[JStrnad]

California legislators have voted to raise the gasoline tax by 12 cents/gallon to pay for much-needed road repairs. They are also adding a new annual fee of $25-175 depending on the cost of the vehicle, and a $100 annual fee for electric vehicles.

I'm okay with the $100 fee, I guess. it's a little high given how few miles I drive, but it's doable. It's typical for the government to give with one hand ($1500-2500 cash rebate for buying an EV) and then take with the other hand.

My bigger concern is that the money will be siphoned off for other purposes than road maintenance and repair. The city of L.A. does this all of the time with school repairs, getting a bond voted in to "repair our schools," then using the money for other things. I've gotten so tired of this bait-and-switch that I've stopped voting for school improvement bonds, though I'd gladly pay for school improvements. I can see this new gas tax/fee money getting sidetracked, the roads continuing to disintegrate, and then getting socked for more taxes and fees in the near future, but maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

Jan

 

[Raymondjram]

That gas tax should have a feature such that it will increase automatically each year until the tax is removed. And that will motivate more EV purchases every year.

 

[rhodomel]

... and a $100 annual fee for electric vehicles.

Since we didn't get the full rebate for Chevy Volt, are we going to pay the full $100 fee?

 

[DrMiguelitoLoveless]

California legislators have voted to raise the gasoline tax by 12 cents/gallon to pay for much-needed road repairs. They are also adding a new annual fee of $25-175 depending on the cost of the vehicle, and a $100 annual fee for electric vehicles.

I have ZERO objection to paying to support the roads, provided the money goes to the roads. That said, fees should be based on MPG/MPGe with dirtier cars paying more than clean ones. The vehicles cost should be irrelevant.

 

[Bacardi]

Far easier to create a new $100 fee than it would be to reduce the $1500 CA state incentive to $1400...

Will this increase EV adoption? Sure as even one single person increases it yet I think this will have far less of an impact than people think...Folks just aren't ready to give up their AWD SUVs, so instead of the V6 they'll consider the turbo 4....There are more and more SUV hybrids coming out...

 

[ravadac]

I have ZERO objection to paying to support the roads, provided the money goes to the roads. That said, fees should be based on MPG/MPGe with dirtier cars paying more than clean ones. The vehicles cost should be irrelevant.

The fees should be based on vehicle weights and number of axles. The standard is that 1 commercial trucked loaded with freight does as much damage as 10,000 regular passenger vehicles. It gets even worse if they have very few axles. I don't care how clean / dirty the vehicle is, emissions don't damage the road, high PSI damage the roads. Honestly, the taxes should be passed onto trucking companies based on how many miles they do ( they already monitor their mileage so it would be easily incorporated ). There's no privacy concerns at that point, and they would just pass the cost differences onto the distributors who would pass the cost differences onto the consumer ultimately.

 

[Mr.Woolery]

I think the approach is wrong (taxing gas, fixed surcharges for EV's). Instead of bickering back and forth between the energy sources and trying to tax them, I think the way it should be done would be based upon weight of the vehicle instead. It simplifies the process, reduces energy costs, and places the burden on the vehicles which most directly create the most actual wear on road infrastructure by their weight--an actual linked factor which effects the need for road maintenance. I'd propose:

1. Eliminate gas tax and other motive energy surcharges altogether.
2. State does required maintenance for the year. Tally up the costs for that year at the end of the year.
3. Make gross weight a required data item for every registered roadgoing vehicle.
4. Take total annual road maintenance cost, and divide by total pounds of all registered vehicles to come up with a "per pound cost" annual cost of maintenance.
5. Annual vehicle registration fee would then include a charge of (gross weight of vehicle) * (per pound) cost for the previous year of the state's road maintenance programs.

Registration fees would become directly linked to the road maintenance budget. It would also eliminate any budgetary shortfalls for needed infrastructure maintenance/repair. It should create more transparency in the infrastructure budget, too.

 

[alfon]

Really, how much of that tax money from hard working Californians will actually go into road repair. I would never live in California and this is just another reason why. Honestly, if you live in California or for that matter any other state in the United States do you believe you don't pay enough taxes.

If anybody wants to pay more taxes don't force it on me or my family. All you have to do is write a check to the City, State, or Federal Government and you can give them all the money you want, just don't force the rest of us to go along with you....

