To replace gas taxes, Oregon and Utah ask EVs to pay for road use

Gas taxes pay for the upkeep of our roads, but electric cars don't use gasoline.

Read the whole story

 

[Chemical Tribe]

I don't see why they need telematics to determine your costs. They should just check your odometer and do it that way. So you are paying for miles not in your state then, but I already do when I can since gas is cheaper in MN than WI.

They don't trust you to not rollback the odometer. Personally I don't think this is a significant risk but that is what they fear.

Really? That's a thing? I know the internet says rolling back an electric odometer is easier than a mechanical one.

A typical mechanical odometer is far easier to roll back than a modern electronic odometer.

I'm most familiar with BMWs. They use a system where the mileage is stored in multiple modules plus in the key transponders. The instrument cluster stores its copy of the mileage in a special EEPROM where words can only be written with a higher value. Each of these places can be modified, but each requires different hardware and techniques. Two modules require exposing the circuit board and clipping onto chips to change the memory (through the JTAG/debugging interface). Some instrument clusters even require soldering in a replacement blank EEPROM. The key transponders require a special programming system with a near-field transponder coil.

Over time people have reverse-engineered how to change each of these places, mostly to enable aftermarket repairs and replacement. Even with good documentation it often takes a few tries to re-write a module or key configuration. The effort to correctly change all of the locations simultaneously is significant, and will be reversed by missing only one (e.g. a misplaced key). I can't see very many people doing that annually just to avoid registration taxes, especially with so many non-technical ways to be caught if you did that.

Oh I believe the electric ones would be harder.

 

[SixDegrees]

I don't see why they need telematics to determine your costs. They should just check your odometer and do it that way. So you are paying for miles not in your state then, but I already do when I can since gas is cheaper in MN than WI.

They don't trust you to not rollback the odometer. Personally I don't think this is a significant risk but that is what they fear.

Really? That's a thing? I know the internet says rolling back an electric odometer is easier than a mechanical one.

A typical mechanical odometer is far easier to roll back than a modern electronic odometer.

I'm most familiar with BMWs. They use a system where the mileage is stored in multiple modules plus in the key transponders. The instrument cluster stores its copy of the mileage in a special EEPROM where words can only be written with a higher value. Each of these places can be modified, but each requires different hardware and techniques. Two modules require exposing the circuit board and clipping onto chips to change the memory (through the JTAG/debugging interface). Some instrument clusters even require soldering in a replacement blank EEPROM. The key transponders require a special programming system with a near-field transponder coil.

Over time people have reverse-engineered how to change each of these places, mostly to enable aftermarket repairs and replacement. Even with good documentation it often takes a few tries to re-write a module or key configuration. The effort to correctly change all of the locations simultaneously is significant, and will be reversed by missing only one (e.g. a misplaced key). I can't see very many people doing that annually just to avoid registration taxes, especially with so many non-technical ways to be caught if you did that.

Oh I believe the electric ones would be harder.

Rolling back mechanical odometers is tricky. They normally have one-way gearing; some have ratcheted ink pads that mark the dials if they're spun backward - or when they roll past the maximum. You could probably disassemble one, reset it, and put it back together, but I believe that's also detectable. Usually a lot more work than what it's worth.

Note, thought that at least in my state doing this is a felony, which is a pretty big deterrent on top of all the labor involved.

I don't know how all this compares with resetting the electronic versions. Still a felony, though.

 

[Deleted member 221201]

Speaking of fair share - how much of the road upkeep is related to leaking petroleum products, such as fuel, lubricating oil, power steering and brake fluid, from fuel powered vehicles on to said roads which dissolves and weakens the asphalt.

Probably far less than the impact of the 24 million tons of salt the US drops on its roads each winter.

We have to keep our blood pressure up

 

[itfa]

Salt Lake City and Utah County have poor air quality warnings in the winter in large part due to vehicles pollution and yet they are adding an extra tax to EV's....that makes sense.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. Use the road, pay for the road. It's not like they're in a position where EV's have made a meaningful change in the quality of their air thus far, so do you expect them to just wait for decades before making EV drivers help pay for maintaining roadways? The population from Utah county to Davis county is exploding right now, and making a $60,000 Tesla a couple of hundred bucks cheaper to operate per year is first of all not going to actually result in more being sold, and secondly isn't going to do anything for air quality.

 

[C64 raids Bungling Bay]

If the goal is to fund road upkeep by taxing road use, wouldn't a possible alternative be taxing (or increasing the taxes on) tires? It's always possible that people will defer or stop replacing their tires if they become more expensive, but if states have a way of enforcing timely tire replacements then this would be a way of taxing road use without having to provide data about mileage driven (which I don't have strong feelings about).

That's a possible surrogate. Another would be to tax vehicle weight annually. Note that this has the advantage of discouraging SUVs and other huge-ass vehicles unless they're actually needed.

I agree with an earlier poster, though, that there's likely no rush to do this. EVs don't account for more than a very small percentage of vehicles yet, and won't for a few more years.

If you really want the fee to be exactly proportional to the wear & tear that the vehicle puts on the road, then the parameter to use is the weight per axle, raised to the 4th power, multiplied by the number of axles.

Nobody actually does this, because a transport truck would get charged 10,000 times more than a passenger car, so either cars would pay virtually no tax or the trucking industry would shut down... but that is the actual ratio of road damage done by the two vehicles.

Where does this figure come from? Just curious, civil engineering is not my field.

 

[Tonkaman]

I don't see why they need telematics to determine your costs. They should just check your odometer and do it that way. So you are paying for miles not in your state then, but I already do when I can since gas is cheaper in MN than WI.

They don't trust you to not rollback the odometer. Personally I don't think this is a significant risk but that is what they fear.

Really? That's a thing? I know the internet says rolling back an electric odometer is easier than a mechanical one.

A typical mechanical odometer is far easier to roll back than a modern electronic odometer.

I'm most familiar with BMWs. They use a system where the mileage is stored in multiple modules plus in the key transponders. The instrument cluster stores its copy of the mileage in a special EEPROM where words can only be written with a higher value. Each of these places can be modified, but each requires different hardware and techniques. Two modules require exposing the circuit board and clipping onto chips to change the memory (through the JTAG/debugging interface). Some instrument clusters even require soldering in a replacement blank EEPROM. The key transponders require a special programming system with a near-field transponder coil.

Over time people have reverse-engineered how to change each of these places, mostly to enable aftermarket repairs and replacement. Even with good documentation it often takes a few tries to re-write a module or key configuration. The effort to correctly change all of the locations simultaneously is significant, and will be reversed by missing only one (e.g. a misplaced key). I can't see very many people doing that annually just to avoid registration taxes, especially with so many non-technical ways to be caught if you did that.

Oh I believe the electric ones would be harder.

Rolling back mechanical odometers is tricky. They normally have one-way gearing; some have ratcheted ink pads that mark the dials if they're spun backward - or when they roll past the maximum. You could probably disassemble one, reset it, and put it back together, but I believe that's also detectable. Usually a lot more work than what it's worth.

Note, thought that at least in my state doing this is a felony, which is a pretty big deterrent on top of all the labor involved.

I don't know how all this compares with resetting the electronic versions. Still a felony, though.

Mine from the 90s wasn't too hard to disassemble. I changed the gauge cluster in my truck from the factory one without a tachometer, to one from another trim level that had a tachometer. Why a tach was optional on a manual but standard on an automatic transmission is beyond me.

Anyway, I had to disassemble and transplant the odometer between gauge clusters to stay legal, and then calibrate the speedometer to make sure I put the needle back on correctly. If I'd wanted to, rolling back the odometer was only an extra 2 screws and I'd have had the numbers spinning freely.

 

[C64 raids Bungling Bay]

The real issue is road use taxes. There's a pretty common system in wide use already. Use tolls. You drive, you pay. EV's are not targeted.

Hell no. I already pay toad taxes. Last thing I need is to pay more taxes so some private company can make a profit off of a publicly funded road. And v that's a hell no before we even get into the potential corruption.

 

[Bengie25]

Illinois resident here. As of January 1, BEV registrations are $250, up from $100.

I spend less than $100/year in gas for my car.

 

[bwcbwc]

If the goal is to fund road upkeep by taxing road use, wouldn't a possible alternative be taxing (or increasing the taxes on) tires? It's always possible that people will defer or stop replacing their tires if they become more expensive, but if states have a way of enforcing timely tire replacements then this would be a way of taxing road use without having to provide data about mileage driven (which I don't have strong feelings about).

Edit: The comment below mine raises a good point. If usage of proper tires isn't enforced, then this would be an unsafe and ineffective way to tax road usage.

A more direct analog to a gas tax would be a charging station tax per kWh. You could also charge a tax for household electricity at a lower rate, under the assumption that not all household electricity is used for the vehicle. The second tax would be harder to collect as people move off grid (all or in part) with solar power, so maybe a tax on power delivered to the power company from a household power installation as well.

The irony, of course, is that such taxes slow the pace of migration to environmentally friendly power sources, regardless of what form they take. So it's worth thinking about raising the gas taxes in parallel with these initiatives to keep things moving in a healthy direction.

 

[jawshoeaw]

Very disappointed in Oregon. They don't tax the fume belching polluters extra. There's no tax for oil dripping on the road.

 

[real mikeb_60]

This trend really sucks. Both myself and my wife work from home; I barely drive 3000 miles a year. If I get registration fees based on 'the average driver' that's going to eat into the EV savings and reduce my interest. My only other option might be 'install a device so that the gov't know how much and where I drive everyday' doesn't sound better.

The alternatives, to pay for EV road use similar to how ICE vehicles do through fuel taxes (quite imperfectly, but still, they pay) seem to be:

1) Flat annual fee based on a guesstimate of what an average ICE vehicle produces in gas taxes. This seems to be the most common approach, often with upward adjustments to make sure people get the message that EVs are not to be used. The biggest downside (of many) is that the amount has absolutely nothing to do with the actual road usage of the vehicle.

2) Develop an equivalence factor between gas (and diesel) economy and EV energy usage. Require (already the case in many areas if a Level 2 charger is installed) reporting of EV charging energy use - at home and by reporting from any outside charging used. Assess tax based on the periodic report at the appropriate equivalency factor. Downside: misses PHEVs (BEVs are unlikely to do this much) charging from Level 1 power, and non-plugin hybrids. The latter still pay gas taxes, though, as might the former if the EV range is low enough. Another source of error: what about those with solar panels and net metering, if it affects the EV meter as well as the main one?

3) Pay-by-mile in some way, using auxiliary data collection. Versions of this have been suggested for ICE vehicles too, to replace the fuel tax. Possible methods (non-exclusive list) include:

(a) You report odometer reading once a year (or twice, or quarterly). Insurance already requires this in many places. Can be a personal statement (the typical noninvasive insurance approach) or acquire the data as part of an annual inspection (more reliable, but will cost something). Downside: you get taxed on ALL your miles, not just those in-state. ICE vehicles get taxed on all miles too, but only at the rates of the states where they buy fuel.

(b) You carry a device in the car (the invasive approach many insurance companies now demand, though perhaps not capturing as *much* data as the insurance companies do) that records miles driven in the state, probably using geofencing. In a state like California where the tax rate can vary in different areas, the device might need sub-state geofencing as well. All that is really necessary is a running total of miles based on odometer readings, per taxing area, so the device need not store the actual odo readings, just the mileage total by regional or state bin. But we know that more data will be demanded *because it's available* - some privacy considerations are needed to deal with that.

The geofencing, for anything other than state boundaries, is also an issue - what data are used and by what authority? And can data collection be turned off (by another geofence) at locations where the gas isn't being used on the road like race tracks and off-road parks and even just private land - farmers and ranchers driving around their property?

OK, we have a gadget acquiring valid and state-specific (locality-specific if required in a state or for logical reasons like off-road use) data. How do we get it out and turn it into a road-tax bill?

Extracting could be OTA or on-site. On-site would require use of smog/other compliance testing networks, vehicle servicing providers, or perhaps some kind of app. OTA would be more difficult and expensive, but could provide near-real-time data (does the tax man really need that?). Of course, OTA collection could be done periodically, not real-time, but somehow I don't trust the tax man with that any more than I do the insurance company (real-time speeding tickets?).

Turning it into a bill would be relatively easy. Some obvious options:

(i) bill the miles at a flat rate (such as 1.5c/mile). Easy to calculate. No clear relationship to road damage caused by the vehicle - there is a wide variation between EV size and weight, as for ICE, and weight is the biggest contributor to road wear. It's simply a road toll. And it's double-billing if you also pay a real toll, such as in express lanes (EVs are no longer free in many of them, though they may get a discount).

(ii) develop weight-based rates and apply them to mileage periodically (annual/semiannual/quarterly). Adjust based on local tax rates as is done for fuel taxes. This is probably the fairest way to do it, and the weight needs only to be entered once, when setting up the account, or may be extracted from a database of vehicle makes/models when the car is first registered.

Considering the potential for abuse, I would not want rates to be based on speed as well as weight. Let's just assume for tax purposes that everybody sticks to the speed limit.

If also applied to ICE vehicles, either rate would need to result in bills that are fairly close to what the fuel tax would produce, to be seen as "fair." With periodic on-site data collection rather than real-time OTA, tracking issues would be minimized. As with odometers, it should be very hard to crack the devices and change data.

How do the programs that exist or were recently enacted match up against a framework like this? California's, for instance, is at the very bottom and least-nuanced level, with no clear relationship to EV road usage: a flat surcharge on EV annual registrations of (iirc) $100.

I think I'll get that used Volt instead of a Bolt...

 

[Matthew J.]

Knowing Ars Technica's audience, I'm pretty sure that some of you will be horrified by these approaches.

I am horrified by this approach.

How about we just pay for roads from the general fund? After all, roads benefit all citizens--even those who do not drive on them.

Let's tax gas at $3/gallon while we're at it. Use the the proceeds for environmental remediation of fossil fuel use. And give EV owners a break. They're among the few who are at least trying to not contribute to the problem.

 

[Statistical]

This trend really sucks. Both myself and my wife work from home; I barely drive 3000 miles a year. If I get registration fees based on 'the average driver' that's going to eat into the EV savings and reduce my interest. My only other option might be 'install a device so that the gov't know how much and where I drive everyday' doesn't sound better.

The alternatives, to pay for EV road use similar to how ICE vehicles do through fuel taxes (quite imperfectly, but still, they pay) seem to be:

1) Flat annual fee based on a guesstimate of what an average ICE vehicle produces in gas taxes. This seems to be the most common approach, often with upward adjustments to make sure people get the message that EVs are not to be used. The biggest downside (of many) is that the amount has absolutely nothing to do with the actual road usage of the vehicle.

2) Develop an equivalence factor between gas (and diesel) economy and EV energy usage. Require (already the case in many areas if a Level 2 charger is installed) reporting of EV charging energy use - at home and by reporting from any outside charging used. Assess tax based on the periodic report at the appropriate equivalency factor. Downside: misses PHEVs (BEVs are unlikely to do this much) charging from Level 1 power, and non-plugin hybrids. The latter still pay gas taxes, though, as might the former if the EV range is low enough. Another source of error: what about those with solar panels and net metering, if it affects the EV meter as well as the main one?

3) Pay-by-mile in some way, using auxiliary data collection. Versions of this have been suggested for ICE vehicles too, to replace the fuel tax. Possible methods (non-exclusive list) include:

(a) You report odometer reading once a year (or twice, or quarterly). Insurance already requires this in many places. Can be a personal statement (the typical noninvasive insurance approach) or acquire the data as part of an annual inspection (more reliable, but will cost something). Downside: you get taxed on ALL your miles, not just those in-state. ICE vehicles get taxed on all miles too, but only at the rates of the states where they buy fuel.

(b) You carry a device in the car (the invasive approach many insurance companies now demand, though perhaps not capturing as *much* data as the insurance companies do) that records miles driven in the state, probably using geofencing. In a state like California where the tax rate can vary in different areas, the device might need sub-state geofencing as well. All that is really necessary is a running total of miles based on odometer readings, per taxing area, so the device need not store the actual odo readings, just the mileage total by regional or state bin. But we know that more data will be demanded *because it's available* - some privacy considerations are needed to deal with that.

The geofencing, for anything other than state boundaries, is also an issue - what data are used and by what authority? And can data collection be turned off (by another geofence) at locations where the gas isn't being used on the road like race tracks and off-road parks and even just private land - farmers and ranchers driving around their property?

OK, we have a gadget acquiring valid and state-specific (locality-specific if required in a state or for logical reasons like off-road use) data. How do we get it out and turn it into a road-tax bill?

Extracting could be OTA or on-site. On-site would require use of smog/other compliance testing networks, vehicle servicing providers, or perhaps some kind of app. OTA would be more difficult and expensive, but could provide near-real-time data (does the tax man really need that?). Of course, OTA collection could be done periodically, not real-time, but somehow I don't trust the tax man with that any more than I do the insurance company (real-time speeding tickets?).

Turning it into a bill would be relatively easy. Some obvious options:

(i) bill the miles at a flat rate (such as 1.5c/mile). Easy to calculate. No clear relationship to road damage caused by the vehicle - there is a wide variation between EV size and weight, as for ICE, and weight is the biggest contributor to road wear. It's simply a road toll. And it's double-billing if you also pay a real toll, such as in express lanes (EVs are no longer free in many of them, though they may get a discount).

(ii) develop weight-based rates and apply them to mileage periodically (annual/semiannual/quarterly). Adjust based on local tax rates as is done for fuel taxes. This is probably the fairest way to do it, and the weight needs only to be entered once, when setting up the account, or may be extracted from a database of vehicle makes/models when the car is first registered.

Considering the potential for abuse, I would not want rates to be based on speed as well as weight. Let's just assume for tax purposes that everybody sticks to the speed limit.

If also applied to ICE vehicles, either rate would need to result in bills that are fairly close to what the fuel tax would produce, to be seen as "fair." With periodic on-site data collection rather than real-time OTA, tracking issues would be minimized. As with odometers, it should be very hard to crack the devices and change data.

How do the programs that exist or were recently enacted match up against a framework like this? California's, for instance, is at the very bottom and least-nuanced level, with no clear relationship to EV road usage: a flat surcharge on EV annual registrations of (iirc) $100.

I think I'll get that used Volt instead of a Bolt...

#2 is just prone to non-compliance. A level 2 charger (well EVSE) is just a corded plug. Unmetered ones exist, hell car companies routinely provide one for free with the car which isn't metered. People will use unmetered ones.

A country might be able to implement that (would still be severely abused) by setting import bans but a state has no such authority. Amazon sells unmetered EVSE how are you going to prevent someone from buying one off amazon and plugging it into an outlet.

 

[TheFu]

Tie the taxes to
* weight
* miles driven
* vehicle value

Weight because that determines how much road damage and costs for thicker roads are needed.

miles driven is a use tax. People who drive less than 5K/miles annually shouldn't pay the same as someone driving 25K miles if everything else is the same.

Vehicle value should make the "progressive" tax people happier. They want a wealth tax.

The way my state taxes vehicles is crazy. In 2013, they changed a law to require pre-paying the vehicle tax at purchase time instead of annually based on the value of the vehicle. A vehicle owned for 4-5 yrs will likely be 3-5x taxed more than a vehicle owned by one owner 20 yrs. Doesn't seem fair to pay 7.5% tax all up front when the vehicle might leave the state in 6 months. There is no tax refund policy. Of course, the govt doesn't call it a "tax", they call it something else to double-taxation can't be used in a lawsuit.

 

[kohai]

Utah has also raised the gas tax this year too.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

In Norway, to encourage adoption of EVs, they created incentives by:

"Electric vehicles are ... exempt from the annual road tax, all public parking fees, and toll payments, as well as being able to use bus lanes. These incentives are in effect until the end of 2017 or until the 50,000 EV target is achieved."

I think it's premature for States to charge EV owners when the adoption rate is still so low.

Norway is a country of fewer than 6 million people, with one of the world's biggest sovereign wealth funds. And it has a much more accepting approach to taxation. The lessons that others can truly learn from Norway are limited at best.

While I get your point and can appreciate the inferences drawn, I'll still suggest that there's one helluva lot of extreme benefit to "greater society" that the U.S. could (and arguably should) learn from European nations; even Norway. But of course, * 'Murican Exceptionalism* so here we are ...

 

[sjl]

This is not a new idea.

New Zealand has some pretty hefty taxes on petrol, to the point where you'll often find yourself paying two NZD per litre (approximately five USD per gallon) to fill up. These taxes don't apply to diesel vehicles, on the grounds that that's the fuel typically used by agricultural machinery and others that don't operate on the public road network.

So if you drive a diesel, you pay significantly less for your fuel. Obvious loophole, right? So obvious, in fact, that NZ has another law to specifically address it: if you drive a vehicle that uses a fuel that does not get taxed in that way at the bowser, you have to pay road user charges: $72 per 1000 km. That's for a two axle vehicle under 3.5 tonnes. The heavier the vehicle, the higher that rate goes.

Those laws apply to any vehicle that do not run on taxed fuel (ie: petrol).

However, New Zealand has recognised that they would do well to get off petrol, and start using electricity instead - after all, they generate all their own electricity (most of it from geothermal and hydro, and they have plans to shut down Huntly, the one remaining coal fired plant in the country, by 2030), whereas they have to import hydrocarbons. So for the time being, there is a specific exemption for electric vehicles, and they intend to maintain that exemption until EVs make up two percent of the relevant (light or heavy) vehicle fleet in the country.

This is the right way to do it: make it clear that these vehicles will be taxed in the future, since the roads do have to be maintained, but provide exemptions in the early stages to encourage adoption and mass production. Even if the road user charges are less than an equivalent ICE would have to pay, it still helps nudge the market in the right direction.

 

[greggle]

Oregon couldn't even find the political will to put a fee on studded tires in recent years.

So you can have an EV with studded tires (which collectively cause about 9 million dollars in damage to roads yearly during their 5 months allowable use) not paying gas taxes to upkeep roads that are damaged by needless use of studded tires ...

 

[jbriano]

This makes sense. I'm not rich (there's always somebody richer) but I had just enough resources to invest in an EV. My good fortune was multiplied by rebates, decreased tolls, and free charging. Last year my car was rattled and tossed while speeding through a landmine of potholes on my local highway. I cursed "the system" for not doing enough to fix it. Then it occurred to me that most of the people on the road around me were driving horribly inefficient ICE vehicles, had no reserves to upgrade to electric, and were paying for the roads I drive on through gasoline taxes. I was getting a free ride, on the backs of the less fortunate.

 

[Bodhisattva Smith]

Hey, it's Utah, what do you expect in a theocracy? They have all kinds of plans to tinker with their tax code, like charging sales taxes on services (veterinary services, landscaping, streaming media, SHPPING AND HANDLING!!!!), increasing the sales tax on food, expanding the dependent exemption from $565 per dependent to $2,500 per child (handy if you're a Mormon and have 8 to 12 kids). Whatever they do, you can bet the little guy finishes last. I did notice there wasn't any mention of taxing the bejesus out of the scam supplement industry that's pretty much all set up in Utah.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/20 ... -tax-plan/

 

[Trekkie]

I have to have my vehicles inspected every year, tack the tax on from the odometer change from last year and call it good. But as others have pointed out, they need to make sure no one looks closely and realizes we're subsidizing big business which is who is destroying our roads, not our cars.

 

[real mikeb_60]

This trend really sucks. Both myself and my wife work from home; I barely drive 3000 miles a year. If I get registration fees based on 'the average driver' that's going to eat into the EV savings and reduce my interest. My only other option might be 'install a device so that the gov't know how much and where I drive everyday' doesn't sound better.

The alternatives, to pay for EV road use similar to how ICE vehicles do through fuel taxes (quite imperfectly, but still, they pay) seem to be:

1) Flat annual fee based on a guesstimate of what an average ICE vehicle produces in gas taxes. This seems to be the most common approach, often with upward adjustments to make sure people get the message that EVs are not to be used. The biggest downside (of many) is that the amount has absolutely nothing to do with the actual road usage of the vehicle.

2) Develop an equivalence factor between gas (and diesel) economy and EV energy usage. Require (already the case in many areas if a Level 2 charger is installed) reporting of EV charging energy use - at home and by reporting from any outside charging used. Assess tax based on the periodic report at the appropriate equivalency factor. Downside: misses PHEVs (BEVs are unlikely to do this much) charging from Level 1 power, and non-plugin hybrids. The latter still pay gas taxes, though, as might the former if the EV range is low enough. Another source of error: what about those with solar panels and net metering, if it affects the EV meter as well as the main one?

3) Pay-by-mile in some way, using auxiliary data collection. Versions of this have been suggested for ICE vehicles too, to replace the fuel tax. Possible methods (non-exclusive list) include:

(a) You report odometer reading once a year (or twice, or quarterly). Insurance already requires this in many places. Can be a personal statement (the typical noninvasive insurance approach) or acquire the data as part of an annual inspection (more reliable, but will cost something). Downside: you get taxed on ALL your miles, not just those in-state. ICE vehicles get taxed on all miles too, but only at the rates of the states where they buy fuel.

(b) You carry a device in the car (the invasive approach many insurance companies now demand, though perhaps not capturing as *much* data as the insurance companies do) that records miles driven in the state, probably using geofencing. In a state like California where the tax rate can vary in different areas, the device might need sub-state geofencing as well. All that is really necessary is a running total of miles based on odometer readings, per taxing area, so the device need not store the actual odo readings, just the mileage total by regional or state bin. But we know that more data will be demanded *because it's available* - some privacy considerations are needed to deal with that.

The geofencing, for anything other than state boundaries, is also an issue - what data are used and by what authority? And can data collection be turned off (by another geofence) at locations where the gas isn't being used on the road like race tracks and off-road parks and even just private land - farmers and ranchers driving around their property?

OK, we have a gadget acquiring valid and state-specific (locality-specific if required in a state or for logical reasons like off-road use) data. How do we get it out and turn it into a road-tax bill?

Extracting could be OTA or on-site. On-site would require use of smog/other compliance testing networks, vehicle servicing providers, or perhaps some kind of app. OTA would be more difficult and expensive, but could provide near-real-time data (does the tax man really need that?). Of course, OTA collection could be done periodically, not real-time, but somehow I don't trust the tax man with that any more than I do the insurance company (real-time speeding tickets?).

Turning it into a bill would be relatively easy. Some obvious options:

(i) bill the miles at a flat rate (such as 1.5c/mile). Easy to calculate. No clear relationship to road damage caused by the vehicle - there is a wide variation between EV size and weight, as for ICE, and weight is the biggest contributor to road wear. It's simply a road toll. And it's double-billing if you also pay a real toll, such as in express lanes (EVs are no longer free in many of them, though they may get a discount).

(ii) develop weight-based rates and apply them to mileage periodically (annual/semiannual/quarterly). Adjust based on local tax rates as is done for fuel taxes. This is probably the fairest way to do it, and the weight needs only to be entered once, when setting up the account, or may be extracted from a database of vehicle makes/models when the car is first registered.

