Topeka — Using less gas is an advantage for the few Kansans who've bought electric cars, but a state legislator worried Tuesday about how the state will pay for road and bridge projects if consumers flock to the vehicles and stop paying gasoline taxes.
Rep. Tom Sloan's solution is for the state to impose a new fee on the power used by electric car and hybrid owners when they charge up their vehicles, either at home or in public charging stations. But a bill the Lawrence Republican is pushing received a cool reception during a House Energy and Utilities Committee hearing.
General Motors Co. opposes the idea, and a spokesman suggested such a tax could discourage electric car sales and help kill the industry in its infancy. Legislators also worried that car owners would be forced to spend hundreds of dollars to install separate meters in their homes.
But Sloan argued that Kansas should consider imposing such a fee before electric cars become a regular feature on the state's highways. GM said only two dozen Chevrolet Volts are registered with the state, and Sloan wondered aloud during his testimony how difficult legislators would find it to impose a new fee once electric cars and hybrids number in the tens of thousands in Kansas.
"Whether it's 24 Volt owners in Kansas or 24,000, should they be paying to use the roads on which they drive?" Sloan asked the committee. "If not now, when?"
The committee took no action on Sloan's bill, and Chairman Carl Dean Holmes, a Republican from Liberal, said he's not sure whether the measure will come up for a vote. Skepticism about it was bipartisan.
Under Sloan's bill, consumers who charge their electric or hybrid vehicles at home would be required to have a separate meter to track how much electricity they use. The Kansas Department of Transportation would set the fee so that it is equivalent to the state's taxes of 24 cents a gallon on gasoline and 26 cents a gallon on diesel. Sloan believes it could amount to less than 1 cent for each kilowatt hour of electricity.
GM spokesman Jeffrey Perry, who testified during the hearing, said the company knows of no state that has imposed such a tax. Washington state last year considered but rejected a flat $100 annual fee for electric cars.
Spokesman Lindsey Douglas told the committee that the Kansas Department of Transportation is concerned about relying heavily on motor fuels taxes to finance road and bridge projects in the future, because revenues are likely to decline as even gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles become more efficient. But she said the agency is waiting to see what ideas emerge around the nation.
Perry said imposing a new fee is premature and would send the wrong signal to consumers about whether they should buy electric vehicles or hybrids. Such a tax also would discourage auto manufacturers, he said.
"If we're not being shown that there's backing behind this by the state legislatures, why would we want to continue supporting this technology and pushing forward if what we're being told is, we're going to tax this to its death before it ever gets a chance to survive?" he said.
GM's concerns were an issue for some committee members, because its plant in Kansas City, Kan., employs about 3,900 workers.
"At a time period when we're trying to create jobs, we're attacking one of our best employers in the state," said Rep. Stan Frownfelter, a Kansas City Democrat. "We could be alienating one of our best friends."
Comments
sourpuss 1 year, 3 months ago
"fewer gas taxes" please. If you add an "s" to a word to make it plural, please don't use "less." "Less" is reserved for amounts you can't count. Fewer=number, less=amount. Less smoke. Less cheese. Less money. Fewer fires. Fewer pieces of cheese. Fewer coins. Fewer people.
Taxes are a number so: Fewer gas taxes.
boltzmann 1 year, 3 months ago
Actually, I think that they were talking about the fact that the revenue for the a specific gas tax would be lessened, so it would be probably better to say "less revenue from the gas tax" or "less gas-tax revenue", to be clear. Your way would be correct if they were talking about multiple gas taxes and that somehow having electric cars made fewer of them.
And yes my soul is diminished by a little every time I go into Dillons and see "15 items or less", then I go home and have a beer and all is better. :)
acornwebworks 1 year, 3 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
verity 1 year, 3 months ago
Maybe we should wait until we see how many electric cars are going to be used?
But of course this would discourage the use of them.
acornwebworks 1 year, 3 months ago
Of course, at some point, this will become a legitimate issue.
verity 1 year, 3 months ago
What I was trying to (oh, so cleverly and perhaps not clearly) say was that this may well be directed at discouraging the use of electric cars because they are competition to the gas industry. How better to cut them off at the pass than to make electric cars even more expensive to run?
Agnostick 1 year, 3 months ago
Couple of solar panels, a hefty battery or two, bypass the grid altogether (for charging the car at home, at least)
situveux1 1 year, 3 months ago
I think we should continue to subsidize them with tax credits until they get popular then slap them with a new tax. The government way.
Blessed4x 1 year, 3 months ago
"Owners of electric cars or hybrids would be required to have separate meters at their homes."
What does a new meter installed on the side of your house cost? I know to install a meter on a new lot is around $10,000. Surely it wouldn't be that much. If it's even in the ballpark, that's a huge discouragement to owning an electric vehicle.
verity 1 year, 3 months ago
One might even suspect that discouragement was the point.
Keith 1 year, 3 months ago
What's a Republican doing raising taxes? He's going off half-Koched.
KansasConscience 1 year, 3 months ago
+1
Blessed4x 1 year, 3 months ago
As far as the fee is concerned, of course owners of electric vehicles should pay a road fee. They are using the road, but not paying for the upkeep. If they are requiring a seperate meter, then just tax the electricity used at that point like the gasoline is taxed when purchased. Now if you wanted to find another way to fund the repair and reconstruction of the roadways without general taxes, then I may consider that as well.
Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 3 months ago
I don't think those approximately 24 Chevrolet Volts are really wearing out the roads all that much. This is all an issue to address in a few years, I think there are more pressing problems at the moment.
coderob 1 year, 3 months ago
Semis cause the most damage to roads by far, not cars. Increase the diesel tax if anything, and just make sure that electric car users pay for emergency services.
suzchase 1 year, 3 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
somedude20 1 year, 3 months ago
Hey Sloan, why don't we just weigh every driver (or every person who has a driver's license) and make them pay by the pound. I mean, some fat bloke that weights 340lbs is going to put more stress on our infrastructure than my 165lbs butt would.
KansasConscience 1 year, 3 months ago
What about passengers? Do they get off scott free?
Munsoned 1 year, 3 months ago
Yeah-- no more carpooling.
somedude20 1 year, 3 months ago
All people who own a d. license will have to pay. every 3 months is a weigh-in
coderob 1 year, 3 months ago
It will cost more money to collect that money.
Plurilingual 1 year, 3 months ago
"The Lawrence Republican's bill would create a new fee on the power electric car and hybrid owners use to charge up their vehicles. . . . Owners of electric cars or hybrids would be required to have separate meters at their homes."
My hybrid gets its battery power from the gasoline engine and regenerative braking... I hope this proposed legislation is at least smart enough to understand that. Regardless, it is an idea that I don't like and wouldn't support.
Of course, if he tries metering at my home, my meter will read a big fat ZERO every month.
Munsoned 1 year, 3 months ago
Thank you. That was eating at me, too.
KansasConscience 1 year, 3 months ago
Besides the fact that the proposal is asinine, I noticed two big problems with his proposal.
From the article:
"The Kansas Department of Transportation would set the fee so that it would be equivalent to the state's 24-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline. Owners of electric cars or hybrids would be required to have separate meters at their homes."
Setting the fee so it would be the equivalent of the current 24 cents/gal on gasoline. What would he suggest they do, compare the weight and design of a similar gas-powered vehicle and charge the 24 cents based on that? Would I have to wait until the car is completely drained, then charge it up? This creates even bigger government. Better yet, it creates a privatized government-type entity over which the government (read as people) has no control. I thought the GnOP was against bigger government.
Being required to have a second meter just for the car. Hmmm, who pays for the installation and wiring? What if I live in an apartment or other rental? What about the degradation in the value of my house because of unwarranted structural (wiring) changes. What if I move, do I have to pay to have a new meter installed in my new house?
Note to Paul Sloan.
Good God Man! Think things through before you raise an issue. People already look at Lawrence with a jaundiced eye. You're a Republican, one of The Guv's "Good Guys", and you still propose an additional tax? tsk tsk, what will he say?
As a note, the Koch's want to consolidate their purchase of the Kansas Government by "donating" $36,000 to defeat 8 incumbent Republicans. Since the Koch's are KS big oil and you don't want to offend them, are you trying to make sure you're not a 9th? (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan...)
Liberty275 1 year, 3 months ago
"Using less gas is an advantage for the few Kansans who've bought electric cars"
Yeah, a car that runs on coal instead of gas is a real advantage. LOL.
coderob 1 year, 3 months ago
Would you then use gas to power your generator?
jafs 1 year, 3 months ago
I had a similar thought.
But, we'd have to calculate the emissions from generating the electricity in the first place, right?
Anybody have an idea about those vs. emissions from gasoline powered vehicles?
coderob 1 year, 3 months ago
Conventional vs. Plug in Hybrid Emissions in lbs per Vehicle per Year SO2: 2.5 vs 1.0-2.2 NOx: 12.5 vs. 4 CO2 (Tonnes): 6.1 vs 3.5
Source: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41410.pdf>
- Sign in to suggest removal
Disclaimer: This is a very complex calculation involving different assumptions, and may vary by location, power source, and driving/charging habits among other things. You may find different numbers depending on who you talk to.
jafs 1 year, 3 months ago
Thanks.
That's what I figured - it's hard to determine accurately.
But those suggest that electric vehicles are in fact less polluting, for all 3 of those substances.
