miles)

If they want a gas tax for EVs it should relate to a percentage of the actual cost per kwhr of electricity they use like a gasser. Think for a moment, a gasser pays what? 5-10% tax an ev should be no different and already pays tax on electricity amoung a million other fees.

Piss poor thought process punishing those who do the least damage to the roads, are apart of the smallest group and use domesticly produced energy.

Far better to start taxing the farm tractors and local "sand" and logging trucks that pay little or no tax at all due to the loopholes for farm and local route vehicles.

Cheers
Ryan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Here most of the state "Gas tax" is not used for roads but goes into a disgressionary fund (unless they changed that, didn't check if it really got moved)

Next there are 1400 EVs and roughly 6000 hybrids in wisconsin. We lead the nation in 4wds but little else and are behind most states in policy and in the mindset by at least 20 years.

This issue has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY.

(humor me and multiply the above by $50 and tell me how much of our 47 billion dollars in debt it covers)

It is coming up because there is a rather large group of reactionary individuals in the state that would feel better if these owners were punished.

Given the poor penetration of these vehicles into wisconsin due to an attitude shared by most residents here creating this tax will make ownership LESS LIKELY and become an excuse, to me this is probably the real reason for the tax.

And in the case of my 1981 comutacar I will likely have to take it off the road because it increases the cost per mile by a factor of 10 (no I don't drive many miles)

If they want a gas tax for EVs it should relate to a percentage of the actual cost per kwhr of electricity they use like a gasser. Think for a moment, a gasser pays what? 5-10% tax an ev should be no different and already pays tax on electricity amoung a million other fees.

Piss poor thought process punishing those who do the least damage to the roads, are apart of the smallest group and use domesticly produced energy.

Far better to start taxing the farm tractors and local "sand" and logging trucks that pay little or no tax at all due to the loopholes for farm and local route vehicles.

Cheers
Ryan

This guy gets it!

Our government on all levels is corrupt as hell, our roads would be lined in silver if they actually spent all the gas taxes they bring in on roads and infrastructure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
After doing some more research it appears that 47,500 registered vehicles in Wisconsin are electric/hybrid. The Wisconsin DOT reported 5.5 total registered vehicles in 2010. That means less than 1% of vehicles on the road in Wisconsin are electric/hybrid.

The DOT is looking for 731 million dollars. If the tax is approved they will only raise 2.3 million.
I don't know where they get that number from but it can't be from the DOT, my numbers are a year old but to get anywhere near 47k you would have to count ALL alternative fuel vehicles.

This means the tax must include, bifuel city bus's, CNG, propane, H2, and they must be counting all the fake greenwashed 20mpg hybrids including suburbans/tahoe's/saturns/malibus/durango/bmw/mercedes and hybrid county bus's to get to that number.

Knowing this makes me a little happier in a sadistic way that its not just electric cars but it still makes absolutely no sense as those vehicles still burn lots of fuel.

Also looking further our states own motor pool owns a VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE of greenwashed hybrids registered in state, not sure if those are counted in this number but any state owned are obviously not going to really fund anything with Peter paying Paul. If memory serves our state/local/and colleges own over 2000 hybrids.

Anyway...

I think unless they can find a way to have a percentage of the "fuel" cost as tax I will strongly disagree with it. You always need to leave the owner an out and a reason to conserve, this tax does not do that at all, opposite even.

Cheers
Ryan
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
211 Posts
road tax should be entirely based on weight. heavy semi trucks should pay their share and that will get the loads onto the railways where they belong except for local distribution.

studded tires should be outlawed or owners forced to pay $1,000/month for having them installed on a car. the new sliced tire tread design for snow and ice is not damaging to the roads and should be used instead of studs except and only when the roadway is covered entirely with ice. no other time.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top