[ausev] FW: Public Hearing 28Mar - EV "Road Tax"
electricaveaustin at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 28 18:08:22 GMT 2011
Hey y'all! It went very well. They had already removed the GPS item from HB 1669. Plug in Texas also testified opposing the bill. They realized that the bill is vague and that it needs work. As of this morning it was pending. If it gets to the floor we need to have a writing campaign. Let's. See how it turns out.
Thanks for your support guys. Lets keep on top of this bill. Thank you for posting it Friday I did not know about it.
Have a great week!!
On Mon Mar 28th, 2011 8:51 AM CDT Marc Kohler wrote:
>I have no problem with everyone being taxed per mile. They don't have to do
>any electronic metering either, simply pay the appropriate amount when you
>have your car inspected (use the current mileage and subtract the previous
>year's mileage on record). The pay per mile model will allow cars that
>don't get driven much to pay a smaller amount. This way, we can still have
>fun in our Model T's, 56 Chevy Trucks, restored 69 Camaros (all gross
>polluters) and EVs. Cars that drive 20k miles a year, should pay more than
>a hobby car that drives 1k miles a year. We should move away from taxing a
>fuel and tax the actual source of the road wear. Vehicles do pay more by
>weight, which is already a step in that direction (since heavier vehicles
>cause more damage).
>If people want to see gas prices go down, that's a quick way to do it.
>Granted, taxing fuel brings revenue in daily whereas taxing miles driven
>using the inspection station as the meter would only be an annual amount.
>Perhaps that's why they would require electronic monitoring to be able to
>BTW, a similar debate is also going on at AutoBlogGreen
>From: ausev-bounces at austinev.org [mailto:ausev-bounces at austinev.org] On
>Behalf Of John Brecher
>Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 7:36 AM
>To: AustinEV News Announcements and General Discussion
>Subject: Re: [ausev] FW: Public Hearing 28Mar - EV "Road Tax"
>In case you think Texas thought of the electronic device, look at this. It
>is directed at ALL vehicles. We don't have money to educate our children but
>we can think of spending for stupid things like this!
>On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, John Brecher <jlbrecher at gmail.com> wrote:
>I emailed with "National" over the weekend and they say this is happening
>everywhere as you might expect. Elsewhere states are just having EV'ers
>state their mileage annually and paying a "per mile" cost. We should pay our
>I think the State misunderstands the amount of EV's in Texas. Will Beckett
>tells me we have only 87 members in Texas. Texans have driven 305,000 since
>they have been recording mileage(about ten years) so each driver would have
>driven 3,500 in ten years so we drive much less than the average gas car.
>That is the point we need to get across.
>On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 8:10 PM, alfonzo ranjel <acranjel at gmail.com> wrote:
>I believe that before they try to tax a new technology out of feasibility,
>they should remove any government subsidy for oil (gas) as to level the
>playing field. This would make the gas price go way up. But they should also
>remove gas tax, price goes down and tax all vehicles per weight/mile driven.
>Just Because energy to drive your car comes from different sources, doesn't
>mean you should be taxed differently.
>On Mar 27, 2011 4:44 PM, "Willie McKemie" <mckemie at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:13:43AM -0500, Monte Dudgeon wrote:
>> > If their argument is that EVs are not paying their 'fair share' of road
>> > then your counter points can be the following...
>> > 1. As the way this bill is worded then every mile the EV car drives, be
>> > Texas roads or NOT, would be subjected to taxation, which IS unfair as
>> > driven vehicles are not taxed for every mile they drive.
>> > 2. There is NO proven way to track or identify that an EV drives solely
>> > Texas roads. Even though an EV's per-charge range is considerably
>> > that of a gas or diesel powered vehicle's full tank, doesn't mean that
>> > can not travel past our state's borders.
>> I THINK the proposal is to track vehicles positions via GPS. If that
>> is the case, they will know when vehicles leave Texas.
>> Perhaps a better counter argument is to point out that almost all
>> vehicle inflicted highway damage is caused by ~80,000 pound trucks.
>> Perhaps 95%-99%. From a cost allocation basis, it would make sense to
>> just not collect any road use tax from vehicles weighing less than
>> something like 10,000 pounds and put essentially all road repair costs
>> on large trucks. Indeed, the "fair share" for EVs and other small cars
>> is zero or very near to zero. A large truck might get (what? 5mpg?)
>> 1/10th the mileage of a small car and probably does 100 times the
>> road damage; that makes the fuel tax as it is now a great subsidy for
>> I wish I had time to be part of the process. Thanks, Leo, for doing
>> your bit!
>> Willie, ONWARD! Through the fog!
>> http://counter.li.org <http://counter.li.org/> Linux registered user
>#228836 since 1995
>> Debian3.1/GNU/Linux system uptime 196 days 13 hours 50 minutes
>> AusEV mailing list
>> AusEV at austinev.org
>AusEV mailing list
>AusEV at austinev.org
>John L. Brecher
>John L. Brecher
More information about the AusEV