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

AM Briefing: The Greenpeace Verdict

On Energy Transfer’s legal win, battery storage, and the Cybertruck

The Greenpeace Verdict Is In
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Red flag warnings are in place for much of Florida • Spain is bracing for extreme rainfall from Storm Martinho, the fourth named storm in less than two weeks • Today marks the vernal equinox, or the first day of spring.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Jury sides with pipeline company in Greenpeace lawsuit

A jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to one of the country’s largest fossil fuel infrastructure companies after finding the environmental group liable for defamation, conspiracy, and physical damages at the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace participated in large protests, some violent and disruptive, at the pipeline in 2016, though it has maintained that its involvement was insignificant and came at the request of the local Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The project eventually went ahead and is operational today, but Texas-based Energy Transfer sued the environmental organization, accusing it of inciting the uprising and encouraging violence. “We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech,” said Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace USA. The group said it plans to appeal.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Fusion.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Thea Energy

Thea Energy, one of the newer entrants into the red-hot fusion energy space, raised $20 million last year as investors took a bet on the physics behind the company’s novel approach to creating magnetic fields. Today, in a paper being submitted for peer review, Thea announced that its theoretical science actually works in the real world. The company’s CEO, Brian Berzin, told me that Thea achieved this milestone “quicker and for less capital than we thought,” something that’s rare in an industry long-mocked for perpetually being 30 years away.

Thea is building a stellarator fusion reactor, which typically looks like a twisted version of the more common donut-shaped tokamak. But as Berzin explained to me, Thea’s stellarator is designed to be simpler to manufacture than the industry standard. “We don’t like high tech stuff,” Berzin told me — a statement that sounds equally anathema to industry norms as the idea of a fusion project running ahead of schedule. “We like stuff that can be stamped and forged and have simple manufacturing processes.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Electric Vehicles

Why BYD Keeps Shocking the World

The Chinese carmaker says it can charge EVs in 5 minutes. Can America ever catch up?

The BYD logo as a rabbit.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Chinese automaker BYD might have cracked one of the toughest problems in electric cars.

On Tuesday, BYD unveiled its new “Super e-Platform,” a new standard electronic base for its vehicles that it says will allow incredibly fast charging — enabling its vehicles to add as much as 249 miles of range in just five minutes. That’s made possible because of a 1,000-volt architecture and what BYD describes as matching charging capability, which could theoretically add nearly one mile of range every second.

Keep reading...Show less