New tax on EVs
 

This story is about the new transportation infrastructure bill in California. It taxes gasoline, diesel, and EVs. The increase on gasoline is $0.12 per US gallon. It is $100 per year on EVs. A stock version of my car driven 12,000 miles per year would pay $48 more. Clearly, part of the logic of this tax is making EV owners catch up with the rest of the public's tax expenses for roads and such. The "free" ride of the EV shows signs of ending even in go-go EV Cali:
California Lawmakers Approve Gas Tax To Pay For $52 Billion Infrastructure Plan | The Huffington Post

It makes sense. As the market takes over, subsidies go away and as the market shifts, the tax structure has to shift with it.

I know it might be controversial, but it's fair to charge EV owners their share on road usage as much as ICE-powered vehicles. Otherwise it would eventually be another excuse to point out at their drivers as selfish smugs. BTW I just get quite confused about how they're going to tax PHEVs and EREVs.

I guess the love affair is officially over once the tax credits fall off.

^I'd call that the beginning of the mainstream love affair, but whatever.

Not so sure about EVs going mainstream so soon at all, but when we look at Tesla and the way it makes them look quite attractive it doesn't seem so unlikely that they're retaining some support from the geeks with deep pockets.

The cars have a following out here in coastal Southern Cali. And they even sell pretty well when used. Partly that is the taxes, prolly. Partly it is the HOV sticker, prolly. Escaping smog testing is another benefit. And torque!! Also, we have lots of charge stations. Every EV on the market is here in force, it seems.

And mid-coastal CA. That's why my gas-hog mini van saves by sitting. Less miles = less insurance. My 3-wheel scooters are unlicensed EVs so far and my 3-wheel trike is human power; so no tax. Some gas stations charge for air so I bought an air compressor. I pay so little tax on the van that I almost feel guilty.

I don't mind, as the amount isn't astronomical. Fuel taxes also went up, but it's needed as they haven't gone up for a long time. Roads need fixing. Only downside is if the electric car isn't driving 12,000 miles a year, then one would be paying higher than average.

Gil

It was bound to happen that someone would notice that EVs represent a lot of infrastructural load that isn't paying its share. Better to get in front of that budget burden now and get people used to it, rather than later and fight the inertia.

$100/year is cheap. If I were paying the proposed fuel tax rate this year, I would be at $40 YTD on my hybrid; $100/year would be a bargain.

Not arguing with you but, rather, pointing out the fact that California, like almost all the other states (including Arizona), over those same years, have NOT really been returning much to their highway systems beyond minimal repairs...in other words: "...highway funds have been SPENT elsewhere, for OTHER things..."

So, charging EV's is probably NOT going to IMPROVE any highways, UNTIL state gobberments quit spending tax money as if it were their own...and...begin to DO what was PROMISED to be done with the money in the first place.

What they are going to do is when the roads really start falling apart they will raise taxes so they can be fixed.

My volt keeps track of every kwhr it uses and reports it back to big brother, leaf does the same.

Given the law won't affect current EVs (only 2020 or later)

A simple KWHR meter could be required on the car and the "energy tax" could be pegged to usuage just as it is with a gas car.

Miles traveled, flat fees and their ilk aren't fair taxation on 100mpge vehicles.

Road damage goes up exponentially with weight and speed, this means an eco driver does much less damage than a typical driver. Also road damage being an exponent means that anything under 10,000 lbs does statistically insignificant amounts of damage to the road.
Primary road tax should always fall on commercial vehicles and trucks.

Further even in Cali, there are only 87,000 BEVs in state out of 270,000 ish cumulative plug ins + hydrogen cars sold there to date. That is about 1 true EV for every 367 vehicles (there are 31 million vehicles in Cali )
(A bev doesn't have an ice)
Cali BEVs travel far fewer miles than the national average, Cali Chevy volts travel more electric miles than the BEVs in that state (as of 2015)

Please note the cumulative ev number 270,000ish sometimes used (like in a wiki) for Cali is misleading, wrecked cars stay in "that" number and plug in hybrids are also in "that" number, over half of "used" EVs leave California at some point via auction which also is neglected in "that" number.

Put another way, if these EVs were equivalent gas cars California would collect an additional $1.9-4.2 million dollars in gas tax in addition to the roughly 19 billion they currently collect or about .01 percent more consumer gas tax, enough to pave 1 or 2 miles of 2 lane highway.
Their current collection scheme nets them 8.5 million a year, roughly 2-4x more than an equivalent fleet of gas economy cars would pay (last year) given current mileage metrics.

(yes I'm just looking at the primary form of gas tax in Cali as of last year, move numbers up proportionally if you don't like it)

Based on the average hidden municipal "tax" baked into Calis per KWHR rate moving these cars electric consumption to gas would loose Cali municipalities about $4.9 million a year in electric tax (this is not including the fixed taxes, only the average incremental per kwhr municipal tax most areas like California levie hidden in your per kwhr rate)

My point is electric cars already pay lots of tax, just not as of yet road tax, there are so few even in the most EV centric state that the amount of tax collected is irrelevant, the rate of taxation based off a 12,000 mile 25mpg car isn't necessarily fair either and states that charge high EV taxes tend to be net exporters of used electric cars (like all the used leafs from Georgia for sale all over the country)

Put from another point of view, I use a max of about $93 of electricity a year to run my volt, who here would want to see gas prices doubled by a taxation mechanism while other forms of energy are taxed at a lower rate?

Perhaps to early for legislators to be having this discussion and perhaps what they feel is fair will have unintended consequence.

I don't mind it much, but to be fair it should be based on vehicle weight and use. The use part should be based on road maintenance caused by weather/time, and the weight part should be based on the damage caused.

I'm curious. How much does Arizona collect in highway funds and how much do they spend on transportation? In Oregon our transportation spending far exceeds what we collect in transportation related taxes and our roads continue to deteriorate. The numbers:

ODOT budget: $3.4 billion

Revenue:
1.10 billion (Fuel Taxes)
0.77 Billion (Driver's fees)
0.72 Billion (Federal Highway Funds)
0.61 Billion (Weight / mile taxes)
0.11 Billion (Lottery)
0.03 Billion (General Fund)

Oregon gasoline consumption peaked back in 2006. That is why Oregon is experimenting with a $1.5 cents per mile tax instead of a gas tax. I participated in the program (OReGO) for a year and the program worked flawlessly.

JSH - Good question, to which I have no specific answer at the moment. However, PART of AZ's problem is that we're mostly rural with basically only three BIG cities...then all the rest:

• Phoenix - largest city & state capitol & mostly red politically.
• Tucson - 2nd largest city & mostly blue politically.
• Flagstaff - 3rd largest city & was one-time capitol
• Yuma - 4th largest city (due to winter "snowbirds").

Here, most of the money goes first to Phoenix & Maricopa County, second to state highway roads, lastly to other cities (Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma) in descending order...the result of LOTS of political "in-fighting."

Which countries have plans for all new cars to be electric, and when?

Norway, The Netherlands, then Germany.

OTOH, once the Artificially Intelligent flocking software and batteries are up to the task, flying cars will mean the end of all that wear of rubber against concrete. And brake dust in the air.

I remember back in the 90s, all through the 90s in the US they were saying almost all cars would be electric by 2020.
Since we are almost half way through 2017 I'm going to have to call it.

'they' again? When will 'they' get it right?

http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/Pop-Mechanics.png
http://www.kurzweilai.net/an-autonomous-flying-car-really

Then under Bush the trends switched to Hydrogen and ethanol, while Obama was more supportive to BEVs and shale gas. The problem with alternative fuels and other approaches for eco cars are driven more by the political conveniences of the moment than technical aspects. Hydrogen is mostly out of question since it's too expensive and unsafe to store, while EVs would mostly just switch the emissions from the vehicles' tailpipes to the chimneys of powerplants, and most people seem to ignore the losses on the grid. Anyway, unless some major improvement is done to the electric grid to fulfill the increasing demand from EVs and battery charging becomes as quick as filling a gasoline tank, I wouldn't hold my breath for electric cars to become mainstream so soon.

IMHO electric cars will become practical when range anxiety stops. Same scenario back in the 20's with airtravel. 1850's with iron horses.

Still looking for my flying car and chicken in every pot.

I drive the ranger 15 k miles a year. If it actually fixes the potholes, them I will gladly pay a tax. So far the head of the state road division makes 5 X what I make. That is a lot of hot mix.

I agree.
If there was a pot hole tax where they actually took the money paid in and fixed pot holes I would gladly pay it.

Most of the increased demand from EV's is actually beneficial for utilities because it happens at night when demand is low and they have plenty of extra capacity.

The time to "fill the tank" is irrelevant as the car charges while I'm sleeping. I'm not waiting for it to charge. I get out, plug it in, come out the next morning to a fully charged car. It is MUCH more convenient to charge my EV then to fill my other vehicles with gasoline. For my gas cars I have to go out of my way to go to the station, wait in line, and then wait to fill the tank.

EVs will go mainstream when the price come down a bit more and when more people have actually driven an EV and see the superior driving experience firsthand.

oil pan 4 — http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...les-34976.html

I get range anxiety burning clear premium. :confused:

I heard a (probably apocryphal) story about a framer and his wife who decided to trade their horse for one of those new-fangled brass-era automobiles. When it ran out of gas they decided it was a mistake and put it up on blocks.

Many years later: Barn-find!

Here in finland it was calculated, that if we replaced ALL our roadgoing cars overnight to ev and mainly used nighttime electricity to charge the cars, we would "only" need more grid capacity, equivalent of a nuclear reactor, about 900-1000MW.

And we have more reactors to be planned and investments in wind power, yaayy!

