California to implement multiple electric vehicle fees in the coming years

[Shawn Knight]

California has been instrumental in the adoption of electric vehicles, offering prospective buyers various incentives to ensure their next ride won’t require regular trips to the gas station. While the discounts have been successful (California accounts for roughly half of the country’s EV sales), they won’t run in perpetuation.

Autoblog is reporting that the Golden State will begin charging a one-time registration fee of $100 for plug-in vehicles starting with the 2020 model year. It doesn’t end there, however, as the state will also impose a $25 annual registration fee for vehicles with a market value of less than $5,000. Those with higher-end rides valued above $60,000 will see that fee climb to $175 a year.

It’s not that California hates electric vehicles and those that buy them; it simply comes down to basic economics.

The EV fees are designed to help the state recoup tax revenue generated from the sale of gasoline. With fewer people buying gasoline, stations are obviously generating less revenue than before – money that is used to help pay for road repairs and other infrastructure improvements.

California will be following the lead of Nebraska and Missouri which implemented $75 annual fees for plug-ins way back in 2011. Several other states have since done the same including Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming while half a dozen others have proposed similar bills.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/68939-california-implement-multiple-electric-vehicle-fees-coming-years.html

 

[Evernessince]

This sounds like a bean counter's decision. They want to collect taxes more then they want to promote electrical vehicles. With the current price of Gasoline, they could have simply increased the gas tax instead of increasing taxes on EVs.

 

[Tanstar]

This sounds like a bean counter's decision. They want to collect taxes more then they want to promote electrical vehicles. With the current price of Gasoline, they could have simply increased the gas tax instead of increasing taxes on EVs.

Unless EVs aren't going to use the roads, they should contribute to their upkeep. If the goal is to replace all gasoline cars with EVs, then this has to start eventually. This way you don't shock most of the population by waiting until EVs are a majority to start charging this fee.

 

[Evernessince]

Unless EVs aren't going to use the roads, they should contribute to their upkeep. If the goal is to replace all gasoline cars with EVs, then this has to start eventually. This way you don't shock most of the population by waiting until EVs are a majority to start charging this fee.

How is charging the fee now instead of later any less of a shock?

 

[Kotters]

Unless EVs aren't going to use the roads, they should contribute to their upkeep. If the goal is to replace all gasoline cars with EVs, then this has to start eventually. This way you don't shock most of the population by waiting until EVs are a majority to start charging this fee.

How is charging the fee now instead of later any less of a shock?

Right now there's only a population of X people used to having EVs without fees.

In the hypothetical world where we waited, you'd have a population of X+Y people used to having EVs without fees.

 

[JudasSheep]

California's gas prices are going to increase .12c if Jerry Brown's proposal passes. That will put gas tax at .30c per gallon.

I swear people didn't learn the first time he was elected to Gov, so they can reap what they sow. Glad I am moving east in the near future!

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Lets see:
- gas tax - check
- oil and lube tax - check
- disposal fee - check
- EV fee - check
- clean air fee - check
- tire tax - check
- tax tax - double check (yes, Virginia, it really exists when excise tax is included in sales price and sales tax is charged on sum)

At least there isn't a shoe leather tax/fee....or is there?

 

[Evernessince]

Right now there's only a population of X people used to having EVs without fees.

In the hypothetical world where we waited, you'd have a population of X+Y people used to having EVs without fees.

More people does not equal more shock. It would be very simple to pass legislation now that imposes the fees in the future. That way they get their money and people have advanced notice.

 

[davislane1]

This sounds like a bean counter's decision. They want to collect taxes more then they want to promote electrical vehicles. With the current price of Gasoline, they could have simply increased the gas tax instead of increasing taxes on EVs.

Unless EVs aren't going to use the roads, they should contribute to their upkeep. If the goal is to replace all gasoline cars with EVs, then this has to start eventually. This way you don't shock most of the population by waiting until EVs are a majority to start charging this fee.

When's the last time they published an audit showing these revenues actually go to roadway projects?

Not trolling. Asking a legitimate question since "pay for road upkeep" always pops up absent any data saying the collecting government actually spends the majority of that money on roads.

 

[B5S46M]

Doesn't changing the fuel source just change through which payee the taxes are funneled? Unless the electricity is free or untaxed, I don't understand the logic.

