Connect with us

Published

on

House republicans have proposed putting a $200/year federal registration tax on EVs, with the false rationale that it will help to close a supposed budget shortfall that has in fact been caused by Congress’ refusal to raise the federal gas tax since 1993.

The proposal was announced by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, chaired by Sam Graves (R-MO), who received $163,300 in bribes from the oil & gas industry in the last campaign cycle.

It proposes a massive tax hike on the nation’s electric vehicles, not just increasing taxes on those cars far beyond what is reasonable by any measure, but also adding yet another abusive tax on EVs that is yet again higher than the tax that polluting, damaging gas vehicles have to pay.

We’ve already seen these ridiculous laws pass state by state, and every one we’ve seen has been abusive or overpriced in some way.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

In many states, EVs not only have to pay a registration tax far in excess of the amount a similarly-efficient gas vehicle would have to pay, they also have to pay taxes on the energy going into that EV.

Some are particularly abusive, like in Kentucky, where EVs are charged two taxes where gas cars only pay one (or, in some cases where utility services are taxed, three separate taxes). But all of them that we’ve seen so far are one-size-fits-all measures which do not account for road damage, do not account for vehicle efficiency, and do little to nothing to fill any budget shortfalls.

Rather than going for fairness and actually calculating the amount of road use that any given EV does, and attempting to charge a fair fee based on that (as one might rightly do with a weight/mileage fee, applied to all vehicles, as Washington state kind of tried to do), these taxes instead just add a large penalty to EV drivers in order to disincentivize EV ownership. No wonder, given that the push for them started with the Koch brothers, who became billionaires by poisoning you with their oil and gas products and have then spent those proceeds lobbying to ensure that they continue to be able to poison you further.

But now House republicans want to add yet another tax, meaning that EVs nationwide would have to pay not only taxes on the energy that goes into the car (at least in regions where electricity is taxed), but also both state and federal registration taxes. And the number associated with that tax is just as insane as you might expect out of this current Congress.

The $200/year tax hike is equivalent to the federal gas taxes that would be paid on 1,087 gallons of gasoline. With most EVs being quite efficient and achieving something on the order of 120MPGe, the amount of energy from those 1,087 gallons of gasoline would be enough to pilot those EVs over a hundred thousand miles in a year. Quite a bit more than the average driver. You may claim that efficiency isn’t a fair way to figure these taxes, but that’s how they’re figured on gas cars, entirely, so if it’s fair for them then why isn’t it fair for EVs?

Even if we were to give the EV a handicap and pretend that it’s the same efficiency as the average gas-powered vehicle (it’s not), a 24mpg vehicle would have to drive over 26,000 miles in order to pay that much in gas tax, which, again, is much higher than the average driver.

But if we claim it only has to do with road damage caused, and not with efficiency (despite that that’s how the gas tax is levied), then we must look at what actually causes road damage: big trucks. A heavy duty tractor-trailer loaded to 80,000lbs does 9,600x as much road damage as a 4,000lb automobile, and these trucks tend to run higher average mileage.

If a truck does 10,000x as much damage and runs 5x as many miles as the average EV, then a road usage fee of $10 million a year must be fair, right? And if you balk at that number, then you must also balk at a $200/year registration fee. (Not to mention, in most states, gas taxes don’t pay for a majority of road costs anyway).

So regardless of the method we go about figuring fairness, this tax is too high. Unsurprising, from a bought-and-paid oil stooge like Graves.

Graves’ release goes on to state the sort of nonsense you might expect from a recipient of bribes from the oil industry, claiming that the purpose of this tax is to make up for a budget shortfall which he blames on electric vehicles (nevermind that it started to come about well before EVs showed up on the US’ roads). In his desperate quest for justifications for his massive tax hike, though, he fails to mention that the federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, when it was set at the 18.4 cents that it remains at today.

As costs of just about everything have gone up since then, strangely, the gas tax hasn’t increased – if it kept up with inflation, it would be around 40 cents today. So that’s 32 years worth of free ride that gas cars have gotten on roads, with their taxes gradually decreasing relative to the inflated dollar.

I wonder if that might contribute to any sort of shortfall, and not the roughly 1.4% of the US vehicle fleet that runs on electricity?

But, hey, I guess if we need to raise funds, we can surely milk a lot more out of those ~4 million EVs (times $200/year, that’s less than a billion dollars) than we can out of the ~290 million gas cars on the road (a single penny increase in the federal gas tax would increase federal revenue by twice the amount the proposed EV tax will – and if it was indexed to the level of inflation, it would raise more like $30 billion this year).

Add another failure of simple math to this proposal, but tack on a mark of cowardice for targeting a smaller group who won’t complain as much, and who won’t rock the boat of the industry responsible for your political bribes, Mr. Graves.

The document goes on to betray its lack of interest in good governance or basic math and to show that it is motivated by partisanship and an attempt to buoy gasoline vehicles, not budgetary concerns.

For example, it talks about the “wasteful” spending of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). But here’s the rub: the IRA was actually revenue-positive, reducing the federal government deficit by $90 billion over 10 years. That differs from the current republican House budget, which Graves supports, and which will increase the deficit by $6 trillion in a decade.

So much for caring about the deficit, but math never got in the way of good propaganda from Graves’ oil industry benefactors.

But, well, there’s one thing I neglected to discuss. Graves’ proposal also does propose a registration fee on gas vehicles… so it’s being fair, right?

Well, not quite, because the proposed tax on gas vehicles would be $20 per year, compared to the ten times higher EV tax of $200 per year, despite that both vehicles have similar effect on roads. The gas vehicle registration fee would only start in 2031, seemingly giving gas vehicles a free ride until then… but in fact the $20 fee would represent a decrease in total taxes paid by gas cars, because the suggestion is that the $20 fee should replace the gas tax, which Graves refers to as “broken” (perhaps because it hasn’t been raised in over 30 years, hmm?).

So it turns out we didn’t even have to do that math above about how these EV fees are unfair – because Graves is telling us, right out, that he wants to tax EVs at ten times the rate of gas cars.

Note that $20/yr would represent about a 4-5x decrease in tax paid per gas vehicle, compared to current levels, which means that government revenue would drop by a similar amount, while costs for construction are likely to continue to go up. This means that the deficits related to spending to fix the US’ broken infrastructure would increase drastically – but then again, we already know from their budget proposal that republicans love deficits.

What is perhaps most surprising is that one of the top supporters of the republican party that has proposed this massive tax hike on electric vehicles and giveaway to gas cars is Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, the largest EV company in America.

Musk gave, and continues to give, hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money, most of which came from his company that sells electric vehicles, to the party that wants to put disproportionately high taxes on those EVs. This does not seem particularly productive to Tesla’s mission, but it’s not the first bad business decision we’ve seen from him lately as he seems to have forgotten about that mission.

If Graves, or the republicans, or anyone wanted to actually solve this problem, the actual fairest solution remains a mileage tax on all vehicles, scaling significantly based on the weight of the vehicle involved (at least partially recognizing the fourth power law that makes heavier vehicles worse on roads); and a separate fee to account for the unpriced externalities of pollution created by vehicles, relative to the amount that each vehicle creates and the costs they foist on the populace – as proposed in the past by old guard republican leadership, along with basically every economist and Elon Musk himself.


To reduce your carbon footprint and live more sustainably, consider going solar. EnergySage is a free service that connects you with trusted, reputable installers in your area – without having to give up your phone number until you select an installer. Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way through EnergySage. Get started today! – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump’s latest offshore wind cancellation is a threat to the grid – ISO New England

Published

on

By

Trump's latest offshore wind cancellation is a threat to the grid – ISO New England

Trump’s Interior Department halted construction on 704 megawatt (MW) Revolution Wind, the US’s first multi-state offshore wind project that’s already 80% complete. Grid operator ISO New England says the decision is a threat to the grid.

ISO New England released a statement responding to the stop-work order, warning that “delaying the project will increase risks to reliability.”:

As demand for electricity grows, New England must maintain and add to its energy infrastructure. Unpredictable risks and threats to resources – regardless of technology – that have made significant capital investments, secured necessary permits, and are close to completion will stifle future investments, increase costs to consumers, and undermine the power grid’s reliability and the region’s economy now and in the future.

Revolution Wind, a joint development between Ørsted and BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners, is a 65-turbine project capable of powering around 350,000 homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut once it’s complete. It was expected to come online next year. The project has created more than 1,200 jobs.

On August 22, the director of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management sent a vague letter to Ørsted commanding it to halt all activities on the fully permitted Revolution Wind, citing “national security interests,” yet providing no details.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

BOEM’s Record of Decision for Revolution Wind, reported in 2023 in Section 4.6, page 185, states that the national security effects of the project would be “negligible and avoidable.”

This latest move echoes Trump’s cancellation in April of New York’s $5 billion Empire Wind 1 project, which was already under construction off New York’s coast. No viable reasons were given for that stop-work order either, and the cancellation was reversed in May.

Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), released the following statement in response to the Revolution Wind order:

The Trump administration’s war on the electricity needed to power the grid continues on all fronts. Halting Revolution Wind is a devastating attack on workers, on electricity customers, and on the investment climate in the US.

