Wisconsin EV tax rears its head again
 

(Sorry Ben it's too juicy)

In addition to the extra $25 wheel tax my county charges cars now there's...

Wisconsin state government is proposing an annual $125 tax on electric vehicles.
(There are still under 5000 true EVs in Wisconsin last I checked.)

The Governor refuses to raise gas taxes, He is fine with raising "Fees".
Just like venerable taxin Tommy Thomson

In short, the Governor wants to tax Electric Vehicles, because he doesn't have to call it a tax, and then borrow from our future to pay for roads.

Personally, I am not opposed to some sort of small appropriate fee for electric vehicles. A 30 MPG vehicle in Wisconsin, driving 10,000 miles per year would pay about $103 per year in WI gas tax. A Prius would pay about $62.

This tax is SPECIFIC to electric vehicles, and ignores mileage, use, and all other factors.
Electric vehicles are a tiny percent of total cars on the road. Adding a specialty tax to them is a drop in the ocean compared to the budgeting needed to maintain our roads.

This bill (unlike its predecessors) would specifically exempt Plug-In Hybrids (Chevy Volt, Ford Fusion Energi, etc.) Plug in-hybrids can run on either Electricity OR gasoline, and can be run EXCLUSIVELY on electricity if the driver chooses to do so.

The legislation can be seen at:
2017 Assembly Bill 478

Sorry again for posting but I like to have a united front against regressive taxation, especially when it's motivated to punish a certain group to make someone feel good more than actually raise funding.

If 5,000 cars that are driven 12,000 miles a year, each one is not burning 400 gallons of gas. That adds up to 2 million gallons of gas not being burned.
Then take 2 million and multiply it by what the state tax on gas is.
I know most of these electric vehicles are probably being driven no where near 12,000 miles per year but that is what the average person drives and the government is incompetent so that is what they are going to assume people with electric vehicles are driving too.

If you have an electric pickup put a generator in the bed, now it's a hybrid.

Basically one more reason for me to become quite skeptical about the viability of an EV.


Makes me wonder how it would affect the so-called "extended-range electric vehicles".

lol, if I was an EV owner there, I'd get a PHEV and run only on electricity just to give them the finger. Going by the text in the bill, it sounds like the i3 Rex would be exempt, even though it's considered an EV with range extender instead of a PHEV like pretty much everything else.

I think you make my point fairly well whether you meant to or not
The tax affect is only $618,000 dollars in your case which is enough to pave a tenth of one mile of 4 lane highway, big win there billy.

Electric Car Road Use Taxes are Regressive

You also enforce my point that from a cost standpoint
that you should drive a Prius to avoid the tax and that the pollution reduction of 2,000,000 gallons of gas avoided, in a good of society view, in of itself is justification to tax excerpt EVs instead of fairly tax the cars.
As you allude to,I would argue however Wisconsin BEVs lag the nation in miles traveled, statistically under 5000 miles a year due to non existent intralata charging infrastructure heck only place to charge here is 110vac at Kwik Trip

Oil pan, do you figure the car and motorcycle only wheel tax at the county level I pay on top of state registration increases is fair ? (Only means what you think, no farm, no industrial, no "trucks", nothing heavy pays the tax)

Anyway
This math was done for you already in the initial post and as huge as it sounds if these were the 30mpg unicorns you state, 5000 cars is insignificant and does nothing to fund roads, adding insult to injury the tax goes to the general fund which past elections have shown can be used for anything including the effort to initially elect a certain governor we have, he of coarse didn't know anything about it.

So All the tax does do is dissuade people from picking up a $5000 leaf or $2500 :0 Miev as a 2nd car :( heck it dissuaded a poster in this thread already.

I say all this and am likely except from all state (but not county) increases because my one EV is antique.

Yet I still have a strong opinion on something that doesn't affect me because I want Wisconsin to quit being dead last on many fronts, I think the many punitive policies Wisconsin already has is bad enough but this is the last nail in the coffin.

Ah well

It's not about being effective, it's about scoring points in a useless culture war. Which doesn't advance any real goal except getting clicks, personal power and maybe an eventual TV slot or book deal. It'll get him more votes from his base, and that's all he cares about.

I'm not sure to which extent this so-called "culture war" is useless at all, but it is indeed absolutely pointless.

It really doesn't make sense for the state government to sabotage public EV adoption.
The problem in a blue state is they have never heard of a tax they didn't like.
Electric vehicles had a free pass for along time but it must be expiring.

We've been red most of the last 4 decades on STATE LEVEL and LOCAL POLITICS.

