Oil Industry 'peddling misinformation' about electric vehicles

To repeat, are you okay with building a coal fired plant in someone else's backyard?

 

Just as long as it is not in my backyard. Somebody else's backyard is okay. Right?

 

Yes, that is true. Some people are relatively uneducated and don't have the educational background or flexibility for retraining in a new, emerging industry. So yes, putting food on the table trumps the long term affects of health issues as a result of working in and around an unhealthy industry, say for instance fossil fuels.

Yes, this is the classic "I support the industry but not in my backyard" Yes, you want cheaper sources of energy for yourself regardless if it harms someone else's backyard or long term damage to the environment.

To be clear, I am opposed to coal energy in anyone's backyard. If the industry isn't dead, it is on life support. The only reason it still exists is to keep politicians in power and I include Sen Joe Manchin (D) WV in that group.

The current administration has passed regulations in an attempt to kill wind power. Fortunately, California is ignoring the new regulations. I have a wind farm in my backyard and they are a welcome neighbor. Over half of my neighbors have PV systems and I therefore have solar in my backyard with no problems. The future of nuclear power is murky at this time and it is unknown whether the future is viable, There are many problems with it, not the least of which is disposal of spent fuel.

"Snark" is pejorative word and its use should be carefully considered. Depending on your point of view, "snark" could be irony, humor, counterpoint or sarcasm. The danger is to fall into the trap of - whatever I don't agree with is "snark". Whatever I do agree with is witty. The book, I'm Okay, You're Okay, addressees the issue from a professional academic's point of view.

It is called NIMBY. I congratulate you on stopping all the nuke plants, all the landfills, all the Superfund sites, and coal plants and all the SNL jokes about haz waste dump sites in your backyard. I hope you reciprocate by protesting all those sites in other people's backyard to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

 

California is in the midst of this debate right now and is trying to figure out what is fair and equitable. Up until last year California charged at the pump for road maintenance fees. Consequently gas guzzlers paid more in road maintenance fees than fuel efficient cars regardless of how much damage they did to roads in terms of vehicle weight and miles driven. Diesel trucks taxes were heavily subsidized by the State and BEVs got a free ride.

State legislators realized this was inequitable and tried to fix it. The legislators wrestled with the following;

• Charge taxes by miles driven. Problem is how do you differentiate between miles driven in State and out of State? The only way to do that is with a GPS tracking device and that would probably not hold up in Court as an invasion of privacy.
• Charge taxes by miles driven. How do you account for cars from out of State who use California road system?
• Charge by vehicle weight. How do you account for vehicles who pull trailers, boats, and travel trailers?

What they decided to do is up the tax rate at the pump for road maintenance, disregarding miles driven, gas guzzlers, and vehicle weight (gasoline is well over $4/gal in urban locations for 87 octane). Charge BEVs an additional flat annual tax ranging from about $200 to $400 depending on vehicle cost. I have problems with this system for the following reasons:

• I have no problem with paying my fair share of taxes for road maintenance for my BEV. Although my car will be charged the equivalent of about 15K to 18K miles per year if charged at the gas pump even though I drive less than 12K miles per year. But BEVs are heavier than the average ICE car and may cause more maintenance for roads. Therefore I am okay with my fee.
• Hybrids, including plug ins, are not penalized even though they may purchase very little gasoline. They do not pay the EV supplement. I am totally opposed to this and I am working to have that provision imposed more equitably. Hybrids need to pay too (and I own a Prius plug-in!)
• The issue of the trucking industry remains unresolved.

So as @bisco says, it depends on whose ox is being gored. There was an initiative last June, sponsored by the oil industry, to repeal the new taxes and it was soundly defeated by double digits. I know the California law will continue to be refined in the years ahead by the State Legislature. It is a good start but needs to be revisited as new data is gathered.

As far as @orenji protestation to the cost of vehicle registration, he enjoys the high wages he earns in California relative to other States, I guess he feels that State employees shouldn't earn high wages too. If @orenji wants to pay $30 registration fee for a 26 y.o. car, he might consider moving to Mississippi. BTW, the minimum wage in California is going to be raised incrementally to $15/hr. over the next couple of years.

 

Totally agree these kinds of taxes are regressive. In the broader picture, there are three principle types of taxes to fund State and local governance - sales tax, income tax, and property tax. Sales tax (gas taxes are a type of sales tax) are regressive, while income tax and property tax are progressive. I prefer the Oregon model for taxation (as well as a few other States) - no sales tax but higher property and income tax.

Agree! I am working on a committee right now (unrelated to transportation or energy) to develop rules and regulations for a particular project. A majority of the members on that committee are attempting to write regulations that might cover every conceivable possibility. They are trying to thread the needle with perfection. I know this is going to come as a surprise to you, but I am the lone voice of dissent! My position is that the rules and regulations should be minimal, simple, unequivocal, and easy to enforce. I think that the rules and regulations should be simple to start and subject to modification when and if an edge case should develop. Complexity is the enemy of practicality. I have a feeling I am going to lose on this (but I also have a feeling that once legal council takes a look at the proposal, they will determine it is unenforceable and tell us to start over!)

I don't disagree with any of your points. The State of California is leading the way for model legislation on a number of important issues that will affect our future. Like Tesla, which is disrupting the traditional automotive technology, production, and sales model, California, as a ground breaking leader, will make many mistakes along the way and screw it up before they get it right. It is a work in progress.

I am going to say something very radical now that will be sure to rile up most readers (but that has never stopped me before ), I think Tesla's U.I. on board computer system (still very much in its infancy) holds great promise for the auto industry in resolving California's road maintenance accountability issue. The computer will be able to calculate how many miles you drive in-State (or any other Sate for that matter), apply a vehicle weight algorithm, and charge a monthly fee to your State 'on file' credit card for use and be done with it. Remove all gas tax at the pump! (Don't pay your credit card? your car won't start!) This concept can be taken further to apply an algorithm for speeding and tailgating and issue citations for infractions. (Don't pay your citation? your car won't start!) I realize many people will complain about loss of privacy and 'big brother' but when we live in an Internet age, and hacking our systems by foreign powers and special interest groups is common place, we no longer have an expectation of privacy anywhere. (For any Russian, oil industry, or legacy automaker hackers who might be reading this, "po'shyol 'na hui" ) So yeah, I'm okay with a little government intrusion into my life as long as it improves the health, safety, and welfare for everyone.