New England homeowners will feel this when they tear open their electricity bills and look at the surging costs of keeping the lights on.

This administration has it exactly backwards. It’s trying to prop up clunky, polluting coal plants while doing all it can to halt the fastest growing energy sources of the future – solar and wind power.

It makes no sense to say we have an energy emergency and then make decisions like this. Unfortunately, every American is paying the price for these misguided actions.

Read more: Trump reversal revives Empire Wind, NY’s offshore energy giant


The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla teases new product release on Friday

Published

on

By

Tesla teases new product release on Friday

Tesla is teasing a new product release on Friday, August 29th, coming to Europe and the Middle East. It’s likely going to be the Model Y Performance.

On X today, Tesla has teased an upcoming product release coming this friday.

The post is cryptic. It only mentions ‘spoiler alert’ and the date August 29 with what looks like a close up of a vehicle with what appears to be a spoil – hence the “spoiler alert” reference:

There are main suspect is the Model Y Performance due to the spoiler reference.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Since the Model Y refresh in January, Tesla stopped selling the Model Y Performance. It is due to launch the top performance version under the new design.

When Tesla released the Model 3 refresh in 2024, it took about 4 months for Tesla to launch the new performance version.

Electrek’s Take

The only thing that I find strange with this likely being the Model Y Performance is the fact that they tweeted this from the Europe and Middle East account.

It would be strange for the Model Y Performance to launch there first, but who knows. Maybe Tesla started production at Gigafactory Berlin first.

I don’t think this will have a major impact on Tesla’s business. The Model Y Performance is the least popular version of the best-selling Model Y.

We don’t have the full mix of sales, but I wouldn’t be suprised if it represents less than 10% of Tesla’s Model Y deliveries.

The Model 3 Performance is probably a more popular option within the Model 3 lineup as it is a lot more fun to drive.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Genesis GV60 Magma EV sheds camo, revealing a radical new look [Video]

Published

on

By

Genesis GV60 Magma EV sheds camo, revealing a radical new look [Video]

The GV60 Magma will have a distinct look and feel compared to other Genesis vehicles. As the first EV from its new performance sub-brand, the Genesis GV60 Magma will debut with enhanced power, advanced suspension, a sporty new design, and more. For the first time, it was caught on video racing around the Nürburgring, giving us our closest look yet.

Genesis GV60 Magma EV flexes new style at Nürburgring

We got our first look at the new Magma models last March at the NY Auto Show alongside the full-size Neolun concept.

Magma is “the brand’s expansion into the realm of high-performance vehicles,” Genesis boasted. Among the first vehicles to earn a Magma upgrade is the GV60.

Genesis fine-tuned the electric crossover SUV, giving it a wider and lower stance for improved control. The larger lower air intake contributes to the aggressive new look, while also serving to cool the batteries and motor, both of which have been upgraded for enhanced performance.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Earlier this year, we got a good look at the GV60 Magma during winter testing in Europe. Although you could see a few new design features, it was mostly covered in camo.

Genesis-GV60-Magma-Porsche
Genesis GV60 Magma testing with other Magma vehicles (Source: Genesis)

After it was recently spotted with less camo at the Nürburgring race track in Germany, we are getting an even better idea of what to expect when it arrives.

The video from CarSpyMedia shows the Genesis GV60 Magma EV with a production body and minimal camouflage.

You can see the high-performance vehicle flexing its power and handling as it rips around the track. Like other Hyundai Motor performance EVs, including the new IONIQ 6 N, you can expect the Genesis GV60 Magma to deliver over 600 horsepower, if not closer to 700.

The current Genesis GV60 Performance delivers up to 429 horsepower and 516 lb-ft of torque, good for a 0 to 60 mph sprint in 3.7 seconds.

Horsepower 0 to 60 mph
(seconds)
Starting Price
Genesis GV60 Performance 429 3.7 $69,900
Genesis GV60 Magma ? ? ?
Porsche Taycan 402 4.5 $99,400
Porsche Taycan Turbo GT
(with Weissach Package)
1,092 2.1 $230,000
Tesla Model S Plaid 1,020 1.99 $89,990
Genesis GV60 Magma vs Porsche Taycan vs Tesla Model S Plaid

Genesis will launch the GV60 Magma EV later this year in Korea, followed by the US, Europe, and other global markets. We will learn prices and final specs closer to launch, but given the Performance models start at $69,900, you can expect a higher starting price tag, likely closer to $75,000.

At that it would be significantly less than the Porsche Taycan Turbo and Tesla Model S Plaid. Will it match the performance?

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending