1.5 cents per mile instead of gasoline tax

Too broad a brush, I drove 22,000 in my BEV the second year of ownership.
This year I should be closer to 18k with one and 12k with the other.

 

I'm jealous. In Pa, we have an annual safety and emissions inspection, that has to be performed at a private garage. $80 is the norm, and $50 is a deal. I've seen lower advertized, but am wary of the garage 'finding' something.

Diesels and the central counties are exempt from the emissions, and the safety alone is around $25 including the tags and state paperwork.

 

Aah Tesla... 15k would require 60mi roundtrip commute; close enough to cause range anxiety on lesser BEV

 

NC $30 for safety and emissions combined standard fee, then a '12 v3 registration/tax is ~$185..

 

I call it a money grab because they aren't really testing to see if the car is actually polluting. It's a visual check for proper parts or legal mods via EO#. That's not preventing any polluting. The smog station is literally going through the motions.

Read the Q&A: Q&As Hybrid Vehicles in the Smog Check Program

It "explains" that hybrids weren't required to test because there was no way to do an emission test due to the engine turning off during a testing cycle. Some new test protocol allegedly address that "issue" however they then go on to state that they aren't going to do a tailpipe emission test anyways.

Furthermore a hybrid is a more complicated than typical vehicle so it's less likely to be modified by its owner base whom bought the car in the first place for economy not performance rendering performance modifications counter productive.

The money grab is the state will now get an additional $8.25 bi-annually from likely millions of hybrid cars that are currently registered on the road.

Maybe the smog shop people lobbied for it so they could have more business as well.

Unfortunately Mike, austingreen has just shown that CA is now requiring hybrids to be tested:
Hybrid Vehicle Exempted From Initial Smog Check

Ironically motorcycles are exempt from smog checks & I would bet a LOT of money they have the highest percentage of modifications that effect emissions as an aggregate group compared to any other classification of vehicle.

 

MC didn't even had any regulations until 2008. And the 2008 regs are equivalent to 1978 of the car.

 

But there are much fewer motorcycles, and in some areas of the country aren't likely to be riden year round.

 

Most motorcycles have engine displacements that are less than half of those found in small cars.
They also have catalytic converters, closed loop fuel injection, etc...and even the monster 2-liter bikes out there usually get most of 50MPG.

The only meaningful pollution control features found on cars that I can think of that are not fully implemented on bikes are the evaporate containment systems, and most MCs are equipped with charcoal canisters for that.

Like cars, many of the bikers uncork their exhausts from the cat back, meaning they contribute to noise pollution but not AGW.....or at least science hasn't proven a link between acoustics and AGW at the time of this writing.
Unlike cars, there is often a meaningful reason for this modification that goes beyond aesthetics.
Most car drivers are serf-absorbed, clueless morons who are not connected to the driving task - and loud pipes are considered to be more of a safety thing than anything else.........but that's another topic for another thread, probably on another forum.

Most of the 'statisticians' out there who use (mostly other people's) data blatantly bend numbers to make motorcycle riders look like earth-killing, coal rolling, Prius hating, mean looking people which might not be entirely accurate. A more objective look at the numbers tells a different story, especially if you differentiate between on-road and off-road cycles, and consider pollutants per vehicle mile instead of taking SUV pollution levels and dividing them by seven because that's their seating capacity.

Most MC riders that I know are keenly interested in MUCH stricter vehicle emissions testing, for the obvious reason that they have to ride through the air that we're all polluting....and many of the popular MC states have NO emissions testing at all.....for cars or bikes.

 

I own a 2014 Prius C Level One that I bought in early January, 2015. Just a few months later, the Georgia General Assembly passed a new law ("HB170") imposing a $200 "Alternative Fuel Fee" on "Alternative Fuel Vehicles."

On June 19, 2015, my local county tax commissioner (Chatham County, GA) sent me a tag renewal invoice: $20 "Tag Fee" and a $200 "Alternative Fuel Fee."

Since there's an option to pay online directly to the Georgia Department of Revenue (DOR), I went there and left this (500 character limit) in their "Contact Us" section:

My tag renewal notice for my 2014 Prius C imposes a $200 "Alternative Fuel Fee." However, my Prius C is not, per HB 170, an "'Alternative fueled vehicle' . . . fueled solely by alternative fuel as defined in division (i) of this subparagraph, bi-fuel, or dual fuel . . . .”

“(i) 'Alternative fuel' means . . . electricity, natural gas, and propane.”

My Prius runs on regular gasoline. Please send me a new notice without that $200 fee.

* * * *

For the benefit of other Georgia Prius owners stuck with an erroneous Tag Renewal invoice, here's the longer version that I would have sent online but for the 500 character limit (hence, you can use this if you want to snail-mail object to the GA DOR):

My tag renewal notice for my 2014 Prius C imposes a $200 "Alternative Fuel Fee."

However, my vehicle is NOT an "Alternative Fuel" vehicle as defined by the governing Georgia Statute, HB 170. Here’s the relevant statutory provision of HB 170, copied and pasted directly from its web address:

"'Alternative fueled vehicle' means: (I) Any vehicle fueled solely by alternative fuel as defined in division (i) of this subparagraph, bi-fuel, or dual fuel . . . .”

Division (1) says, in relevant part:

“(i) 'Alternative fuel' means . . . electricity, natural gas, and propane.”

My Prius runs on regular gasoline. It is NOT an “Alternative Fuel Vehicle. It’s not even a plug-in hybrid, but just a simple hybrid. To be clear: If I don't put regular gasoline in it, it's not going anywhere. I do not have an option to run it on electricity, natural gas or propane.

Therefore, the renewal notice just sent to me is in error, so please send me a new notice without that $200 fee.

Here’s the actual HB170 statute, by the way:


HB 170 2015-2016 Regular Session

 

Please let us know how this turns out.

 

So you are telling me that the typical hybrid never runs on electricity albeit electricity stored after the ICE consumes gas?

I'll grant you that it isn't going to go far on electricity but, since it can, I'm thinking you'll lose this argument.

Bi-fuel.

 

That car certainly doesn't run 'solely' on electricity, the vast majority of time it is burning gasoline. Thus, as stated, the 'never' part of your question is irrelevant.

As for bi-fuel, because the user never pumps electricity into this Prius, I'd argue that this electricity is not 'fuel'. It is merely an energy transfer medium from the real fuel, which is gasoline. Is a diesel-electric railroad locomotive really an electric-fueled or alternative fuel locomotive? No diesel, no go.

If the Legislature really intends to apply this tax to Prius-type hybrids, it needs to pass a new bill to clarify this and some other sloppy language. If someone is really ready for a court fight, I even see the 'and' in 'electricity, natural gas, and propane' causing the state a major headache. From a strict logic viewpoint, this construction applies only to vehicles using all three sources, so models using just one or two of them are not covered.

I'm seeing that Georgia's state motor fuel tax for gasoline is currently $0.193 / gallon. Thus, this AF fee replaces the gas tax for vehicles that avoid or save 1036 gallons per year. How many Georgia drivers of modern regular passenger cars are even using that much annual gasoline at all?

 

Bi-fuel refers to having to fuels for one drive train. GM has a bi-fuel Impala; it can run on gasoline or CNG.

 

By the same logic most modern cars have electric power steering, A/C, fuel and and sometimes oil pump. Starter, fuel injection.

Bi-fuel

 

OK!

I welcome feedback on this, since I'll probably wind-up suing the Georgia DOR over what I believe to be a clearly erroneous interpretation of the HB170, and I'm going to make sure Toyota Corporate is fully attuned (the "Prius Penalty" will drive buyers to its Yaris model, which can get upwards of 38mpg, and $200 will more than eat the net gas savings between a Prius and a Yaris, at least for 12,000/year drivers like me).

Anyway, please look again at the statute:

"Any vehicle fueled solely by alternative fuel as defined in division (i) of this subparagraph, bi-fuel, or dual fuel . . . .”

So, my Prius must be fueled SOLELY by alternative fuel (electricity, natural gas, and propane), OR be a bi-fuel, or dual fuel vehicle.

My Prius is not fueled SOLELY by electricity.
My Prius is not fueled SOLELY by natural gas.
My Prius is not fueled SOLELY by propane.
My Prius is not a bi-fuel vehicle (can run either one or another fuel, like diesel/bio-diesel, or natural-gas/propane)
My Prius is not a dual-fueled vehicle (synonym for bi-fuel).

 

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv, but it sounds like the way that law is written, regular hybrids that run on gas should be exempt from that $200 fee. Or they need to add a revision that specifically mentions hybrid cars.

If the state is going to be stubborn about this, you really should ask a lawyer if this is a potential class action lawsuit. Sure the spirit of the law is that hybrids are lumped in together with it because you won't be using as much gas, therefore won't be paying as much gas tax as say, a truck or SUV driver.

But the letter of the law, aka the exact way it's worded/written, implies that it doesn't apply to non-plug in hybrids such as the regular prius/c/v, nor others like the C-max hybrid or civic hybrid.

 

This is preposterous! let us know how it turns out. If they don't fix their mistake this is a class action lawsuit in making. Do not see it going other way.

The idea behind "Alternative Fuel Fee" that you are using fuel such as propane, electricity, etc which road tax hadn't been collected from, while enjoying the benefits founded by others. In hybrid, such as Prius C, all of the energy used by the car come from gasoline, which already has the tax collected from.

 

There actually is a much more fundamental disaster in play here. It seems that everyone overlooks the double taxation snuck by the citizens using a technology bait and switch. All the "alternate fuels" are often taxed as much as gasoline. So why the double whammy of being taxed for the fuel and for the technology using the fuel?

There is such as thing as government greed. This greed is quickly followed with deceptive taxation techniques and justifications. This is what is happening here. Rather than address the revenue issue head on, the deceptive idea is to "punish" those who honestly follow the rules while actually setting up a double taxation scheme taxing the fuel and the technology using the fuel.

 

All the energy is derived from fuel which is already being taxed.

The battery merely captures normally lost braking energy or is charged via fuel so the intent of the law was to tax a car that is "using & wearing out" the road without paying road taxes. Something a Prius hybrid doesn't do.