We occasionally appear blue for the pres but that's where it ends

Under republican leadership car registration went from $12 to $100 for me
Property taxes went from $575 to $3200 a year (only years they stayed constant was during Doyle go figure)
Hunting and fishing fees went up 10 to 30 fold.
The government board controlling utility fees and taxes allowed a 330% increase in a 5 year timeframe.
The state has sold more municipal bonds in the last 5 years than in its entire history (but that's not debt)

At least gas taxes didn't go up?

I fail to see where conservative values led to fewer taxes.

Looks to me like they are trying to copy the Democrats in my state...

Except we ALSO increased gas taxes too. We briefly had the highest in the country last year until Pennsylvania retook that dubious honor.

Our EV tax is $150/year on top of all the other fees. PHEV are specifically included in this if they can travel more than 30 miles on just electricity. This for a state that theoretically promotes "going green".

Just register your EV as a plug in.
Stoopid taxes.

If you haven't noticed, red and blue are both looking the same shade of brown these days.

I've argued this before, but collecting any necessary infrastructure fees from gas, electric or any other means is ludicrous. Just budget for it in regular income or sales taxes like most everything else is budgeted for. That solves the problem of having to track miles, gallons, number of wheels, etc. It's future proof.

Anyhow, I suggest you register vehicles where it's most advantageous for you to do so, and that's all I'll say regarding this.

This may seem counterintuitive, but "traditional" hybrid owners should raise a holy stink that they are being lumped in with plug-ins and EVs. While this appears to play in to the hands of folks that like to divide and conquer, like the WI governor and majority legislators, the only way to implement this punitive tax is to require the larger pool of traditionals to be lumped in with the minuscule number of EVs and plug-ins. If only EVs and plug-ins are in the pool, the punishment would be so severe that even the sleeping general public would take notice. Here's an argument that I made to my local rag as to why traditional hybrids should not be punished:
---
My 2003 Honda Insight hybrid (3cyl, 1L) averages 50MPG. A NON-hybrid Ford Fiesta SFE (3cyl, 1L) averages 35MPG. For 10,000 miles traveled, the Fiesta will use 286 gallons and the Insight, 200 gallons. The Fiesta owner will pay $88 in WI gas tax (at $0.309/gal), and, for the Insight, instead of paying "little to nothing", I'll pay $62. Seems like I avoided all of $26 in gas tax. But consider the owner of a new-technology, aluminum F150 pickup that averages 17MPG compared to the old-technology, non-aluminum F150 averaging 14MPG. For 10,000 miles traveled, the non-aluminum F150 will use 714 gallons, and the aluminum, 588 gallons. WI gas taxes for the non-aluminum version will be $221, and $182 for the aluminum, allowing the aluminum version owner to avoid $39 of gas tax. This is obvious, simple math. But under the hybrid tax legislation, I will be charged a $75 penalty for not paying my $26 "fair share", while F150 owners, and there are a lot of them, will be charged nothing for avoiding $39. Singling out hybrid technology by name for punitive taxation is legislatively picking winners and losers, as much as it would be to have a special tax for aluminum bodied vehicles. It is indefensible, unfair, and, eventually, unworkable.
---

And to a local pundit that wrote an article lumping all hybrids together:
---
It's easy to do the research, whether or not you believe in conspiracy theories. See: Flurry of State Bills Introduced, Likely Backed by Oil Industry, to Penalize Electric Car Drivers | Sierra Club and related links in the article. If you believe in the conspiracy, the ALEC/Koch target would be suppression of purchases of plug-in hybrids and EVs. In any case, traditional hybrids are "collateral damage" because there are not yet enough plug-ins and EVs to make an argument to the public for collecting useful fractions of tax dollars. Constantly repeating the kinds of talking points you and David Prosser used provides the echo chamber for the what can be characterized as "fake news", that traditional hybrids are the same as plug-ins and EVs in paying "little to nothing in state gas taxes".
---
The talking point that is repeated in the echo chamber goes like this quote from David Prosser's column:

"Many people see plug-in hybrid cars and pure EVs as the wave of the future. Federal tax credits have been authorized to encourage EV purchases. The inevitable consequence is a decline in gas tax revenues. These revenues must be replaced because EVs and hybrids use the same highways as everyone else."
---
You notice he starts by singling out EVs and plug-ins for not paying their fair share, then conveniently eliminates the distinction with traditionals by lumping all in the term "hybrids" which becomes the target for the taxing legislation.

There may not be much our community can do to stop this in states that are leaning toward or are already punishing efficiency. But it can't hurt to make a stink!

