Hyundai IONIQ Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As an FYI for owners in Ohio, the proposed road repair funding bill (House Bill 62) punishes hybrid and electric vehicle owners by imposing a $100 and $200 per year surcharge respectively on these vehicles. I bought a hybrid knowing it would never pay for itself, as little as I drive, but this is a lousy way of thanking me for trying to save the environment. There are a number of small cars that get the mileage I do, but they aren't being targeted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
That is an interesting case that EV/HEV/PHEV do not contribute through fuel taxes, lower or none, while still using (aka damaging) the highway system.

The version I just looked at gives the costs as being $75 for any hybrid (HEV) and $175 for any plug-in (BEV/PHEV).

The question for BEV is 'how many miles does a normal ICE need to cover to generate that amount of tax'. For HEV/PHEV it is a question of the much better MPG we get from the ability to run on EV and the reduced fuel we pay. On an average owner, would those be a sensible number. The only other way to do it would be to base it on the number of miles made in a year - sum that for ALL vehicles (more for trucks etc) and then use that generate a cost per mile against the budget, and finally impose a tax based on that on the users. Somehow, I doubt that anyone would actually try to do that; at least not until we have all vehicles in the system with mandatory recording and reporting systems, and then it becomes easy.

Usual argument here is that fuel taxes are better because they relate to the amount to time actually using the highway systems, rather than an annual fixed cost. Certainly, we have restructured our system to make the major fuel using vehicles -SUVs etc - pay a much higher annual cost, as well more fuel tax because they are not so efficient vehicles. For a few years, we had a case that diesel had a lower annual cost and lower fuel, though that has now gone away. Of course with more EVs using lower or no fuel we are losing out on the income that they would have paid if using an ICE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Considering how highly taxed electricity is, plug in owners pay a huge amount in taxes, just not to the highway system. If they are going to levy a charge on plug ins, then those owners should get a commensurate reduction in the various surcharges added to their electric bills. If you look at cars like the Toyota Camry LE (non hybrid), which got 49 MPG highway in Consumer Reports testing, why isn't that car paying a surcharge? That's only slightly less than the 53 MPG the hybrid got in their testing. And the diesel Cruze got 60 MPG highway, but it doesn't get a surcharge. And I won't bring up the fact I got 46.5 on a highway trip in my chipped 295 HP GTI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
If you are seeing that sort of MPGs on ICE then the difference against HEV/PHEV does not seem to justify much of a cost. I would argue that a cost on BEV is more reasonable but one would want to look at the cost and tax on electricity per mile vs the equivalent cost for an ICE.

There is perhaps an idea that if the running costs on a EV is lower than an ICE, which is a good idea, then it becomes a target - typical government 'planning'.:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
I detect handbags coming out !
We all know that we want lower costs - be it fuel, tax or licences - while government wants or needs income. From our view it is :) vs :(, but not from their view.

The question is whether we should be supporting EV and putting costs on ICE, OR putting costs on EV because they generate less taxes.

If we look at some of the estimates for EV taking over from ICE in the 2030s and the move to a 'Transport as a Service' solution, the whole question of government funding becomes very difficult.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Arkansas just passed a similar bill that will go before the voters in November. I am hoping it will not pass, but I have little faith in the rednecks in this state for they care little about the environment. I personally will campaign against it. Arkansas has large reserves in the bank and really does not need more funds, but they like to tax everything they can get by with. Unfortunately voter turn out here is usually poor, but the money grabber conservatives will get their folks out to vote when ever there is a financial issue on the ballet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
I read about this a little while ago. This is a part of the overall gasoline tax increase of 10 cents per gallon. Since Hybrid vehicle consume less fuel and being driven over the same road, the state government feels they are not getting enough gasoline tax from hybrid vehicles. However, their math is erroneous and unjustified.

If we are to assume that most people drive 12,000 miles per year on a vehicle that gets 30MPG which uses 400 gallons x 10 cent a gallon = $40 tax increase. A similar hybrid vehicle driven 12,000 miles that gets 60MPG uses 200 gallons x 10 cent a gallon = $20. Yes that is $20 less than a regular gasoline vehicle. However, adding $100 to $20 = $120

In essence, they are asking each hybrid owner to pay $80 more for driving on the same road!

A ten year old child could figure out this hybrid penalty is unfair and borderline illegal.

We aren't even talking about reducing foreign oil dependency or reduce CO2 emission yet.

It's a travesty state lawmakers are not educated enough to have the same basic math skill of a 4th grader to figure this out.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
About this Discussion
8 Replies
6 Participants
iQQi
Hyundai IONIQ Forum
A community of Hyundai Ioniq enthusiasts discussing the electric acceleration & reliability of the Hyundai ioniq hybrid.
Full Forum Listing
Top