 

[Mr.Woolery]

The fees should be based on vehicle weights and number of axles.

JINKS! LOL

 

[srmarti]

I share the concern that taxes and fees on transportation end up in in the "general fund" and the roads don't get fixed. How do you know when a politician is lying?

 

[rhodomel]

I think the approach is wrong (taxing gas, fixed surcharges for EV's). Instead of bickering back and forth between the energy sources and trying to tax them, I think the way it should be done would be based upon weight of the vehicle instead. It simplifies the process, reduces energy costs, and places the burden on the vehicles which most directly create the most actual wear on road infrastructure by their weight--an actual linked factor which effects the need for road maintenance. I'd propose:

1. Eliminate gas tax and other motive energy surcharges altogether.
2. State does required maintenance for the year. Tally up the costs for that year at the end of the year.
3. Make gross weight a required data item for every registered roadgoing vehicle.
4. Take total annual road maintenance cost, and divide by total pounds of all registered vehicles to come up with a "per pound cost" annual cost of maintenance.
5. Annual vehicle registration fee would then include a charge of (gross weight of vehicle) * (per pound) cost for the previous year of the state's road maintenance programs.

Registration fees would become directly linked to the road maintenance budget. It would also eliminate any budgetary shortfalls for needed infrastructure maintenance/repair. It should create more transparency in the infrastructure budget, too.

Most important of all, annual miles driven per vehicle weight class!

 

[alfon]

Sure is great when you believe you do the right thing and buy an electric vehicle and then get taxed and charged on having that vehicle well after the purchase. No good deed goes unpunished....

 

[inspron]

Really, how much of that tax money from hard working Californians will actually go into road repair. I would never live in California and this is just another reason why. Honestly, if you live in California or for that matter any other state in the United States do you believe you don't pay enough taxes.

If anybody wants to pay more taxes don't force it on me or my family. All you have to do is write a check to the City, State, or Federal Government and you can give them all the money you want, just don't force the rest of us to go along with you....

I think you skipped the Economics 101 class when they discussed "Public Goods".

 

[Rickoshay]

Governor Moonbeam will use this money for whatever he wants. Just like he always does. I can't hardly wait a year and 10 months to retire and move from this liberal infested, one party, mess.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

 

[mike100]

California doesn't have a cash flow problem, they have a debt problem. When you explain to a young person why taxes need to exist, the simple explanation is that roads, police, and schools and such services need to be paid for. You would think that the roads would automatically have a high priority over the high speed train to Fresno or many other controversial programs. anyhow... so we are broke and they are 'creating (road crew) jobs' with taxes. anyhow...

specifically I was interested in what the bill language defined as an EV and the phase in date.

SB1 says:
"and a new $100 annual vehicle registration fee applicable only to zero-emission vehicles model year 2020 and later, with an inflation adjustment, as provided."

zero emission vehicle is defined as:
9250.6 (g) For purposes of this section, “zero-emission motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle as described in subdivision (d) of Section 44258 of the Health and Safety Code, or any other motor vehicle that is able to operate on any fuel other than gasoline or diesel fuel.

So it looks like PHEV are included in the $100 gas tax avoidance penalty, but only for new 2020 model year vehicles.

 

[jupitermoon]

California legislators have voted to raise the gasoline tax by 12 cents/gallon to pay for much-needed road repairs. They are also adding a new annual fee of $25-175 depending on the cost of the vehicle, and a $100 annual fee for electric vehicles.

I'm okay with the $100 fee, I guess. it's a little high given how few miles I drive, but it's doable. It's typical for the government to give with one hand ($1500-2500 cash rebate for buying an EV) and then take with the other hand.

My bigger concern is that the money will be siphoned off for other purposes than road maintenance and repair. The city of L.A. does this all of the time with school repairs, getting a bond voted in to "repair our schools," then using the money for other things. I've gotten so tired of this bait-and-switch that I've stopped voting for school improvement bonds, though I'd gladly pay for school improvements. I can see this new gas tax/fee money getting sidetracked, the roads continuing to disintegrate, and then getting socked for more taxes and fees in the near future, but maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

Jan

I couldn't agree more....and hopefully I'm not off topic as I feel it's all related.

