Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
VitaminJ said:
The same types of "collateral damage" happen in coal mines. The act of burning these fuels is many many times cleaner than actually getting it out of the ground.

Of course the ultimate answer is nuclear energy end of story.
Agree 100%

Our goal should be to reduce fuel consumption at all costs as the emissions from getting it outweigh any vehicle emissions.

Too bad no one cares about supply side pollution
 
Turns out it doesn't really matter who's president as long as you have the judges in your corner. CARB will still be calling the shots, look for CAFE and ZEV mandates to remain pretty much as they were. Just like everything else.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Turns out it doesn't really matter who's president...

Yes. We are a nation of laws, not of men.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Novanglus_Essays/No._7


CARB is in place because of laws, not because of the opinions of a king or magistrate. It can be removed, as long as the Republic holds, only by changing the laws.
 
Cars people don't want...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/californians-snub-free-evs-carmakers-say-in-mandate-push-back

Even if the EPA waiver was revoked (which seems unlikely) there are plenty of other levers CA could pull, and in fact you wonder why they haven't already. How about a displacement tax, both on initial registrations and new vehicle sales in the state as well as on annual renewals?
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Cars people don't want...
.... How about a displacement tax, both on initial registrations and new vehicle sales in the state as well as on annual renewals?
Exactly, Americans DON'T want small hatchbacks/cars, they want SUVs and Pickups. Why are mfgs. so surprised when they make vehicles that people don't want, and they don't sell :roll: Sure there are people like us that will buy a BEV just because it's a BEV, but JSP won't! When you consider all the other inconveniences with BEVs(limited range, lack of charging infrastructure, etc.) it's no doubt even if they are giving away leases of BEVs in CA(something I don't really believe but with facts could be convinced) most people just don't want small cars.
IMO instead of trying to make a 200 or even 300 mile small car, they should use that same 60kw battery and stick it in a BE-SUV or even pickup, give the people what they want! Sure the range may only be 100-150 miles but at least it will be a vehicle people want. Many of us have been waiting for Mitsubishi to finally bring their PHEV Outlander to N. America, but many years later still nothing :x even though the same vehicle is(or least last time I looked) the #1 selling EV/PHEV in Europe, again a vehicle style people want. And note this even with it's anemic 20 something mile EV range. If Chevy can produce the extremely cramped Volt, why can't they do something similar to a larger vehicle :?

Oh BTW Europe has had the "displacement tax" for years, seems to work well enough, that and IMO some sort of weight-based tax like they do on commercial trucks. The weight of a vehicle is probably the #1 thing that deteriorates our roads, why should a vehicle that weighs 2x the weight of another pay the same tax, even though they are harder on the roads. I'm not sure if I'm for it or not, mainly because of my belief it would be a record keeping nightmare and ripe for cheating, but my state is considering a Republican-backed mileage-based fee for driving. I'd probably come out OK as I don't drive all that much 7-8k/year but others would probably be in for a rude awakening. Of course the Republican plan doesn't want to have anything to do with basing the tax on weight or displacement, after all that would affect businesses and drivers of large luxury vehicles......follow the money ;)
 
jjeff said:
Exactly, Americans DON'T want small hatchbacks/cars, they want SUVs and Pickups. Why are mfgs. so surprised when they make vehicles that people don't want, and they don't sell :roll: Sure there are people like us that will buy a BEV just because it's a BEV, but JSP won't! When you consider all the other inconveniences with BEVs(limited range, lack of charging infrastructure, etc.) it's no doubt even if they are giving away leases of BEVs in CA(something I don't really believe but with facts could be convinced) most people just don't want small cars.
IMO instead of trying to make a 200 or even 300 mile small car, they should use that same 60kw battery and stick it in a BE-SUV or even pickup, give the people what they want! Sure the range may only be 100-150 miles but at least it will be a vehicle people want. Many of us have been waiting for Mitsubishi to finally bring their PHEV Outlander to N. America, but many years later still nothing :x even though the same vehicle is(or least last time I looked) the #1 selling EV/PHEV in Europe, again a vehicle style people want. And note this even with it's anemic 20 something mile EV range. If Chevy can produce the extremely cramped Volt, why can't they do something similar to a larger vehicle :?

