Sulu

This is why I said that it is a knee-jerk reaction. Instead of slapping on a new tax that may discourage the purchase and use of electrified vehicles (that politicians claim to want to encourage), the vehicle tax regime should have been re-thought. How about reducing gasoline taxes from the road tax, and place it on a changed vehicle registration tax system that takes into account vehicles of all types -- traditionally-fuelled and alternatively-fuelled -- and sizes? Tax all vehicles by size in the registration tax and leave a reduced gasoline tax, to discourage use of fuel-guzzlers.

The purpose of a well-designed tax regime is not just to raise funds. It can discourage and encourage, depending upon what and how things are taxed. But it requires a look at everything that is taxed, not just haphazardly slapping a new tax on something (new).

There have been loud cries that electricity rates in Ontario, Canada are too high. Provincial governments will be reluctant to raise rates for the next few years.

The time-of-day rates were put into effect to BALANCE electricity use: raise daytime (high-demand time) rates and reduce nighttime (low-demand time) rates to encourage homeowners to use less electricity in the day and use more electricity (for dishwashers, laundry, etc.) in the overnight period. Balancing electricity use is a conservation measure and will reduce (or at least delay) the need for new generating plants, which would increase rates to pay for the new generating plants. Electricity demand is very high during the day (especially commercial and industrial uses) and low at night (when demand for commercial and industrial uses is quite low) but electricity supply is equally available during the day or night.

Toys4RJill

Never said they would raise the rates across the bar. I said they will charge you when you plug in your electric car.

Also, time of use rates are everywhere. Not just Ontario.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

California and other places will look for any reason to tax more because they spend too much on everything. About roads specifically, they're expensive to maintain, repair, and of course add more, and that money has to come from somewhere. With less revenue from gasoline due to increased fuel economy due to epa regs, states (and ultimately the fed too) have to make up the drop somehow. The only way out of that is simply less driving by all, but you can't disincent driving through taxes... they still drive a ton in europe with sky high taxes. other options like incentives for companies and employees to work at home or car pool might help. self driving cars though will change all of the economics soon enough.

mmarshall

California roads, of course, are also subject to more earthquake damage there than in most other states, because of the intensity of the quakes that part of the country gets. While not unheard of, it is quite rare for other parts of the country, outside of coastal Alaska, to get the kind of tremors one sees along the San Andreas Fault.

rogerh00

Of course you don't think big oil has hand in this? They own politicians.

mmarshall

Not really. There are plenty of taxes on gasoline, at all levels of government.

chromedome

If gasoline and diesel were taxed according to the environmental damage incurred during extraction, processing and distribution, their prices would be sky high. That's on top of actually burning fossil fuels for transport.

Of course, with Big Oil, Wall Street and top government in bed with each other, don't bet on big changes any time soon.

mmarshall

Who says they're in bed with each other? That appears to be your own conclusion.

rogerh00

My point was that since oil pays taxes then they don't want electric to not pay so they put pressure on politicians to enact the new taxes. I had an EV on my future list but now I'll have to wait and see how bad they get taxed in the future.
Awhile ago, my old home State enacted a 5 cent tax on gasoline and put it in a "locked box" for infrastructure repairs. Guess what? A few years later the politicians raided the locked box to pay for their pet projects. The roads and bridges are in deplorable condition. You know in the end these EV taxes won't get spent on infrastructure.

chromedome

Tillerson, approval for DAPL, pro-coal and pro-fracking policies?

That's just the current administration but the links between Big Oil and many levels of American government go back to the start of the interstate era. That's almost 70 years of pro-fossil fuel policies affecting every aspect of American life, from energy generation to transport to urban design that favors suburban sprawl.

What happened to all the passenger and goods trains? Why doesn't the US have a nationwide high speed train network like Europe or even China? Why are major cities designed with sprawl, clogged highways and long commutes as an inevitability rather than a choice?

Our love affair with fossil fuels and cars brought us down this road. Now we've got to find another path.

mmarshall

If those politicians are smart, repairing those roads and bridges will BE their pet projects. Few issues in today's society need more immediate attention. In fact, Trump himself wants to spend a trillion dollars on it. Granted, that's a lot of money, but the need for those repairs indeed is urgent.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

I admit I only scanned the original article to get the gist of it but this is not a surprising move to me. At least if you've driven on many southern California roads recently you'll understand the need to keep cash going into infrastructure repair. Some roads have been well maintained while others are in ****-poor condition. It's sporadic but significant enough that some additional effort for upkeep and maintenance has been long overdue. And then there are the regular ongoing road improvements.

Since pure electric cars have nothing to do with gasoline or diesel and both those fuels are taxed it only makes sense that EV's would be hit with some kind of annual equivalent to amount to the same.

As far as any of this discouraging EV car adoption I can only speak from my own perspective but it doesn't deter me. A boring, non-engaging, non-driver oriented EV that feels like an appliance is all that would deter me other than a model being out of my price range. Then again given how the major EV offerings are looking right now I'll probably just convert a suitable existing car that I like into an EV as soon as L-ion or Lithium-Ion Phosphate batteries come down in price a just bit more. I still would expect whatever EV(s) I eventually own (new-ish completely original or older converted) to fall under some sort of taxation policies for infrastructure projects. Gasoline and diesel have just had that built into their prices at the local level.

situman

Good. Electric vehicles are dumb. It makes people feel better about themselves for "saving" the environment, but lets ignore the fact that there are terrible environmental impacts from the minerals needed for the batteries and recycling the batteries when it dies. Oh let's also ignore where the electricity actually comes from.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

They do have instant torque though. And often conversions of older cars to EV will have a motor bolted to a manual gearbox. Manuals aren't dumb. They're fun. Sometimes they even make pleasing noise by design. To be clear, I love interesting gas engines as much as any car enthusiast does.

Your average EV car that is little more than an appliance vehicle with so-so handling and no on-center steering feel? Yeah, those are boring. Expensive boring. But then again any number of gasoline powered cars that feel similarly appliance-like and are saddled with an anemic engine and a hellish CVT transmission are also boring.

Battery R&D is ongoing and there will be a shift from the current heavy and lithium intensive designs we use today at very high cost. As far as where the electricity comes from, that's a much larger policy debate that mere mortals only have so much control over. It's like a chicken and egg dilemma. Whenever solar panels on people's homes can be afforded as prices for them drop is one solution but it comes down to cost. If you get into larger power generation centers there is a safer alternative to nuclear fission reactors in the form of molten salt thorium nuclear reactors but asking the NEA to push shifting to that technology is like moving a mountain. Hey, we'll see.

Where EV cars get their electricity from isn't the fault of the cars themselves. EV cars that are designed to be completely soulless and boring in regards to driver engagement versus one that rewards the driver's engagement with the machine-- that's where the dividing line should be.

LeX2K

Let's see some citations for these claims.