Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Electric Vehicles

We Should Be Talking About an EV Tax — But Not This One

The math behind a $1,000 EV fee is specious to say the least.

John Barrasso.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

When Elon Musk became a major backer of President Trump last year, some in the electric vehicle camp saw a glimmer of hope. Perhaps, with the CEO of the world’s top EV maker in his corner, Trump would soften some of his anti-electric rhetoric and come around on EVs.

Musk has been the most visible member of the new Trump regime during its chaotic first few weeks. Yet even with his outsized role, the new government’s pushback against electric vehicles continues full steam ahead. On Wednesday, Republican senators introduced double-barreled anti-EV legislation: The first bill would kill every kind of tax credit for buying electric, whether new, used, or lease, as well as incentives for charging stations. The second would place an extra tax of $1,000 on all EV purchases.

The first measure is no surprise given that Trump and the GOP have railed against EV incentives for years and promised to take the country back to the good old days of oil drilling. The second is, at least nominally, an attempt to tackle a legitimate question about the transition to electric vehicles — who pays to fix the roads — albeit with a solution that’s clearly meant to punish the kind of people who want to buy an electric car.

A federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon helps fund highway maintenance, and states add their own taxes on top of that. But EV owners don’t buy gasoline, which means they don't contribute to road repair in this way. Economists have floated various solutions to make this situation more equitable and see EVs pay their fair share. States have tried more blunt tactics, such as tacking on hundreds of dollars to the cost of an electric car’s annual registration.

The senators’ proposed fix is to slap on a $1,000 fee to every electric vehicle purchase at the point of sale. The argument is that people who drive gas cars contribute about $100 in gas taxes annually, so charging EV buyers $1,000 brings in a decade’s worth of what they should be paying.

This is an unsophisticated and antagonistic answer to a serious question. The gas tax, while imperfect, at least has the effect of charging people based on how much they drive, which is correlated with how much wear and tear they cause to the public roads. It has the bonus of incentivizing people to drive lighter and more fuel-efficient vehicles. Charging per mile is trickier to do with EVs. The government could impose some kind of tax per kilowatt-hour at public charging stations, but most owners do most of their charging at home, where there’s no simple way to charge them more for the electricity that powers their car versus the juice that’s used for the refrigerator or the vacuum cleaner.

Charging EV drivers a flat thousand bucks at the point of sale, however, forces them to pay for a decade’s worth of taxes up front, something gasoline drivers would never be asked to do. It also presumes the buyer is going to keep the vehicle for at least 10 years, and includes no provision for any other scenario. (It’s not like the government is going to refund you $500 if you sell the vehicle after five years. You’re footing the bill for the second owner.)

Not that the bill’s proponents have any problem trotting out specious math. Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska justified the dubious tax by arguing that “EVs can weigh up to three times as much as gas-powered cars, creating more wear and tear on our roads and bridges."

This is bogus. As Heatmap has noted numerous times, EV weight is a serious matter with implications for issues including pedestrian safety and tire wear. But “three times as much” is a reach that rests on an impressive feat of cherry-picking, akin to comparing a monstrous vehicle like the GMC Hummer EV to a Toyota Corolla. Here’s a more accurate comparison: The nation’s and the world’s top-selling EV, Tesla’s Model Y, has a curb weight of around 4,400 pounds. That’s almost exactly the same as the base curb weight of the Ford F-150 — which, by the way, is the most popular vehicle in Senator Fischer’s state of Nebraska.

As usual, the only substance at play is identity politics. There is a grown-up discussion to be had about taxing EVs, and whether they ought to enjoy benefits such as federal incentives and lower taxes because of the public good they create by lowering carbon emissions. What we continue to get instead is a naked attempt to punish the kinds of Americans who want to drive electric.

On some level, it still feels weird that all this is happening alongside Musk’s public turn as de facto U.S. president. But with so much power to influence the federal government, Tesla’s CEO has convinced himself he doesn’t have to care about the state of the EV market and whether ordinary Americans can afford his cars — at least, not while he’s puttering around the Oval Office and his company is reportedly winning $400 million contracts to build armored electric vehicles for Uncle Sam.

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Climate

Climate Change Won’t Make Winter Storms Less Deadly

In some ways, fossil fuels make snowstorms like the one currently bearing down on the U.S. even more dangerous.

A snowflake with a tombstone.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The relationship between fossil fuels and severe weather is often presented as a cause-and-effect: Burning coal, oil, and gas for heat and energy forces carbon molecules into a reaction with oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide, which in turn traps heat in the atmosphere and gradually warms our planet. That imbalance, in many cases, makes the weather more extreme.

But this relationship also goes the other way: We use fossil fuels to make ourselves more comfortable — and in some cases, keep us alive — during extreme weather events. Our dependence on oil and gas creates a grim ouroboros: As those events get more extreme, we need more fuel.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Spotlight

Secrecy Is Backfiring on Data Center Developers

The cloak-and-dagger approach is turning the business into a bogeyman.

A redacted data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s time to call it like it is: Many data center developers seem to be moving too fast to build trust in the communities where they’re siting projects.

One of the chief complaints raised by data center opponents across the country is that companies aren’t transparent about their plans, which often becomes the original sin that makes winning debates over energy or water use near-impossible. In too many cases, towns and cities neighboring a proposed data center won’t know who will wind up using the project, either because a tech giant is behind it and keeping plans secret or a real estate firm refuses to disclose to them which company it’ll be sold to.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Missouri Could Be First State to Ban Solar Construction

Plus more of the week’s biggest renewable energy fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Cole County, Missouri – The Show Me State may be on the precipice of enacting the first state-wide solar moratorium.

  • GOP legislation backed by Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe would institute a temporary ban on building any utility-scale solar projects in the state until at least the end of 2027, including those currently under construction. It threatens to derail development in a state ranked 12th in the nation for solar capacity growth.
  • The bill is quite broad, appearing to affect all solar projects – as in, going beyond the commercial and utility-scale facility bans we’ve previously covered at the local level. Any project that is under construction on the date of enactment would have to stop until the moratorium is lifted.
  • Under the legislation, the state would then issue rulemakings for specific environmental requirements on “construction, placement, and operation” of solar projects. If the environmental rules aren’t issued by the end of 2027, the ban will be extended indefinitely until such rules are in place.
  • Why might Missouri be the first state to ban solar? Heatmap Pro data indicates a proclivity towards the sort of culture war energy politics that define regions of the country like Missouri that flipped from blue to ruby red in the Trump era. Very few solar projects are being actively opposed in the state but more than 12 counties have some form of restrictive ordinance or ban on renewables or battery storage.

Clark County, Ohio – This county has now voted to oppose Invenergy’s Sloopy Solar facility, passing a resolution of disapproval that usually has at least some influence over state regulator decision-making.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow