More fuel-efficient vehicles aren’t good news for everybody, and state governments are proving to be especially sore about the subject. Taxes on gasoline pay for state highways, and as fuel economy figures improve, the tax revenue that pays for highways is drying up. To counter this a bit, Washington will soon be charging pure-EV owners a $100 annual fee, since they also use the roads but would otherwise pay nothing for their upkeep. It will hardly offset the savings of owning an EV, and there is undeniably a logic to it, even if it does come across as mean-spirited when considering how few of these vehicles there really are.
But the situation is far direr for cash-strapped Virginia, a state where the 17.5-cent per gallon gasoline tax that was set in 1986 wasn’t pegged to inflation. Combined with rising mpg figures, gas tax revenue isn’t helping the state much. So Governor Robert McDonnell has a new proposal to fix this problem, which was published in the Washington Post, getting rid of the gas tax. He plans on raising the state sales tax, as well as the fees for vehicle registration. But there’s another part which just seems odd. He is imposing a Washington-style $100 fee for plug-in vehicles, but is also extending it to hybrids as well. So even though the gas tax, the whole reason for the fee for alternative fuels in the first place, will be repealed, hybrid and EV owners have to pay anyway. This actually means that hybrid and EV owners will be paying more taxes for roads than the owners of gas guzzlers. And don’t think you can get around it by buying an efficient clean diesel either, as the 17.5-cent tax will apply.
It’s fairly amazing that someone could possibly try to sell this idea as fair, but it isn’t law yet and it might not go anywhere. It remains to be seen if a more even-handed solution can be found.
This is an interesting problem. Perhaps a tax (Usage fee) on tires would work better. Tire wear is directly related to road use and therefore road wear and tear.
Of course, Virginia could create a win-win situation by promoting “Mass Transit” driven by coal fired steam engines; thereby helping the coal industry too … Of course that would be “Clean Coal” ;-)
Wow … no bias in this article. I don’t live in Virginia so this won’t impact me at all but I do recall hearing many governors complain about how electric and hybrid vehicles are not paying “their fair share” (a phrase I suspect you fully support) of transportation specific taxes. Basically, they are using (and damaging) roadways without paying their proportionate share in gasoline taxes. When I was living in California, I remember hearing some talk about doing something similar there.
Like I said, this isn’t my fight but calling this “revenge” seemed a little harsh.
Since I don’t live in Virginia, don’t own a hybrid or EV and don’t even particularly want one, where this alleged bias would come from isn’t at all clear. It is even more unclear given the fact that I said Washington’s use of the $100 fee for electric cars was logical. I did come to a conclusion based on the facts presented by the governor himself, but the belief that this is the same as a bias is both incorrect and potentially dangerous.
Singling out vehicles which don’t use gasoline for special fees makes perfect sense when gas taxes pay for the roads they use, but in the absence of such taxes, why single them out?
You do know that DT is a libtard venue…
How do most EU countries tax fuel and keep up their road system? Most cars in Europe and the UK get fuel economy way beyond what is just coming available in the US, but the roads there seem in pretty good shape. (Ireland not included… lol)
Fuel economy isn’t actually any better in Europe than it is in the US, they just have a more optimistic rating system. Since we in the US have shown a tenancy to sue over things like inflated mpg numbers, the numbers we see are more conservative, although in fairness, also probably closer to reality. That’s why the exact same car will get a lower mpg rating in the US than it got from the EU.
While EV’s might not directly contribute to tax revenues needed for maintaining state highways, it does most likely contribute in other ways. Less pollutions -> Better population health -> Less expenses for public health care etc. But that’s the long game, and politicians would rather see quicker results.