 

[Tanstar]

More people does not equal more shock. It would be very simple to pass legislation now that imposes the fees in the future. That way they get their money and people have advanced notice.

The current number of people inconvenienced isn't going to get anyone elected out of office. Do this when 80% of the population is driving EVs? Then congressmen find themselves looking for new jobs. Anyone buying EVs going forward knows they will pay this fee, so no shock. You are right, they could've set this to start in 2 years or some other future date, but again, not enough people are inconvenienced for them to care.

 

[Tanstar]

Doesn't changing the fuel source just change through which payee the taxes are funneled? Unless the electricity is free or untaxed, I don't understand the logic.

Fueling a car by electricity is much cheaper and the taxes on electricity much lower.

 

[Uncle Al]

Lets see:
- gas tax - check
- oil and lube tax - check
- disposal fee - check
- EV fee - check
- clean air fee - check
- tire tax - check
- tax tax - double check (yes, Virginia, it really exists when excise tax is included in sales price and sales tax is charged on sum)

At least there isn't a shoe leather tax/fee....or is there?

It's coming, but first they have to walk the bill around to get the signatures ..... oh, sorry for the pun!

 

[Evernessince]

The current number of people inconvenienced isn't going to get anyone elected out of office. Do this when 80% of the population is driving EVs? Then congressmen find themselves looking for new jobs. Anyone buying EVs going forward knows they will pay this fee, so no shock. You are right, they could've set this to start in 2 years or some other future date, but again, not enough people are inconvenienced for them to care.

1st, you aren't going to get booted out of office just for one piece of legislation. Second, where were all the people getting the boot when the gas tax was first imposed?

 

[cmnw8]

California's gas prices are going to increase .12c if Jerry Brown's proposal passes. That will put gas tax at .30c per gallon.

I swear people didn't learn the first time he was elected to Gov, so they can reap what they sow. Glad I am moving east in the near future!

It has passed. Although this bill was introduced a State legislator, I figure it was anointed by Gov Moonbeam. Additionally, with this bill the legislature have tied the gas tax to inflation, so the gas tax will continue to increase as time goes by.
And lastly, blithering *****s tend to never learn anything.

 

[psycros]

This sounds like a bean counter's decision. They want to collect taxes more then they want to promote electrical vehicles. With the current price of Gasoline, they could have simply increased the gas tax instead of increasing taxes on EVs.

Unless EVs aren't going to use the roads, they should contribute to their upkeep. If the goal is to replace all gasoline cars with EVs, then this has to start eventually. This way you don't shock most of the population by waiting until EVs are a majority to start charging this fee.

When's the last time they published an audit showing these revenues actually go to roadway projects?

Not trolling. Asking a legitimate question since "pay for road upkeep" always pops up absent any data saying the collecting government actually spends the majority of that money on roads.

Four of the five states with the highest gasoline taxes by population are also among the BOTTOM five in terms of road conditions in the US. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Adorerai]

How about using the tax incentives for EVs to pay for the roads?

 

[Kotters]

More people does not equal more shock. It would be very simple to pass legislation now that imposes the fees in the future. That way they get their money and people have advanced notice.

...Even ignoring your very questionable claim, right now we've gone X years to build up the perception that no fees is normal. In a hypothetical world where we waited, that means we've gone X+Y years building up the perception that no fees is normal.

 

[Evernessince]

...Even ignoring your very questionable claim, right now we've gone X years to build up the perception that no fees is normal. In a hypothetical world where we waited, that means we've gone X+Y years building up the perception that no fees is normal.

Did you even read the comments? If people know the fees are going to enacted after Y years, the shock value doesn't increase, it decreases. People aren't going to be like "Well they kept telling us all these years they were phasing in taxes on EVs but I still totally din't expect them".

Please read before presuming.

 

[TheBigT42]

Lets see:
- gas tax - check
- oil and lube tax - check
- disposal fee - check
- EV fee - check
- clean air fee - check
- tire tax - check
- tax tax - double check (yes, Virginia, it really exists when excise tax is included in sales price and sales tax is charged on sum)

At least there isn't a shoe leather tax/fee....or is there?

