So it's a special EV privilege that is going away (because of the Feds). Now they'll be treated like other vehicles. Not as bad as the headline could be interpreted.
If you're referring to gasoline taxes, California taxes electricity too.
> with far less road damage per mile
I agree, let's tax all vehicles by weight. I'd love to see all those pickup trucks and full-size SUVs pay.
By weight and by tire count! Have to made sure to deal with four-tire axles and such, not to mention electric semi trucks.
I believe the California pilot determined that odometer reporting and occasional DMV drive-thru checks will be the solution. I’d post the newsletter to HN the next time it comes out but this isn’t really the sort of group that appreciates taxation.
Paying tens of thousands to avoid a few cents per gallon doesn't immediately strike me as a great deal.
"According to Caltrans, Californians with gas-powered vehicles pay about $300 a year in state gas taxes."[1]
This is a tiny minority of EV drivers.
> Doesn’t really work out in road repair costs
For that matter did the gasoline tax ever fully cover repair costs when EVs weren't around? I always had the impression that funds were needed from other sources too. It's interesting to see so many people get religion about "making drivers pay their fair share" after EVs became popular.
> By weight and by tire count
Even better!
1. https://abc7.com/post/california-looks-eliminate-gas-tax-rep...
However, the real threat to roadways that hasn’t yet been fully realized is EV autopilot tractor-trailers; without gas taxing, without mileage taxing, and without the constrain of having to pay humans to drive them, the state highways are going to get shredded into gravel in a decade.
Both have to be treated; passenger vehicles wear down roadways in residential zones that semi trucks don’t enter, and semi trucks wear down highways vastly more rapidly than any personal vehicle of any weight can.
I participated in two phases of the mileage pilot program described by that ABC article over the past ten years and look forward to its eventual implementation in literally any form whatsoever. I truly hope that their final form ends up being mass-wheel-mileage taxation with a transit credit for public transit and 10+ passenger vehicles, so that lightweight Priuses and buses pay little and heavyweight Rivians and semi trucks pay lots. Whatever their first steps towards that outcome is, I’ll take it, whether it’s gas tax or EV tax or truck tax corrections or any combination thereof. The status quo is unfair in multiple ways and they’ve got their work cut out for them.
So: the EV loophole is costing the state half of the road maintenance tax budgeted for road wear in subsidies paid to EV drivers, assuming that all gas vehicles get 30mpg at all times. I don’t expect that gap to last much longer now the Federal government is openly hostile to the state. Hooray for silver linings, I guess.
The federal government is notnot be extending the program, which means the underlying authority for the program expires.
California passed legislation to extend the program, but this extension is contingent on federal approval, which was not granted.
From Section 166 it looks like the state can also convert an HOV lane to an HOT lane and set the toll amount. The contrarian in me wants to believe there’s some ridiculous loophole in there…
It just felt like a ham-fisted way to incentivize EV purchases, when there are better ways to do that.
Manufacturing an EV car uses a lot more emissions than an ICE car initially, due to the huge battery.
If the goal is to reduce emissions overall, then target incentives appropriately:
- tax deduction at purchase
- tax deduction for drivers of old (10 yr+) EV vehicles.
This incentivizes EV purchase AND driving that vehicle for a long time. In contrast, allowing EV drivers to use a carpool lane does no such thing IMO.
I find this timeframe surprising. I did some quick searches and there are models like GREET that suggest the break-even point is much sooner than that in the US. It is difficult to know for certain, of course, as there are many variables.
Regardless, it is of course better to incentivize long-term ownership as well. I think of HOV access as similar to a tax deduction on purchase. It’s a cheap way to provide a carrot for initial EV adoption.
nahtnam•4mo ago
avidiax•4mo ago
burnt-resistor•4mo ago
jdlshore•4mo ago
aplummer•4mo ago
nostrademons•4mo ago
red369•4mo ago
I had a couple of friends buy cars at the same time - one bought a new Subaru, and the other a used 997 Porsche 911. The 911 cost more, but not a large difference in price. In that part of the world, the Subaru (and almost all new cars) loses 40% in the first year in depreciation, and continues to drop off at 10% - 15% per year. The 911 has more expensive maintenance and insurance, but has so far, and could easily continue to be depreciation-proof. The difference in fuel is less than you might think too given how much lighter (and risky in crashes) older smaller cars are. So far the 911 has turned out to be by far the more sensible financial decision. Obviously there are much more financially-prudent alternatives to both, but I find it interesting how older interesting cars are looked at as frivolous purchases, but new utilitarian cars aren't.
Your comment was presumably talking about new or expensive 911s, and I don't want to criticise what you said at all. I just wanted to say something to hopefully encourage some people to consider sillier, more-fun cars as perhaps not a crazy option.
There are a million practicality reasons why this wont work out for most people, but a lot of families have two cars. I really like seeing the 2nd car being something in that realm of interesting but nearly as reliable, costs more in maintenance but less in depreciation, less practical but more enjoyable. It feels to me like that has gotten less common, and a lot of people think every vehicle needs to be as practical as possible.
aplummer•4mo ago
But I’m also a new Maserati owner and your Subaru friend is doing rookie depreciation numbers above…
slaw•4mo ago
nothercastle•4mo ago
red369•4mo ago
1) https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/89145417/new-zealand-h...
This is an old study which points to New Zealand having quick depreciation in the first year. Looking around briefly, I think depreciation reduced substantially since COVID, and I think those numbers in that study may have been too high anyway (the study found over 50% in the first year). I'm interested in what happened, so I'll try and find what the reality is when I get a chance.
mleo•4mo ago
Rebelgecko•4mo ago