Oh BTW Europe has had the "displacement tax" for years, seems to work well enough, that and IMO some sort of weight-based tax like they do on commercial trucks. The weight of a vehicle is probably the #1 thing that deteriorates our roads, why should a vehicle that weighs 2x the weight of another pay the same tax, even though they are harder on the roads. I'm not sure if I'm for it or not, mainly because of my belief it would be a record keeping nightmare and ripe for cheating, but my state is considering a Republican-backed mileage-based fee for driving. I'd probably come out OK as I don't drive all that much 7-8k/year but others would probably be in for a rude awakening. Of course the Republican plan doesn't want to have anything to do with basing the tax on weight or displacement, after all that would affect businesses and drivers of large luxury vehicles......follow the money ;)
^ loaded with truth

Small cars are the worst place to introduce EV/PHEV powertrain technology, margins are thin, customers are there but highly price/value sensitive. Plus those vehicles get good FE to begin with, so the whole thing is swimming upstream. Unless of course your goal all along was just to meet the ZEV mandate while consuming as little lithium as possible. Still it seems like you'd do better to be selling your ZEVs into stronger demand and margins. Hard to believe Chevy and Nissan really didn't want the Volt and the LEAF to sell any better than they did, just doesn't seem like it's in their nature.

Taxing V6s and V8s does put a burden on carpenters and plumbers, presumably that gets passed on to those using their services, just like a carbon tax would. Lots of people driving around in vehicles they aren't spending there after tax dollars on, to them it doesn't matter. Big issue there IMO.
 
I thought Model Ss and Leafs were popular around here, but lately I've seen more Model Xs than Ss, almost as many as Leafs. Seems like a no-brainer to make electric SUVs. Americans don't see to care at all about how much weight they're driving, in fact in many cases they think more is better anyway. SUVs have lots and lots of space for batteries.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Taxing V6s and V8s does put a burden on carpenters and plumbers, presumably that gets passed on to those using their services, just like a carbon tax would. Lots of people driving around in vehicles they aren't spending there after tax dollars on, to them it doesn't matter. Big issue there IMO.
Taxing displacement would have zero affect on business, the tax would
1. Be mostly written off income tax meaning the incremental change in tax would be very small
2. There is no need for a v6 or v8 pickup, my fathers very old pickup had a 4 banger, granny gears and maybe 60hp. It pulled trailers, moved furniture and did everything a modern pickup typically does.

Next, larger vehicles do pay more tax since they use more fuel, I would argue if we want to go down the Euro road we instead just raise fuel tax and have the fuel tax be variable to hold a floor on the cost per gallon
Then lower registration of cars under a specific dimension, weight and displace to near zero and attempt to modify insurance codes so they are cheaper to insure liability wise. (Which a small car should be anyway)

I rather see the stick be much higher fuel cost and the carrot be reduced insurance and registration.

Historically the above was mostly the case with smaller vehicles but the trend has been to make smaller cars more to register and insure which is asinine.
 
I see no point in taxing vehicles by engine type, or even by displacement. Tax them by emissions and fuel consumption. And I'd rather see an efficient V6 in a work truck than an overworked four that is running WFO a substantial portion of the time, to get up hills.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I see no point in taxing vehicles by engine type, or even by displacement. Tax them by emissions and fuel consumption. And I'd rather see an efficient V6 in a work truck than an overworked four that is running WFO a substantial portion of the time, to get up hills.
A big +1 on the gas tax, but the IR's that took control of my state's legislature have sworn to NEVER raise the gas tax! Sure they'll consider toll roads/bridges like out East but god forbid the gas tax is raised......
 
...but if those vehicles are less desirable at given price points, perhaps the people left buying them will be the ones who truly have a need for them. Nobody's buying garbage trucks as static status symbols.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Tax them by emissions and fuel consumption.
Sounds like gas tax, the volumetric QTY of emissions is directly related to fuel consumption, no matter how "clean" the burn all you can do is convert from one type of emission to another
So if you make 400gallons of emissions a minute and reduce VOC/particulate & NOx all you will accomplish is to increase CO and CO2 emissions and the 400 gallons stays about the same.

And in the case of VOC/particulate alone you typically increase the overall QTY of emissions to burn it off, now you've made 440 gallons of emissions increasing Co2 & NOx to remove the VOC & particulate.

The above is why I find current emissions that measure percentages in a variable QTY of exhaust as irrational, especially considering the extraction and
refining a gallon of fuel can make 100x the pollution as your car does burning it.
Releasing lead, arsenic, cadmium and other goodies that are hard to qualify into the emissions stream.
 
Whether it's carbon tax, gas tax or displacement tax these things all still get discounted to people who can deduct their transportation expenses. It's Joe and Susie Punchclock that get stuck paying the full tax.
 
The Trump Administration likely cares little about EV's. At the Fed level, the manufacturers are close to hitting their total vehicle limits. At the state levels, it is simply a case where the states are strapped for road funds and EVs use up road without paying fuel taxes, the main source of road funds. The average Joe and Josephine have a problem with that situation and do not recognize a "higher purpose" in owning a particular car.

It was not realistic to expect subsidies to continue forever. They have to end at some point. Now is as good a time any other time.
 
mjblazin said:
At the state levels, it is simply a case where the states are strapped for road funds and EVs use up road without paying fuel taxes, the main source of road funds.

Yes by taxing the 5000 electric cars in entire state of Wisconsin our 2 billion dollar road fund shortfall is immediately solved. ($400,000 per car)

This shortfall despite the fact that road taxes collected have increased 20% year over year due to increased speed limits and despite "the road fund" only seeking a 10% increase in road tax; All make perfectly logical sense to justify charging EVs for roughly 30,000 miles of road tax per year as opposed to the classic 12,000 miles @ 98mpge which is around $35
 
My state, which is now IR controlled is seriously considering adding a "EV tax" to help pay for the roads. Kind of sounds opposite of what many states(and countries/cities) are doing trying to promote EVs....if this is the case I wonder how they'll handle PHEV? I mean you could have one person who rarely plugs in or ends up burning quite a bit of gas because their trips are further than their EV range and another who basically never buys gas due to frequent plugging in or a short commute.....
All I know is the tabs for my '12 Leaf(which is worth $5-6k) is $250 and my '13S is pushing $300, as far as I'm concerned I pay plenty of taxes, a neighbor who owns several older V-8 powered SUVs and a older truck pays $40 each for tabs.......
 
jjeff said:
Kind of sounds opposite of what many states(and countries/cities) are doing trying to promote EVs....if this is the case I wonder how they'll handle PHEV? ......

Wisconsin wanted to triple registration for all hybrids, PHEVs, CNG and EVs. Our extremely small penetration of cars got it booed out since the cost to implement was too high.

Several states treat PHEV and EV the same with fees up to $200 extra, a few states have a tiered set of rates.

In any event I view these actions as strictly political, the economics of the matter are that tiered fees cost more to collect than they make in funding.

These fees are only there to make a sub set of people feel good while doing nothing to help road funding.
 
In Virginia the gas tax is 16.2 cents/gallon and the EV registration fee is $64. If you do the math, the fee I pay is basically equivalent to the gas tax being paid by a vehicle that gets 35mpg driving 14000 miles a year. I don't really find that unreasonable, it is just a fee collected with registration I can't see how it costs any extra to collect in Virginia's case.

Folks were all up in arms when it originally was implemented because it was a $100/yr fee and hybrids were included. And I agreed at that point that it was excessive because you were actually punishing hybrid and EV drivers by making them pay more than an equivalent ICE vehicle (especially hybrids who paid both the EV fee and gas tax)... but eventually, after some compromise and an administration change, I think it came to a reasonable end result.

At the end of the day I think it points to a weakness is using the gas tax to fund roads. As fuel efficiency increases the funds dry up but there is still the need to maintain the infrastructure. It seems like a flat fee per vehicle across the board (like we pay with EV's), or even a miles driven fee to fund road maintenance would make more sense and any taxes on gas should be used to mitigate the issues caused by using gas...
 
Back
Top