Letters to the Editor: Punishing EV drivers with higher fees is foolish. Tax oil companies instead

To the editor: Your article, “As EVs gain traction, how will California pay for road repair?” frames the choice as either having bad roads and cleaner air, or better roads and filthy air, unless we raise gas taxes and charge electric vehicle drivers more.

You point out that California has some of the worst pavement in the country, even though drivers here already pay the highest gas tax in the nation.

Not mentioned in the article is a better solution: Eliminate reckless subsidies for fossil fuel companies, and charge these companies higher carbon fees instead.

It’s foolish to punish EV drivers while at the same time trying to incentivize us to do all we can to mitigate climate change. Public transit riders using roads also do not pay gas tax. The state analyst’s report did not consider the healthcare, natural disaster and environmental degradation costs that EVs and public transit help mitigate.

The short-sighted approach of hitting clean energy users with higher fees reminds me of how our state recently disincentivized home solar installation. We keep obstructing the way to reaching our own imperative goals.

Kathy Harty, Sierra Madre

..

To the editor: There is a simple solution to this problem, though the last time it was tried it cost the governor his job.

Simply increase the state’s vehicle license fee to compensate for the lost gas tax revenue from increased EV ownership. In addition to basing the fee on the value of the car, it should be based on the weight of the car.

Also, just as cars need periodic smog checks, they should have periodic mileage checks, with the more miles you drive, the larger the fee.

I have always been a strong supporter of electric vehicles, but until everyone has access to a home charger, they will never be a practical tool in reducing emissions. Let’s stick with hybrids, which significantly cut emissions.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Harry Davis, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: I have driven electric cars for 11 years, and I think that EV drivers should pay their fair share for maintaining roads. A fee should be implemented based on vehicle miles driven and gross vehicle weight. This fee should apply to all vehicles, not just EVs, as these are factors that determine road wear.

There should also be a tax on gas and diesel that reflects the cost of carbon emissions and air pollution. These emissions are driving climate change, which is damaging our roads and all life on Earth.

Wayne Morgan, Ventura

..

To the editor: Taxes serve two purposes — to raise funds and to encourage socially beneficial behaviors.

If we wish to wean California off fossil fuels, why not make driving a gas-powered car more expensive so that motorists, if not environmentally motivated, will be financially nudged to trade in their gas guzzler for an EV?

Emily Loughran, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: I own an EV. It’s lovely to sail past gas stations and shoot a gimlet eye to carbon-belching gas hogs.

But the tax in their gas purchases funds road repairs, and I pay none. One solution is the flat $108-fee added to annual EV registration for newer cars. That’s not equitable, and I’ll tell you why.

I drive my EV fewer than 5,000 miles per year. I know this because my insurance company makes me report annual mileage to maintain my reduced rate for low usage.

Should I pay the same registration fee as the EV driver who drives 20,000 miles annually?

Fees added to EV registration to make up for lost gas tax revenue should be based on miles driven. All these EVs are rolling computers; it would be a simple matter to upload annual mileage to the state to calculate the annual fee.

Jerrold Coleman, Santa Clarita

..

To the editor: The primary reason we should be encouraging the transition to electric vehicles is, of course, to reduce the greenhouse gasses that threaten our climate and the survival of the human race.

But here are two other, less mentioned reasons to encourage it.

First, EVs reduce local air pollution. Think how much more pleasant a walk on a hot day along a busy downtown street would be if the air were completely free of vehicle exhaust. Yes, tires and brakes produce particulate pollution, but hopefully that will be addressed by future technology.

The other benefit, one I’ve never seen discussed, would be the reduction in noise pollution. Imagine, again, walking along a busy thoroughfare and hearing only the gentle woosh of electric vehicles instead of the rattling stutter of insufficiently muffled explosions.

Alan Holleb, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: As you state, fuel tax revenue will fall as the transportation economy shifts to electric power.

Dealing with this is very simple: Transfer the 57.9-cents a gallon tax to a comparable amount of electrical energy. As EV market shares grow, that would make up any shortfall from current (no pun intended) EV registration fees.

Problem solved.

Edward Du, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Instead of a complicated GPS system, why not simply state the car’s mileage at the annual registration and pay the tax based on the difference from the previous year’s registration?

This would work, similarly, when the title transfers from one owner to another.

Richard Melniker, Los Angeles