B

This bill is getting rewritten back into the Prius Tax that was veto'd before.

Hopefully enough people get mad to backlash this thing out of existence.

Even though hybrids are not my cup of tea, your observations make sense. And we should also look at the environmental advantages of extending the operational life of the early Insight instead of all the energy expense involved in the manufacturing of a newer car that would in the end get worse mileage.

I'm not a PR person, but it's sure as heck that the talking points associated with anti EV model legislation were carefully crafted for greatest impact with the less-informed public. The clearest ones are "fair share" (as in not paying), and "little to nothing in gas taxes". Another often used is "common sense", though, surprisingly, that hasn't been applied in this case. When repeated often enough, those "bites" become the fake news "truth".

If you or someone you know is great at PR, our community needs help in creating pithy, contrary talking points that are easy to repeat as counters to these misrepresentations. Mine would be too techy, like "traditional hybrids are on the continuum of efficiency". Hopefully, something way better is out there...

B

PS...Here's the deal...the talking points to support this nasty model legislation are actually insults to the targets posing as quantitative facts. Alt fuel users are cheapskates...paying "little to nothing" in gas taxes, whatever little to nothing might mean. And second-rate citizens...not paying their "fair share", whatever fair share might mean. And, in the case of "common sense", they don't have any, whatever that is anyway. It's hard to fight these since facts cannot counter the emotions elicited in the less-informed public...those corrupt alt fuel users are just making excuses. Attacking the creators of the talking points with similar insults is probably a no win, though characterizing them as lying scum might work...

Yep. More useless culture war masquerading as governance. Hippies are skating on their responsibilities, leaving real Murricans holding the bag.

It's not about taxing (or fee-ing) appropriately, it's about straw men and tribal identification... and getting people to vote for frivolous things while ignoring real issues.

Hmm per another state law perhaps ev tax is illegal and violates the state constitution.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tatutes/78.pdf

Anyone willing to sue since electricity is an alternative fuel
-------------------------
Your alternative fuel is safe from certain taxes. According to Wisconsin Statutes 78.82, counties, cities, towns, villages, and other subdivisions cannot charge any of the following taxes on purchasing, selling, handling, or consuming alternative fuels:
Excise.
License.
Privilege.
Occupational.

This is a "lying scum" commentary I was able to come up with. So far, a slightly more moderate version has not been accepted for letter to the editor in the local rag:

The Kochs' and ALEC's fairy tale and why facts don't matter: Those alt-energy "liberals" are foisting commie hybrids and EVs on us. You've heard they're going to be coming from China soon, right? Unlike real Americans, these slackers won't pay their "fair share", and in fact "pay little to nothing" toward keeping the potholes fixed and America strong. It just makes "common sense" to stick it to 'em. Make 'em pay!

If you care to, please put your own spin on, or use it as you wish. Attribution-free is OK...

B

https://www.wpr.org/walker-signs-sol...-3-months-late

Tax has passed, with wheel tax my registration fee is actually more expensive than the electric + fuel I burn.

What a triumph

We'll see what happens. Like in Michigan and most others, this model legislation only applies to hybrid vehicles with 4KwH batteries and larger. So, instead of generating the promised $8M, it will net about $500K in WI. If/when the WI public finds out about that, maybe they will have a different opinion about the intelligence of their Republican legislators. As far as I know, only Idaho attempted to impose a special tax on gas-only hybrids. There is currently a call for repeal by legislators that would not be considered liberals. We can only hope that the whole thing will be tossed (eventually).

B

Where is the finalized text of the bill?

Per other sources it doesn't specify that the hybrid has to plug in.

This is the latest I saw and it should be the final language that was approved. Page 904 or search for 1895m.

Here is the language, and while the "may be" terminology for using an external source is weaselly, the "not less than 4 kilowatt hours" is definitive and is specific to include the Prius Plug-in and "above". This is clearly written with the petroleum suppliers in mind. Anything that dares to not use petroleum should be punished:

b. “Hybrid electric vehicle” means a vehicle that is capable of using gasoline,
diesel fuel, or alternative fuel to propel the vehicle but that is propelled to a
significant extent by an electric motor that draws electricity from a battery that has
a capacity of not less than 4 kilowatt hours and may be capable of being recharged
from an external source of electricity.

B

At least it doesn't affect my Insight but tripling the fee on the other tempts me to sell any ev I can't put collector plates on.

My original goal was to drive only vehicles with permanent plates and sell off the rest back in 2009 when they first talked about this BS,
me thinks it prudent to stick it to the man and pay zero plate fees until such time that the law is fixed.

Idaho is a good case study of where to apply pressure on these measures. As of March, the gas-only hybrid tax hadn't been repealed. But, hopefully with continued agitation, it will be. Once the gas-only hybrids are taken out, the amount of revenue collected has got to be so minuscule as to be ridiculous. Emphasizing that might eventually lead to repeal of the whole business, given enough unrelenting agitation.

B

Hmm what are the finalized fees?

In any event back in 2009 it was mentioned that the wisdot doesn't have consistent or complete model documentation on all cars.
For example a 2016 Ford Focus is usually listed as just that, options, descriptions and other info besides "Focus" may not be on the title

It was estimated that fixing the problem and implimenting the law would cost
$5 million

From personal experience over the years I have had
A car title with no model listed
A car title with the wrong model listed
And I still own a car with a title that is totally wrong, make is wrong, "fuel type" is also wrong.

Our registration system is more or less "on your honor"

Maybe those of us affected just need to get a color change on the title

Just as long as law enforcement does not give you a hard time for having an incorrect title.

On my one car they won't allow me to change the title

They don't recognize the model and would only use what was on the mn title which was wrong

The aluminum body F150 makes its efficiency gains by becoming lighter in weight.
That decreases wear on the road.

The F150 is also not using an energy source that circumnavigates the user tax on fuel.

So why is it that only gasoline/diesel powered vehicles should pay for the roads?

In the future, when most vehicles are either hybrid or electric, how high should we make the gasoline/diesel tax per gallon to pay for the roads that the hybrids and EVs drive on?

Are any of you thinking ahead, at all? Or does that not serve your egos?

By the way, I've never seen liberals be so opposed to any tax ever before in my entire life.

Why is nobody talking about why E85 is taxed the same as regular gasoline?

The Insight makes its efficiency gains by being 1800lbs as well


The tax rate on my electric use is over 200% and my "electric" car uses gas also.

Would you pay 200% tax on your gas?

Right, so the insight pays less in fuel tax than the F150. The insight hybrid should pay the same fuel tax that a purely gasoline powered version would pay.

The fuel tax is set so that it is proportional to the amount of wear that the average vehicle associated with that level of fuel consumption applies to the road as it burns that gallon of fuel.

By taxing each gallon, that wear is paid for proportionate to how much wear that individual driver&Car applies to the road, because they will burn a proportionate amount of fuel.

It is a very fair system.

However, there is currently no equivalent way to meter usage in electric cars. So, the easiest way to distribute that cost was to figure an average usage, average cost, and then assign a charge. As they gain in popularity, it will make sense to figure out a fairer system.

If I were only charged for 12k miles of fuel tax per year, I would actually be elated.

If I had a vehicle that I used as infrequently as you apparently use yours, I would not even register it. It would also be stupid to own, because it wouldn't be saving you in fuel costs whatsoever even if electricity were free.

When I get an electric vehicle it needs to be driven just about every day to make it worth it.

Electric cars use roads, and roads have to be maintained. I think the fixed fee model is stupid, but not the intent behind it.

PRESS RELEASE: Gov. Fallin Statement on the Oklahoma Supreme Court Striking Down Electric, Hybrid Vehicle Registration Fee

Supreme Court overturned OKs EV tax as being unconstitutional

Now let’s overturn the rest of them

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/v...cting-DMV.aspx

Well they did it now my truck will be $85 a year
But my Insight and Volt will be $185 a year in this county, nice :(

R May wants to get rid of all laws!

Have you actually gotten a "bill" for the extra $75 for your Insight? I've written a few recent letters to the Wis State Journal, but it seems to be insignificant/old news to them. And I don't think they have heard from much of the gas-only hybrid constituency - not many have gotten their $75 surprise yet. Basically, the folks that promised to collect $8M in taxes obviously found out that that can only work if they tax gas-only hybrids (mainly the majority Prius's). Otherwise, a couple hundred thou from plug-ins and full EVs. So now they are taxing the on-board electricity that happens to generate "stand-alone" efficiencies for this select (somewhat liberally oriented) group of car owners. This obviously ignores that fact that all those other on-board technologies, like tiny turbos and light weight materials generate loads more efficiencies (and way less gas tax revenue) than the Prius (and Insight) community ever will. Some other states got so embarrassed by this miscarriage that they eventually repealed the "electric efficiency" tax. Probably won't happen here, but we can try. I wrote legislators and the governor, but to no avail. The community is small, so unless it starts speaking with an embarrassment (what the f...) megaphone, we're probably stuck.

B

Fee shows on October 1. 2019 and later renewals, will find out in a few weeks I guess