But if this was a true democracy where citizens actually got involved on a daily, weekly, monthly basis with what the crooks in the government do at any level, there would be none of these issues at hand. Going to the polls every 4 years and voting once and thinking one is doing anything to change things in anyway is a complete utter farce.

As it is, I can assure with 100% certainty that most of the money appropriated from such taxes do not go to helping or improving any of the items lists these clowns claim they are working on. Our public schools are one of the best examples of this. What an embarrassment they are to the future generations to have such incredibly poor public schooling, funding, and accommodations. This is a state level issue of course. Where is all tax revenue coming from the state lottery going to? What a mystery.

At higher levels, we do have money to build $40 billion dollar F35 strike fighters. That's not a problem. But of course healthcare isn't important nor is our environment and the EPA is a waste of money as is keeping our citizens healthy and covered.

As many have stated here, I also have no objection whatsoever to paying taxes that actually GO TO something worthwhile and effective...things that help US not take away. Things that make our lives easier and more accommodating and more pleasant. Not harder.

We pay all these taxes but sit in more and more endless traffic jams, get less aid, pay more for cars, more for insurance, more of fuel. People in this country scoff at other nations for such high taxes when in fact they should hold their heads low in embarrassment. At least in other countries that do have high taxes, they have systems in place that DO help others and offer benefits to ease peoples issues and make life easier and more pleasant.

This place is slipping into the dark ages really quickly. It's absolutely broken...so broken a reset button is in order and not just a fix. It's going to take generations to turn this country around and there's going to be a world of hurt in between.

As for EVs, it's going to be a severe uphill battle and I'd not be surprised if automakers back away from developing EVs at the pace they are currently doing.

 

[NickHark]

Californians are suckers

Anyone that thinks that the money will be only spent on roadwork should have their head examined. Although the new law has some phoney language to mandate that the money will be spent as described, when it comes to politicians, especially when all the politicians are progressives and/or are from the same party, as we are blessed with in California, they will find a way to use the money for their pet projects.

Prop 13 was passed with the promise that it would put a limit on the ability of Sacramento to spend other peoples' money, but it obviously hasn't.

This should be especially obvious to anyone who realizes that Sacramento is giddy with excitement to build a high speed train from L.A. to San Francisco. Governor Moonbean wants to depart his office with a major project like his father did, when he "created" the California Water Project which takes Northern California water and ships it south.

One big flaw in the legislature's logic is that people who drive volts and do not charge the batteries, will by hit with the tax increase as well as the EV penalty.

They talk a big game in encouraging alternate fuel vehicles, but tax them so that fewer people will buy them.

Don't you just love politicians.

 

[DonC]

I think BEVs should pay a fee. I wonder if PHEVs pay nothing or a lesser amount since they do in fact use gas. (sob!)

Really, how much of that tax money from hard working Californians will actually go into road repair. I would never live in California and this is just another reason why.

This is funny given you live in the People's Republic of Oregon! No problem with the tax. Since down here we can pump our own gas our gas prices are lower! (Actually probably not but you get the dig).

They talk a big game in encouraging alternate fuel vehicles, but tax them so that fewer people will buy them.

Don't you just love politicians.

It's always good to be grateful. A Volt owner would get a rebate large enough to pay this tax for fifteen years. If you lease it's even better.

 

[Stromfahrer]

zero emission vehicle is defined as:
9250.6 (g) For purposes of this section, “zero-emission motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle as described in subdivision (d) of Section 44258 of the Health and Safety Code, or any other motor vehicle that is able to operate on any fuel other than gasoline or diesel fuel.

California Health & Safety Code Section 44258(d) definition:

(d) “Zero-emission vehicle” means a vehicle that produces no emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases when stationary or operating, as determined by the state board.

I haven't looked at whatever State Board regulations might exits, but per the H&S Code definition, I think a Volt doesn't qualify.

 

[DonC]

I haven't looked at whatever State Board regulations might exits, but per the H&S Code definition, I think a Volt doesn't qualify.

Thank you for this. I just looked and reached the same conclusion you have, though I'm not sure I would use the term "qualify". That's usually when you WANT to be included. Probably better to say it appears the fee "doesn't apply" to the Volt.