And, it makes sense that it would vary depending on the "cleanliness" of the electric generation as well.
patkindle 1 year, 3 months ago
this is stupid a poor guy barely has enough money to buy an electric car, now the state thinks he should pay fuel tax? next thing you know they will make it illegal to plug into your neighbors out let
merrill 1 year, 3 months ago
As I see it when electric cars become more numerous the gasoline road tax should decline as the electric car road tax increases.
tuschkahouma 1 year, 3 months ago
rockchalk...Sloan is a Republican.....of course you wouldn't know that.... thinking isn't necessary right? besides no road taxes means no slt road. awesome.
merrill 1 year, 3 months ago
The electric car is not pollution free although cleaner burning however Kansas will also need to clean up the sources of electric energy.
While I understand what Rep Sloan is wanting to accomplish who will pay the cost for separate meters? Westar will love that one more opportunity to screw over ratepayers. So why not try to put it on vehicle personal property taxes instead? I cannot trust Westar.
While global warming has been a concern for many many many many many many many decades some things are for certain:
Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions of humans polluting planet earth
Never before has there been billions upon billions of gasoline burning vehicles spewing pollution into the atmosphere
Never before has there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources
Never before has there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources
Never before has there been billions of polluting energy generating sources
Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans clearing the rainforest for meat products and not knowing the long term impact of massive tree removal.
Never before has planet earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the the hell the impact might be
Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact ....... can we say ignorance is bliss.
verity 1 year, 3 months ago
A wind turbine in everybody's backyard.
none2 1 year, 3 months ago
Don't forget if you live in the precious Flint Hills, you aren't supposed to have a wind turbine. We don't want anything to ruin the precious view of those Hills. Of course, I'm sure Browbuddy will make an exception for a pipeline if the federal government changes its mind and supports the Keystone pipeline from Canada to Texas.
verity 1 year, 3 months ago
I just took a road trip out I-70 to Hays (yes, really!) and we all agreed that we loved the wind turbines (nine middle-aged to old ladies, aren't you glad you weren't along?). It's a lovely view. I grew up at the edge of the Flint Hills and quite frankly I think the turbines are much more beautiful than the old-fashioned windmills.
none2 1 year, 3 months ago
I never understood the dislike for wind turbines. Sure if every square quarter mile had them for miles and miles, it might get rather old. I also never understood the complain about noise or headaches. I was shocked by just how quiet they are, and I never once got a headache. I also didn't see a bunch of dead birds. Maybe it happens else where, but never where I have been.
If you take a look at the proposed pipeline that the feds rejected, it shocks me that it was going right through the Flint Hills. I don't get how a pipeline is ok, but wind turbines are a no no.
Here is the map of where they wanted that pipeline to go:
http://www.transcanada.com/keystone_pipeline_map.html
verity 1 year, 3 months ago
Yes, I've seen a map---actually it goes just west of the Flint Hills and right through my home community---some of the best farm land around. We had pollution in the ground (well) water from the oil wells that had been in the area 30-40 years before when I was a child and some of it may still be around. Ever smell/drink water with sulfur in it? A spill (which is bound to happen with the on the cheap way the pipeline is being built) would be an economic disaster for a lot of people and a lot of farm land could be put out of production for a very long time.
The reason a pipeline is OK is that it is a gift to the oil companies, and the reason wind turbines aren't OK is that they are competition to oil companies. From what I can ascertain, the planned pipeline is a bust on many levels, will not produce anywhere near the jobs, temporary or permanent, or the economic benefits that are being promised.
patkindle 1 year, 3 months ago
our president says, the US must reclaim values of fairness for all this means folks with enough money to buy a new electric car should be exempt from road fuel tax, and the poor folks that just have gas burners can pay the way for the electric cars , sounds fair to me
pace 1 year, 3 months ago
separate meter? Wouldn't it make more sense to just add a road tax on tags for electric cars.
clarkentsman 1 year, 3 months ago
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows that the average fuel efficiency for a 2011 passenger car is 33.8 MPG. At $0.24 per gallon that is a $0.0072 per mile tax. If you drive 15,000 miles in a year then you pay an extra $107 when you get your tags for a total electric car.
coderob 1 year, 3 months ago
You can run as many cars a year over a bridge as you want, and barely see any damage, but put one overweight semi on the bridge and it will be deficient in no time. Anyone from KDOT could tell you that. A major solution is to get tougher on truckers who go over the weight limit. The challenge is that the trucking lobby is quite powerful, and will beat down the doors of any politician who suggest new regulations.
The other option most transportation experts support is a tax on VMT (vehicle miles traveled). The advantage is that VMT has shown reliable gains over time. People drive more than they did 40 years ago. Increase the gas tax now, and we'll only have to increase it again once fuel efficiency improves enough. Plus, messing with the gas tax is political suicide, so really continuing with our current system of funding in any form is bound to leave us with underfunded transportation infrastructure.
Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 3 months ago
I'm awaiting the subsequent tax on solar panel users, who are depriving the utility companies of revenue.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.