-They need to tax bicycles that use the road too (or do they?)
-Tax anything with wheels

 

[p51d007]

Government for decades...has told us to by fuel efficient vehicles, drive less, drive smaller
lighter vehicles.
So, we do. Now, they say they are "losing" tons of tax money because we did what you asked
us to do, so of course they can't live with one penny less than the previous year so bend over
taxpayers...time to rake you over the coals for MORE MONEY.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Government for decades...has told us to by fuel efficient vehicles, drive less, drive smaller
lighter vehicles.
So, we do. Now, they say they are "losing" tons of tax money because we did what you asked
us to do, so of course they can't live with one penny less than the previous year so bend over
taxpayers...time to rake you over the coals for MORE MONEY.

In a good cause: to assure lightning fast service at the DMV.

 

[Kotters]

Did you even read the comments? If people know the fees are going to enacted after Y years, the shock value doesn't increase, it decreases. People aren't going to be like "Well they kept telling us all these years they were phasing in taxes on EVs but I still totally din't expect them".

Please read before presuming.

Did you even read my comments? Being told something will occur in the future doesn't change the shock value. Without a massive campaign, most of the public are not aware of things like this. Just look at how the adoption of digital TV broadcasts ended up.

 

[Evernessince]

Did you even read my comments? Being told something will occur in the future doesn't change the shock value. Without a massive campaign, most of the public are not aware of things like this. Just look at how the adoption of digital TV broadcasts ended up.

"Being told something will occur in the future doesn't change the shock value"

This right here, is where you loose any and all credibility. My automatic loan payments tell me ahead of time when they are going to take the money out (and so does the mortgage), you apply to college ahead of time and they tell you in advance how much it will cost, ect, ect, ect. Half of our dang society is telling people in advance to reduce any possible shock. You saying otherwise is nonsense.

"Without a massive campaign, most of the public are not aware of things like this"

Well it's a good thing it's never been easier.

"Just look at how the adoption of digital TV broadcasts ended up"

It turned out pretty good, this is just an example of you taking a small issue and trying to blow it up to be a big one. In the first test markets they did, which were mixed suburban and rural, only 7% of people were even in need of a upgrade to work with digital. So of those people an even smaller amount has issues. Given the location, if the had tested in areas of heavy population that number would be even lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television_transition_in_the_United_States

So let's see you give it a go now. Give me some source that backs up your claim that informing people in advance does not help them cope with said event at a later date.

 

[KenT2952]

This sounds like a bean counter's decision. They want to collect taxes more then they want to promote electrical vehicles. With the current price of Gasoline, they could have simply increased the gas tax instead of increasing taxes on EVs.

Unless EVs aren't going to use the roads, they should contribute to their upkeep. If the goal is to replace all gasoline cars with EVs, then this has to start eventually. This way you don't shock most of the population by waiting until EVs are a majority to start charging this fee.

I do own a Chevy Volt. I purchased it in December '16, used. I had to get something as I had totaled my Yukon XL. I miss the space and ability to haul a lot of stuff, but what I don't miss is having to fill that 32 gallon tank every 2 weeks. Here in California, especially Orange County, we're paying upwards of 3-3.50 for the low grade stuff. That was roughly 100.00+ every 2 weeks. I now have a different job, and drive 8-10 miles each way to get to work. By driving the Volt, I have cut the gas consumption down to almost nil. I had to make one trip to North San Diego County in January, and had to put almost $20 of gas in the tank when I returned home. That is the only money I've spent for gas since purchasing the car in December. $75 per year as an additional tax for driving an electric vehicle, is nothing. That I don't mind at all. The registration is less, there is almost no gas consumption to speak of, and my monthly electric bill went up by $28 per month to keep the car charged up. Can't complain one bit. Sure they have to find ways to make up for the loss at the pump, but as you know, they will always find something new to collect their missing monies from. They will have to add a whole lot more fees to make up for more revenue losses at the pumps as the alternative energy solutions are developed.

Right now, my odometer is sitting at 35,261 and the car has used a total of 47.9 gallons of gas in its entire lifetime. I can handle the few extra fees when I'm getting better that 736 miles per gallon of gas. I know it may be an exception, but it sure paid off for me. Try one, you'll like it. EV's and Plug-In Hybrids are completely different than a Hybrid, and yes, they can get out of their own way.