The situation in the USA is very similar. If I recall correctly we can cover about 85% of a complete switch to EVs with our current grid if the charging is done at night. Of course a switch to EVs won't happen overnight so we will have plenty of time to make any needed upgrades.

One big issue in the USA is that we don't have one electrical grid. Electrical power in the USA is provided by a combination of 3306 different electrical utilities. http://www.publicpower.org/files/PDF...Statistics.pdf

Yeah, we have the National grid. Makes everyhting more fail-safer, because everything is in a loop here. Harder to blow out.

Do these calculations take into account people willfully choosing to invest in new and re-roofing that is more durable and incidentally will charge a car locally without any interaction with a/the grid?

Not sure if those calculations take into account the investment on off-the-grid power generation, presumably it doesn't anyway.


We have a national grid in Brazil too, but it's actually more fail-prone than fail-safe.

So the power grid is too big to fail?
Ha!

electric blackouts are not very common, maybe 0,5-2 hours a year.

at least in my area. There is a hydroelectric plant about 8kms from our house.

Not the one's I've seen. They just look at the current installed electrical capacity and the additional power required to charge a fleet of EVs.

The interconnected grid is complex and a PITA to control. Much of the cost (almost as much as the generation costs) of our power (Canada) is put into controlling which plants are online and which are not, ramping up standby capacity to deal with peak demand, etc etc. There is much discussion about regulation where wind and solar are available. And how fast the information about what output is available from solar and wind get to the control center.

Another large chunk is maintenance/upgrade of the transmission lines and substation gear. The transformers are hardware and they have a design life. The switches have a life rated in cycles. And stuff just generally wears out.

Our power company (SaskPower) has been upsizing and replacing local distribution stations for about 10 years. The gear replaced was 60+ years old and had a design life of 50 years. So it did well, on average. Not to say that they were not replacing stuff before that .. but since the hardware was past design life, the rate of upgrades increased noticeably. Like maybe 5X - 10X the upgrades.

When overloads and lightning happen, the power meters and relays on our grid act automatically to island (trip and isolate the problem) or re-close (maybe it was a tree across cables and we can close on the fault and 'cook' it clear) or whatever the control scheme is. People get involved starting up replacement stuff, dispatching crews for maintenance, and generally cleaning stuff up or having power generation spinning and ready to take over the loads when trips happen.

There is a reason that the power company gives you so little for excess generation onto the grid, besides the fact that they are *EVIL* ... the power generation is only part of the cost. And it is not even the largest cost.

My power at home trips for a few seconds at a time several times per year. 4 years ago it tripped during a rainstorm and I got a flooded basement. So now I have a standby generator (natural gas) and no insurance on flooding.

At the cabin, summer power loss is normal. Maybe 20 times in 6 months. Usually a few seconds at a time. So far, never over 5 minutes during the heating season.

The more I learn about our local grid, and the grid in general, the more I want my own standby system.

But that's only my opinion!

I was told by someone who went to a university talk about the grid that there's a theoretical limit to the percent of grid power that can be from solar grid ties. If it was over some percent, the grid would become unstable, and in practice, it was actually less than the theoretical percent. But the talk was about how the speaker had invented a way to build some inertia into the software, so it wouldn't have the same stability issues. I don't think it's used in general right now.

The theoretical limit is 100% solar.

The issue with solar or wind energy feeding into our current electric grid is that the power generation is not consistent. Clouds shade panels and the wind doesn't blow at a constant speed. That compares to a gas plant where generation can be ramped up or down at will to meet the demand. The current grid doesn't have a way to store extra energy and feed it back when needed. There are ways to do this but right now we don't.

I think there must be a limit, according to some theory or another, for the grid stability portion :D

Agreed.

- Pumped hydro is one method that is relatively simple to do, but you already need a hydro dam. In low demand periods, you pump the water back up the grade and into the reservoir (using cheap baseload electricity from coal plants that don't ramp up or down quickly, or excess wind, excess solar)
- grid-storage. Flow batteries, rotating mass storage, etc to store the extra energy until it is needed. The battery or mass storage also doubles as power factor correction and makes the local grid more stable and energy efficient.

Those are the ones I read about. I'm sure there are others.

Be it solar, wind, coal, heavy crude oil, gas, biomass or even hydro, relying on a single source of energy for power generation is always somewhat risky. Hydro is cheaper an therefore more widely used here in Brazil and in Paraguay, but thermal generation usually fed by coal and more recently Natural Gas became more common as a backup.

A technology demonstrated to be more efficient than pumped hydro is steel wheels on rails.

https://www.google.com/search?q=elec...orage+railroad

http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/

Their demonstrator uses miles of existing track with typical grades in Nevada. I think a better solution would be a cog or rack railway.

For a home installation, a stack of barbell weights that traverses a flagpole on cables and pulleys.

Our hydro plant is @ a dam, so at lower demands the water bypasses the turbines and gets directly into the river, and at high demands the bypass is closed. There is always a tiny flow, intended for fish.

if apocalypse broke out, i'd fort myself a base in there. :D :D