Considering the potential for abuse, I would not want rates to be based on speed as well as weight. Let's just assume for tax purposes that everybody sticks to the speed limit.

If also applied to ICE vehicles, either rate would need to result in bills that are fairly close to what the fuel tax would produce, to be seen as "fair." With periodic on-site data collection rather than real-time OTA, tracking issues would be minimized. As with odometers, it should be very hard to crack the devices and change data.

How do the programs that exist or were recently enacted match up against a framework like this? California's, for instance, is at the very bottom and least-nuanced level, with no clear relationship to EV road usage: a flat surcharge on EV annual registrations of (iirc) $100.

I think I'll get that used Volt instead of a Bolt...

#2 is just prone to non-compliance. A level 2 charger (well EVSE) is just a corded plug. Unmetered ones exist, hell car companies routinely provide one for free with the car which isn't metered. People will use unmetered ones.

A country might be able to implement that (would still be severely abused) by setting import bans but a state has no such authority. Amazon sells unmetered EVSE how are you going to prevent someone from buying one off amazon and plugging it into an outlet.

I agree with you, actually. Those were possibilities. Some may be Not So Good or Easy To Game. Included #2 because of the inevitable (already seen several comments previously) suggestion to simply tax the kwh that EVs use for road purposes (and how's that going to be done without a separate meter for the charger?).

 

[pi.squared]

Tax all churches, mosques, synogogues, etc. and we can pay for roads and healthcare for everyone. I solved it.

Depending upon whose numbers you think are correct, for a group of people having the major religious meeting of the week:
* The mode is either 80-90 or 35-45 people present;
* The median is 80 people present;

Regardless of which number is accurate, the revenue taxes might generate, won't cover the cost of services provided to the people in the meeting.

These groups are lucky if they can afford to pay clergy, utilities, and building upkeep.

 

[wagnerrp]

Tax all churches, mosques, synogogues, etc. and we can pay for roads and healthcare for everyone. I solved it.

Depending upon whose numbers you think are correct, for a group of people having the major religious meeting of the week:
* The mode is either 80-90 or 35-45 people present;
* The median is 80 people present;

Regardless of which number is accurate, the revenue taxes might generate, won't cover the cost of services provided to the people in the meeting.

These groups are lucky if they can afford to pay clergy, utilities, and building upkeep.

They're just holding the wrong kind of religious meeting. Add more fire and brimstone, and offer the option to buy your way out of both.

 

[pi.squared]

These groups are lucky if they can afford to pay clergy, utilities, and building upkeep.

They're just holding the wrong kind of religious meeting. Add more fire and brimstone, and offer the option to buy your way out of both.

Wicca doesn't have fire and brimstone. This is arguably the fastest growing religion in North America.

 

[jazzylarry]

The real issue is road use taxes. There's a pretty common system in wide use already. Use tolls. You drive, you pay. EV's are not targeted.

Hell no. I already pay toad taxes. Last thing I need is to pay more taxes so some private company can make a profit off of a publicly funded road. And v that's a hell no before we even get into the potential corruption.

You've got it wrong - in this scenario there is no "private" ownership of roads.

Also, where do you pay road taxes? I don't. I pay gas taxes, which ostensibly are for roads, and a minor car registration fee which I doubt pays for the license plate and associated paper tracking work hours.

What we're discussing here is removal of the concept of gas taxes paying for roads and replacing it with an actual use fee.

 

[jazzylarry]

Tax all churches, mosques, synogogues, etc. and we can pay for roads and healthcare for everyone. I solved it.

Depending upon whose numbers you think are correct, for a group of people having the major religious meeting of the week:
* The mode is either 80-90 or 35-45 people present;
* The median is 80 people present;

Regardless of which number is accurate, the revenue taxes might generate, won't cover the cost of services provided to the people in the meeting.

These groups are lucky if they can afford to pay clergy, utilities, and building upkeep.

Just tax their property. The roman catholic church alone has US property estimated in the multiple billions (somewhere north of $600B in real estate alone)

That's a single church that less than a quarter of Americans belong to. Seems like even a 1% property tax ought to bring in some sizable sums to support roads.

 

[Luddite Curmudgeon]

Personally, the real issue for me is not paying the EV tax. It's paying the EV tax all at once. At least when I drive an IC vehicle, I pay the gas tax incrementally. Yeah, I might pay more in taxes, but it's spread over however many times I stop to fill up. With the EV tax, it seems that when I hand over my registration renewal, I get charged that EV tax on top of the renewal fee right then and there. This is just like if you don't have any income tax withholding and you have to pay the entire year on 15 Apr. People don't like that, and they probably won't much like the 'all at once' EV tax.

As a solution, perhaps a monthly billing would help. That's an extra cost to the state DMVs, but at least you're not getting hit all at once.

 

[brucedawson2]

Raise the federal gas tax. It was last raised in 1993, and it is no longer high enough to fund roads. Before worrying about the modest percentage of EV drivers we should at least double the federal gas tax. This would account for 27 years of inflation and would make a tiny start at covering the externalities of carbon usage.

I'm not thrilled with EVs (often owned by rich tech bros who don't need assistance) getting tax breaks but carbon is carbon and it needs to be discouraged by increasingly high taxes. Once gas taxes are high enough that EV subsidies are clearly not needed *then* we can start talking about EV taxes.

To be clear, when the federal gas tax hits $1.00 a gallon then *maybe* it's time to think about raising highway funds through other ways.

 

[dragonherder]

If the goal is to fund road upkeep by taxing road use, wouldn't a possible alternative be taxing (or increasing the taxes on) tires? It's always possible that people will defer or stop replacing their tires if they become more expensive, but if states have a way of enforcing timely tire replacements then this would be a way of taxing road use without having to provide data about mileage driven (which I don't have strong feelings about).

That's a possible surrogate. Another would be to tax vehicle weight annually. Note that this has the advantage of discouraging SUVs and other huge-ass vehicles unless they're actually needed.

I agree with an earlier poster, though, that there's likely no rush to do this. EVs don't account for more than a very small percentage of vehicles yet, and won't for a few more years.

Things like a CR-V still get decent gas mileage. The days of "huge suvs" that are bad on gas and other shit is largely gone. While they aren't as fuel efficient as sedans and the like they are also you know actually somewhat roomy and somewhat comfortable to people that aren't below the 5'10" marker and even then they are still pushing it as is. I for one don't want to be in a coupe or a sedan. I frankly get car sick in the passenger seat of smaller vehicles. Crossover's are still defined as suvs and for a large amount of people they are better for them.

 

[madmax_br5]

If the goal is to fund road upkeep by taxing road use, wouldn't a possible alternative be taxing (or increasing the taxes on) tires? It's always possible that people will defer or stop replacing their tires if they become more expensive, but if states have a way of enforcing timely tire replacements then this would be a way of taxing road use without having to provide data about mileage driven (which I don't have strong feelings about).

That's a possible surrogate. Another would be to tax vehicle weight annually. Note that this has the advantage of discouraging SUVs and other huge-ass vehicles unless they're actually needed.

I agree with an earlier poster, though, that there's likely no rush to do this. EVs don't account for more than a very small percentage of vehicles yet, and won't for a few more years.

If you really want the fee to be exactly proportional to the wear & tear that the vehicle puts on the road, then the parameter to use is the weight per axle, raised to the 4th power, multiplied by the number of axles.

Nobody actually does this, because a transport truck would get charged 10,000 times more than a passenger car, so either cars would pay virtually no tax or the trucking industry would shut down... but that is the actual ratio of road damage done by the two vehicles.

Not to mention, there's no assurance that trucks will even refuel in a given state, in fact they could be incentivized against it. If my tank holds 1000 gallons of fuel, and my delivery state has gas at $4 per gallon, but the neighboring state has it at $2.75, where do you think I'm going to fill up?

 

[Vapur9]

If the goal is to fund road upkeep by taxing road use, wouldn't a possible alternative be taxing (or increasing the taxes on) tires? It's always possible that people will defer or stop replacing their tires if they become more expensive, but if states have a way of enforcing timely tire replacements then this would be a way of taxing road use without having to provide data about mileage driven (which I don't have strong feelings about).

You'll get creative ways around it.

Tires. Go to the next door state to get around it..

The reason why they won't charge by odometer is because you'll get cases of people saying i drive out of state and do all my miles in the neighboring state.

So the only effective way of doing it is during car registration/renewal. And you can't flat tax everyone when not everyone owns a car.

Everyone benefits from a car even if they don't own one. If they buy things online, they're using the shipping industry. If they buy from a store, same thing. If they use electricity, likely they live where linemen need access to the pole on a street.

Since everyone benefits from roads whether they use them personally or not, taxes should be appropriated from the State's general sales tax and not be specialized to only those who own vehicles (and definitely not with trackers; rights against search and seizure only revoked in the event of a crime, which owning a car is not). The only reason to support an extra tax would be on gasoline to cover pollution costs so as to promote a better alternative.

 

[Mikel Ward]

A common argument against telematics — and for continuing a gas tax — is that only residents of the state are assessed for maintaining the roads. For states with heavy interstate traffic, especially from trucking, local taxpayers would end up subsidizing out-of-state drivers.

The best solution is probably some sort of hybrid solution, but we really need to assess people based on the impact of their vehicles, both distance driven and weight of vehicle.

Commercial Trucks pay fees for the states they operate in.

It is easy to end up paying $5000-$10000 a year for 18 wheel tractor trailer operator. Even more if you cross into Canada.

Seems like most trucks are registered in Indiana and Maine. I assume the registration fees are lower there? How are trucks charged based on where they operate?

 

[SixDegrees]

A common argument against telematics — and for continuing a gas tax — is that only residents of the state are assessed for maintaining the roads. For states with heavy interstate traffic, especially from trucking, local taxpayers would end up subsidizing out-of-state drivers.

The best solution is probably some sort of hybrid solution, but we really need to assess people based on the impact of their vehicles, both distance driven and weight of vehicle.

Commercial Trucks pay fees for the states they operate in.

It is easy to end up paying $5000-$10000 a year for 18 wheel tractor trailer operator. Even more if you cross into Canada.

Seems like most trucks are registered in Indiana and Maine. I assume the registration fees are lower there? How are trucks charged based on where they operate?

Permitting, often accompanied with decals to indicate currency.

https://www.google.com/search?q=truck+p ... e&ie=UTF-8

 

[Mikel Ward]

Tie the taxes to
* weight
* miles driven
* vehicle value

Weight because that determines how much road damage and costs for thicker roads are needed.

miles driven is a use tax. People who drive less than 5K/miles annually shouldn't pay the same as someone driving 25K miles if everything else is the same.

Vehicle value should make the "progressive" tax people happier. They want a wealth tax.

The way my state taxes vehicles is crazy. In 2013, they changed a law to require pre-paying the vehicle tax at purchase time instead of annually based on the value of the vehicle. A vehicle owned for 4-5 yrs will likely be 3-5x taxed more than a vehicle owned by one owner 20 yrs. Doesn't seem fair to pay 7.5% tax all up front when the vehicle might leave the state in 6 months. There is no tax refund policy. Of course, the govt doesn't call it a "tax", they call it something else to double-taxation can't be used in a lawsuit.

A "vehicle value" tax already exists most places. It's called a sales tax.

Don't you pay 7.5% upfront on TVs and boats, too?

 

[SixDegrees]

Tie the taxes to
* weight
* miles driven
* vehicle value

Weight because that determines how much road damage and costs for thicker roads are needed.

miles driven is a use tax. People who drive less than 5K/miles annually shouldn't pay the same as someone driving 25K miles if everything else is the same.

Vehicle value should make the "progressive" tax people happier. They want a wealth tax.

The way my state taxes vehicles is crazy. In 2013, they changed a law to require pre-paying the vehicle tax at purchase time instead of annually based on the value of the vehicle. A vehicle owned for 4-5 yrs will likely be 3-5x taxed more than a vehicle owned by one owner 20 yrs. Doesn't seem fair to pay 7.5% tax all up front when the vehicle might leave the state in 6 months. There is no tax refund policy. Of course, the govt doesn't call it a "tax", they call it something else to double-taxation can't be used in a lawsuit.

A "vehicle value" tax already exists most places. It's called a sales tax.

Don't you pay 7.5% upfront on TVs and boats, too?

Maybe at the state level. The Federal luxury tax on boats (and several other items) was repealed a couple years after passage.

Also at the state level, in my state at least, annual registration fees are based partly on vehicle weight, although there is only a handful of tiers. Nothing based on cost or luxuriousness, though.

 

[Mikel Ward]

Tie the taxes to
* weight
* miles driven
* vehicle value

Weight because that determines how much road damage and costs for thicker roads are needed.

miles driven is a use tax. People who drive less than 5K/miles annually shouldn't pay the same as someone driving 25K miles if everything else is the same.

Vehicle value should make the "progressive" tax people happier. They want a wealth tax.

The way my state taxes vehicles is crazy. In 2013, they changed a law to require pre-paying the vehicle tax at purchase time instead of annually based on the value of the vehicle. A vehicle owned for 4-5 yrs will likely be 3-5x taxed more than a vehicle owned by one owner 20 yrs. Doesn't seem fair to pay 7.5% tax all up front when the vehicle might leave the state in 6 months. There is no tax refund policy. Of course, the govt doesn't call it a "tax", they call it something else to double-taxation can't be used in a lawsuit.

A "vehicle value" tax already exists most places. It's called a sales tax.

Don't you pay 7.5% upfront on TVs and boats, too?

Maybe at the state level. The Federal luxury tax on boats (and several other items) was repealed a couple years after passage.

Also at the state level, in my state at least, annual registration fees are based partly on vehicle weight, although there is only a handful of tiers. Nothing based on cost or luxuriousness, though.

Right. Why would you have to pay an annual tax based on the vehicle's value if you already paid sales tax on it?

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Tax all churches, mosques, synogogues, etc. and we can pay for roads and healthcare for everyone. I solved it.

Depending upon whose numbers you think are correct, for a group of people having the major religious meeting of the week:
* The mode is either 80-90 or 35-45 people present;
* The median is 80 people present;

Regardless of which number is accurate, the revenue taxes might generate, won't cover the cost of services provided to the people in the meeting.

These groups are lucky if they can afford to pay clergy, utilities, and building upkeep.

The Mormon church is sitting on $100 billion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... rc404=true

Yeah, there's no way they can afford to keep the lights on with that.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Tie the taxes to
* weight
* miles driven
* vehicle value

Weight because that determines how much road damage and costs for thicker roads are needed.

miles driven is a use tax. People who drive less than 5K/miles annually shouldn't pay the same as someone driving 25K miles if everything else is the same.

Vehicle value should make the "progressive" tax people happier. They want a wealth tax.

The way my state taxes vehicles is crazy. In 2013, they changed a law to require pre-paying the vehicle tax at purchase time instead of annually based on the value of the vehicle. A vehicle owned for 4-5 yrs will likely be 3-5x taxed more than a vehicle owned by one owner 20 yrs. Doesn't seem fair to pay 7.5% tax all up front when the vehicle might leave the state in 6 months. There is no tax refund policy. Of course, the govt doesn't call it a "tax", they call it something else to double-taxation can't be used in a lawsuit.

A "vehicle value" tax already exists most places. It's called a sales tax.

Don't you pay 7.5% upfront on TVs and boats, too?

Maybe at the state level. The Federal luxury tax on boats (and several other items) was repealed a couple years after passage.

Also at the state level, in my state at least, annual registration fees are based partly on vehicle weight, although there is only a handful of tiers. Nothing based on cost or luxuriousness, though.

Right. Why would you have to pay an annual tax based on the vehicle's value if you already paid sales tax on it?

Some states charge you property taxes, and cars count as property.

 

[SixDegrees]

Tax all churches, mosques, synogogues, etc. and we can pay for roads and healthcare for everyone. I solved it.

Depending upon whose numbers you think are correct, for a group of people having the major religious meeting of the week:
* The mode is either 80-90 or 35-45 people present;
* The median is 80 people present;

Regardless of which number is accurate, the revenue taxes might generate, won't cover the cost of services provided to the people in the meeting.

These groups are lucky if they can afford to pay clergy, utilities, and building upkeep.

The Mormon church is sitting on $100 billion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... rc404=true

Yeah, there's no way they can afford to keep the lights on with that.

I've got little problem with static wealth going untaxed.

Once you use it, though, everyone should pay. And pay the same rate; capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.